Yes, things are going swimmingly in Iraq. In and out, mission accomplished and all that. =/

And yeah, it has been taken over. And many people are still trying those peaceful options. The current administration has been outed as incompetent and it's power has been lessened. Thankfully we do have term limits, but I've already said way above that if that were to somehow change and the Bush regime were to somehow stay in power I would certainly be ready to fight against it.

It doesn't have to be a big percentage of a possibility to still remain a possibility and have a chance of actually happening. And one day, maybe generations from now, perhaps it will all go south and those people will need it. Who knows?

ok, maybe it is pesimistic but believe me - i wasn't born this way. having been witness in my teens to the slow death of socialism and eventual break-up of the county i lived, the stupid ugly wars that came with it... i just try to see things from all possible perspectives until i lay my judgment. i really believe we're stuck so deep in the mess we've made for ourselves that we don't dare to say: "hold on, there's something very wrong here". basicaly we're threading the still waters of modern civilisation with no direction. i wish things were different but i find it hard to believe in idealism while hipocracy pervades every institution of power and determines the course of our lives. our society is behaving like a schizophrenic - saying one thing and doing something completely different. we're running in circles and the inertia is just to great for any opposing view of the world to reach out from the mainstream and offer us some new perspective.
i mean, what has really, fundamentaly changed since the ancient greece and the early attempts of nationalist state system? not much. sure, we have the technology and so on, but the principles that govern our everyday life have not changed so very much, the story here runs on a completely different time scale than that of the evolution of technology and science. seems like we're just recycling history here, year after year. and isn't it amazing how quickly the history changes these days with virtually everything being archived, stored and catalogued on a daily basis. remember the story about the mission accomplished banner that got photoshopped out of that famous picture of president bush on an aircraft carrier, declaring the end of war in iraq? and that was, like - yesterday. examples of such manipulation of historical facts are everywhere, the media does such a good job at helping us forget and except new, fabricated reality to be taken for granted that we're bound to repeat the mistakes of generations before us. we're just not learning any more, we're much more comfortable getting the facts served on a platter, letting someone else to present us a picture of the reality we live in.
fuck, you got me going again
i'll role one up and puff away the blues

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Mission Accomplished. *unsticky

videosiftbannedme wrote:

"I love how in this war, the dialog has been spun so "we have to win." Win what?"

Exactly...when we went over there we were told it was to get rid of the WMD's and get rid of Saddam. Well..."Mission Accomplished" as the President even agreed.

There is no way that we are going to "win" if that is defined by us staying and having a HUGE military presence in Iraq and no more insurgent attacks. The people in that region will just not allow it.

The usage of torture is a strategic failure in the process of information gathering from the enemy.

First of all it assumes that the terrorist organization is a top down informational entity with operational strategy going down to all it's entities. Thus if we capture one combatant in Iraq, we might derive actionable intelligence. That is of course wrong, terrorist organizations operate in cell structures, one cell does not know the existence of a sister cell, this is the viewpoint of the intelligence community post 9/11. This is problematic because it allows the enemy to remain always at large in the political process in Washington, that is why the enemy definition keeps changing, its Osama first, then insurgent forces, then the very broad term of 'Islamic extremism'.

The cell structure thus allows for unrelated parties to assume the guise of representing a greater whole, separate actors can suddenly be part of a larger nebulous whole even though in reality they are not related. This is how Bush in his simplistic assessment of the threats can say there is terrorism from Morocco to Indonesia. In Iraq the US labeled Zarqwi as being an operative member of al-Qaeda, this is beneficial for both sides Osama can claim larger operation status while the US can state that its fighting al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. However Zarqwi for example did not possess intelligence on operations in Afghanistan, they were not related, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Funny how Osama Bin Laden was called the mastermind of 9/11, in mere hours after the event, what happened to such intelligence gathering clairvoyance?

Looking back at the myriad of enemy combatants captured so far in both Iraq and Afghanistan - we have yet to see any proof of progress with regards to any actionable intelligence being gathered from those sources, because the actors caught were obliviously small fish.

Second it drives away actual informants who would want to switch sides, by creating the 'US against Them' cornerstone the Bush Administration has actually rallied support for terrorist organizations. Operatives who would gain from switching sides would not want to, knowing that they face torture and long term imprisonment. This is how after all these years of war, and "Mission Accomplished", turning the corner, defeating the terrorists: The Taliban control half of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda is reconstituted its strength in Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan.

Third it assumes from the operative viewpoint that ALL enemy combatants would provide under duress reliable actionable intelligence without actually knowing what that could be i.e. we are torturing to find out something we don't even know might exist, the Rumsfled's known unknowns and unknown unknowns - that is of course a logically fallacy. How can you derive intelligence when you don't know what you are trying to get at? This of course translates into increased torture methods against detainees, eventually breaking them to a point where they will tell you anything to get you to stop. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was tortured to the point that he confessed to a whole swell of terrorist plots and acts, intelligence operatives rolled their eyes because it was simply inconceivable that it could be true as it would mean he was in 5 or 6 places at once, there was no concrete evidence to prove it, he was simply saying things to make them stop.

This is dangerous, as its a self feeding cycle, if you torture enemy combatants without a contextual means to an end you would receive all kinds of rubbish, that feeds into paranoia that it's actually real and you then torture even more. Actionable intelligence has a finite time frame, usually less then 6 months, after which the operative in custody is tapped out, the organization would nullify any plans and change their tactics and plans.

Remember that all the so called reliable actionable intelligence for Iraq possessing and developing WMDs came from a single informant. Look where that lead to.

Fourth it loses the sight of how to attain trust, operatives from past conflicts always state that to derive information you must make the actor rely on you, trust in you and eventually befriend you. Interrogators of Nazi war criminals often state how they derived more information in a simple chess game then through torture methods.

Torture is a annihilation of the human spirit, it drives people insane through sleep deprivation, humiliation and water boarding. It nullifies the human psyche into delirium, psychosis and eventual madness, yet we are led to believe that somehow that would prevent another 9/11.

Finally all warfare is tactics, for all of America's military might they were close to defeat by an insurgence that has lapsed back into guerrilla warfare, the tactics shifted. The application of torture would mean the tactics will shift once more.

The question remains - "Is this strategy benefiting our objectives?"

The US administration would of course say "Yes", why wouldn't they. The appointment of Mukasey as Attorney General for the first time showed how abortions and other issues of the previous Justice Department appointments became insignificant, the question was only "Do you believe water boarding is torture?" - It was asked not because it was important as AG but because there are people in the administration who know they have gone too far and are vehemently trying to cover their asses from prosecution. The scandal of Abu Graibh was called as being "a few bad apples", that is of course not true, operational orders came from the top down. The definition of torture rewritten by John Yoo and David Addington. Torture was stricken through Congress, yet it continues through the special signing letters of the President. The public is basically being lied to.

Now American politicians are too scared to stand against it because they lack a backbone and are more worried they might be wrong, fear penetrates the Democratic party while the Republican party is lost after a presidency of fiscal irresponsibility, looming recession, and the 2 never ending wars.

Its not about constitutional rights for terrorists, its about constitutional rights for US Citizens that is under threat. You could find yourself supporting means to an end that will lead into police state.

Their objective was to subdue him, and, well... mission accomplished, guys.

Doc_M ... a couple of things... Jerusalem is a holy city for christians, muslims AND jews, because they are 3 branches of the same damn religion.

Palestinians "cheering in the streets"? well there's debate about certain bits of news footage being a bit staged, and the whole Mission Accomplished thing on the aircraft carrier is kinda equivalent, don't you think?

As for telling palestinians to "find another way" to resist genocide, well i dunno man, not sure they've got many options left.

Don't you think that if a "surge" was the right idea and is "working"... Shouldn't someone be put in jail or held criminal negligent? I mean since day 0, the Generals have been calling for more troops. From before we invaded, since shock & awe, since mission accomplished.. Every General called for more troops, and Bush instead replaced them when he didn't like what they said. (Do some googling if you are going to be retarded enough to dispute this fact)

So, instead we wait four and a half years or so, and then send in more troops? WTF?! Four years of death and mayhem and no electricity or gas or kerosene in a country that has some of the largest pools of light crude just under the surface?!! Are you kidding?

And since WHEN has the Decider once used Intel? Cite one single source where he was given non-cooked intel and used it. Hey has madeup, fabricated or cherry-picked the "facts" and intel for almost every major decision.

Ok, that was if the "surge" was even a good idea or "working". Which if you think more dead people, more dead soldier and more violence is working, then you are right QM (you coward of a chickenhawk), mission accomplished. (QM is most likely of age to enlist, so let's hope he does soon)

Over the last few years there were reports that showed the US military dropping recruitment requirements and offering waivers in exchange for military service.

Reports of the Army unable to supply sufficiently armored vehicles and other equipment against IED threats, pre and post surge. Soldiers are now familiarizing combat driving techniques using simulators because there is a shortage of M-1114s.

America does possess formidable military forces, but we are talking about soldiers on the ground currently not total combined forces; which would take into account navy and air.

Extended tours (from 12 to 15 months), with multiple returns are common, fatigue is taking it's toll. A secondary surge has already taken place to bolster troop numbers, by sending more combat brigades and extending tours for troops already in Iraq.

Troop levels would thus increase to around 200,000 by the end of this year, a record since the start of OIF. These numbers of course do not include the large number of private military contractors in Iraq, also surging in numbers, paid for by US taxpayers under contract from the DOD. Meanwhile the Army is shedding officers at an alarming rate, 44% left, the highest loss rate in 3 decades.

With regards to the Al Anbar success stories, one must remember that is only occurring because previous Sunni insurgents have turned against Al Qaeda, making US forces the most convenient allies in driving out foreign radical Islamic terrorists. The relationship is tenacious, it also means the US forces now have to bolster previous Sunni insurgents and make them components of the Iraqi government, which is filled with Shia militias who do not want minority Sunni influence.

"To bolster that case, Bush made his own surprise visit to a U.S. military base in Anbar province on Sept. 3 to tout growing cooperation between Sunni tribal leaders and American forces.

But the sheiks didn't seek out U.S. help because an additional 30,000 U.S. troops had been shipped to Iraq. Rather, the sheiks had found themselves caught between al-Qaeda extremists on one side and Shiite-dominated government forces on the other.

The Americans became the enemy and erstwhile friend, respectively, of my enemies – and thus an ally of convenience for the Sunni sheiks.

Indeed, the Anbar situation could be viewed as evidence that the political and ethnic divisions of Iraq continue to deepen – with Sunni traditionalists growing only more desperate. But these shifting sands of allegiances have become the foundation upon which Bush is building his case for open-ended U.S. military involvement in Iraq."

- How VIPs get 'Brainwashed' on Iraq by Robert Parry.

The important thing to consider is; will such success be replicated in other provinces? Will the forces join into the Shia dominated government which opposes Sunni influence? Thus how long will this commitment last. All questions to which officers within the armed forces cannot answer, because the situation is that fragile.

After posing gamely with the troops at the Al-Asad base, Bush celebrated the return of Sunni areas to the control of U.S.-armed militias-composed largely of former insurgents who have at least temporarily decided that their Shiite rivals, currently in control of the central government, are a more pressing enemy than the American occupiers. Speaking of one such group of Sunnis trained by the Americans and dubbed the “Volunteers” by their instructors, a U.S. soldier told The Washington Post, “I think there is some risk of them being Volunteers by day and terrorists by night.”

The National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iraqi goverment is precarious, violence remains high, a decrease in Baghdad violence due to sectarian cleansing. The Government Accountability Report, a congressionally mandated report, showed that the Iraqi goverment met 3, partially 4, and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. The NIE was tweaked favorably by Gen. David Petraeus, the GAO was attacked by the White House as being 'inadmissible', 'harsh' and 'locked into failure'.

With regards to your comments about losing Iraq on principle, it was never a war for us to win in any sense, it was a systematic fear mongering campaign driven by PowerPoint presentations with aerial photographs about WMDs that got us into Iraq.

After 4 years of being constantly lied to about hostilities ending, turning the corner, mission accomplished, and witnessing the daily ineptness of the way the current administration has and is handling the war we are again on the brink of giving this administration another pass on the war up to 2009 since the current surge will remain up to and until April 2008. To have President Bush then compare the Iraq war to Vietnam; As Andrew Sullivan put it:

His speech yesterday actually managed to shock. You might think that, in wartime, a president would acknowledge what no one denies is a terribly grim decision in front of us - whether to pursue a clearly unwinnable war in order to govern a clearly ungovernable country - or withdraw and redeploy in ways that will doubtless lead to even more bloodshed. But no. There is no gray here; no awful decision for the least worst option; not acknowledgment of his own moral culpability for such a disaster. There is instead an accusation that those who reach a different judgment about the course of the war are, in fact, enemies of the troops:

Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed.

To place all the troops into the position of favoring one strategy ahead of us rather than another, and to accuse political opponents of trying to "pull the rug out from under them," is a, yes, fascistic tactic designed to corral political debate into only one possible patriotic course. It's beneath a president to adopt this role, beneath him to coopt the armed services for partisan purposes. It should be possible for a president to make an impassioned case for continuing his own policy in Iraq, without accusing his critics of wanting to attack and betray the troops. But that would require class and confidence. The president has neither.

For more I would refer you to an excellent post - Thirteen Ways not to think about the Iraq war.

How to make and Angry American...Mission Accomplished

great video, excellent title

To depress everyone. Mission accomplished.

I laughed.

To depress everyone. Mission accomplished.

LOL!

Jeez. Why even write that, on an otherwise hilarious post?

To depress everyone. Mission accomplished.

*blog

Fedquip is the youtube submitter.
http://www.videosift.com/talk/Mission-Accomplished#142202

"Mission Accomplished!"