Dec

8

Iraq Survey Group, Scope Too Small

December 8, 2006 | By Sniper One |

I saw this post on Hot Air yesterday about the Kingdom of Saud sending millions of dollars to the Jihadi’s in Iraq.

(Yahoo News) Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq’s insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.

To be expected…

(Boston Herald) Saudi officials vehemently deny their country is a major source of financial support for the insurgents.

Unfortunately the only thing I have heard in the past few weeks that has make a lick of sense to me, appears to be been false, leaked, or is being downplayed by the Saudi’s.

(Yahoo News) Last week, a Saudi who headed a security consulting group close to the Saudi government, Nawaf Obaid, wrote in the Washington Post that Saudi Arabia would use money, oil and support for Sunnis to thwart Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq if American troops pulled out. The Saudi government denied the report and fired Obaid.

All of this is reaffirming the conclusion that I have come to that we are no longer at war with Iraq. We are at war IN Iraq. In many cases it may be Iraqi blood that is being shed, however we are at war with the entire Middle-East.

We’ve known for over a year that Iran has been providing equipment to the Shia insurgents. We’ve known for some time that they have been providing financial backing, and training for them as well. We know that if Iran is doing it, then so is it’s puppet state, Syria. Iran and Syria via Hezbollah are also actively working to destabilize Lebanon, while Hamas does it’s thing in Palestine.

I was not aware, however, I am not surprised, that the Kingdom is also involved in supported the Sunni elements.

What surprises me, is that will all this going on, the majority of the fighting is in and around Baghdad.

Northern Iraq, Kurdish Iraq, is fairly peaceful from all reports… including this interesting exchange between an Iraqi Ambassador and an Iranian Foreign Minister.

The Iranian foreign minister said the U.S. troop presence in Iraq had touched off an endless cycle of violence.

“The terrorist group in Iraq says, because of the continuation of the occupation of this country, we are fighting,” he said. “The American says, because of terrorist groups, we continue our staying in Iraq.”

Iraqi Ambassador Siamand Banaa rose to contradict him, and said that Iran itself had benefited from the war in Iraq.

“It would strengthen your case and give it much more depth if you tried to avoid cynicism and hypocrisy,” Banaa said. “The removal of the worst enemy of the Iraqi people and the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein, who caused the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands and almost the bankruptcy of your country, has been, I think, a great advance for you.”

He urged Mottaki to get off “the ‘America always wrong’ brigade.”

“America has also done some great and fantastic things, both in modern history and old, and especially as regards Iraq,” Banaa said.

Banaa said Mottaki’s analysis was wrong, and that without American troops in his country, “it would be a free-for-all, and in fact real civil war.”

So once again, we have people who are in the know, saying it’s not a civil war. So whatever the big networks tell you, they are wrong.

Also, does anyone else find the irony in the fact that we have Iraqis killing Iraqis, because Americans are in their country? It sounds to me like a two year old saying, “Let me have my way or I’ll scream and throw a tantrum”, with the exception that the stakes are much much higher. So what do you do? Do you give into the two year old? Do you leave because you don’t want him to scream? Or do you spank said child and put him to bed?

So how do we spank the bratty children in Middle-East and put them to bed?

In my opinion, we need to take on the bigger of the children first, and that child would be Iran. We need to remove Iran’s ability to make a nuclear bomb. If we don’t, it will be the Jews who will pay first, shortly followed by the US. How shortly followed? I don’t know… seconds, hours, days, weeks, months. I don’t know… but if I was an insurgent, and I had two nukes, and I wanted to hit both Tel Aviv and Washington DC, I would make it as close to simultaneous as possible.

Once the first mushroom cloud shows up over Israel, we’re pretty much gonna know who did it. There is a good chance you won’t get a second chance to do anything more.

I am absolutely opposed to waiting for another 9/11 before we do something about Iran. Something needs to be done about these maniacs and it needs to be done yesterday. It also needs to be done in such a way where all the other children know it’s been done, and the fear of God has been put into them. We need to send the message, straighten up and fly right, or Uncle Sam is gonna stomp a mud hole in your ass, and them walk it dry.

Now, for Iraq…

The Iraqis need to stand up and fight for their freedom. (More Iraqi boots not American) The government needs to find an “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You” JFK, or a “Four Score, and Seven Years Go”, Lincoln, or someone that can get the people to rise up and believe in Iraq, and thusly in themselves. The trick to that is going to be finding something that everyone, Shia, Kurd and Sunni has in common.

You have a great need, and a great opportunity for a great and wonderful leader to come forward to unite Iraq in peace. I just don’t know if such a man exists. However that doesn’t change the fact that the Iraqis need to take back their own country from the petty politics of their neighbors and the sectarian ways of their religion.

If they can’t move beyond the past, then there is nothing we can do for them.

The US should be focused on border security and keeping out the flow of support to the insurgents. If we can’t stop the support for terror from coming into the country, we will never stop the problems in the country.

The Iraqis should be focused on internal security.

Once we get that far, we let the Iraqis assume the whole thing, and we get the fuck out of dodge.

Sphere: Related Content

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Filed Under: Global War On Terror, Hezbollah, Ideas, Iran, Iraq Survey Group Report, Islam, Israel, Lebanon, Muqtada al-Sadr, News of the Day, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Palestine/Hamas, Prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, Syria

  • American Dinosaur trackbacked with Iraq Success Guide...

    • Trackback URL


    Comments

    10 Comments so far

    1. American Dinosaur on December 8, 2006 12:24

      Iraq Success Guide…

      American Dinosaur’s Ten step guide to success in Iraq 1. We vaporize the Iranian oil refineries, we lose 15% of the world’s known oil reserves, but we send Ahmanutjob back to the seventh century where he aspires to be…….

    2. David Terrenoire on December 9, 2006 9:11

      “We need to send the message, straighten up and fly right, or Uncle Sam is gonna stomp a mud hole in your ass, and then walk it dry.”

      That felt good. The problem with this is that our military is in no shape to take on another front, whther it’s here or in Korea. Iran knows that. And we can lay the blame for that on our current leadership. There are no good options. Every choice we have is bad.

      Yes, I’m a lefty moonbat. I’m also a veteran from a military family. In three generations our immediate family has served from Iwo Jima to Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, First Gulf and now I have one nephew, O-4 with a Stryker Brigade out of Fort Lewis on his third tour, and another nephew about to be deployed to an FST in January.

      So I understand better than some on the right the meanings of duty, honor, and sacrifice.

      I never supported this invasion, not because I’m against war itself, Ibut because I had no confidence that Bush could do it right. And I was right. Now, here we are, well and truly screwed. Our combat readiness is the lowest its been since Vietnam (my war). The definition of victory keeps changing, as does our reason for being there, our troops are suffering from PTSD and unwilling to get help for fear of damaging their careers, Reserves and National Guard are suffering from financial hardship and long periods of deployment, and as great as these young men and women are, they’re still human.

      It feels good to talk about kicking ass and unleashing the nukes, thinking a military victory is the way to go, but I think you’re wrong. Not completely wrong, but not completely right either. And it’s not because I’m about peace. I’m about results. The military as a great tool of American policy, a sledge hammer, if you will. A sledge is a terrific tool, one I know well, but it’s not worth a damn if you need to dig a hole, cut rope or sew a shirt.

      So why am I here? First, because I love the title of this blog. (I’m a big fan of the 14 although at my age I’m better with my .45 than I am with a long gun. Hell, I can’t even see 300 yards). Second, I wanted to put another face on the American left. We’re not all Birkenstock-wearing, Volvo-driving, latte-drinking moonbats. Third, I think this is a smart place and I encourage all of us to think beyond the easy answers in this war, because the challenges we face require more from us than just throwing more troops into the firefight. And the American people, even those of us of another political persuasion, are not the enemy. We’re your comrades, neighbors, brothers and sisters.

      Talk to a liberal some day. You’ll find we’re not the people Rush, Hannity and Savage tell you we are. We want the same things you do, we just think there’s another way. And as Mark Twain said, “Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.”

      Out.

    3. Sniper One on December 9, 2006 9:17

      David Terrenoire;

      I can totally respect that. You sir, are welcome to comment here any time you like.

      You just impressed the hell out of me.

    4. David Terrenoire on December 9, 2006 10:14

      Thanks, Sniper One. I take that as a great compliment.

    5. Sniper One on December 9, 2006 11:25

      Now that I have my errands done for the morning, I can take the time and respond properly to your comment. As I said before, I’m impressed. This is the kind of response I wish everyone would give. It’s well thought out, and intelligent.

      In essence, we agree to disagree, but show enough respect to the other person’s argument where no one is backed into a wall and feels the need to come out swinging.

      Yes, I’m a lefty moonbat.

      No, you’re not. I see moonbat as a derogatory term, and frankly, based on your response, your point of view may be from the left, you’ve earned/deserve more respect that that.

      Now, here we are, well and truly screwed. Our combat readiness is the lowest its been since Vietnam (my war).

      I don’t know about about the combat readiness, I don’t see those reports. I do know that Centcom has said that don’t have an additional 10k or 20k troops to send to Iraq. I assume that means that we are running the troop rotations on a tight schedule and we don’t have the troops to send without serious issues for downtime.

      The definition of victory keeps changing, as does our reason for being there,

      No matter if the Intel was bad, or if “Bush lied” (cringe) we are in Iraq. I say bad Intel, and that everyone, including Bush/Congress/ and the American people were fooled into believing that Saddam was a bigger threat than he was. For all I know that was Saddam’s fault for somehow making his hand look bigger than it was.

      Those reasons are behind us. History will sort out those details, I am more concerned about the way forward.

      I don’t think our definition of victory has changed. It may have, but it may just be my point of view. I see that we have had three separate but equally important mission in Iraq. Two of those three have been successfully accomplished. Those being:

      1. Removal of Saddam & his government; and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
      2. Formation of a new government by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis.
      3. Transfer command of the Iraqi Army to the Iraqi Government, and transfer complete control of Iraq to that government “as the situation allows”.

      As I see it, we have successfully deposed Saddam; and we have successfully allowed for the formation of the new Iraqi Government. That in and of itself is a huge accomplishment. That’s two thirds of the overall mission, done.

      We have one third of the mission left. I agree that it is the hardest part.

      Reserves and National Guard are suffering from financial hardship

      Reserves actually get paid better for being called up to Active Duty that the Active Duty troops do. I am not sure how actually spending time in the field, getting paid “combat pay” which is going to be more than just “reserve pay” can be a hardship. If there are making more at their “Day Job” than they make being deployed, I am sorry, but that was the agreement you made with Uncle Sam when you signed up.

      long periods of deployment, and as great as these young men and women are, they’re still human.

      I know they are human, I spent a year with them in Afghanistan. When I was in Afghanistan, Marines and Army had one year rotations, Air Force was six months. I guess the “long” depends on your point of view, and which Service to which you belong.

      I’m not sure of the exact amount of time our Men and Women get home after their deployments. I know contractors who have gone two years in the field without more than two months at home during that time period.

      I’m about results.

      I’d like to think we are all about results. I’m not for peace at any cost, but I’m not for war for the sake of war either.

      The military as a great tool of American policy, a sledge hammer, if you will. A sledge is a terrific tool, one I know well, but it’s not worth a damn if you need to dig a hole, cut rope or sew a shirt.

      I think that’s an excellent analogy.

      Third, I think this is a smart place and I encourage all of us to think beyond the easy answers in this war, because the challenges we face require more from us than just throwing more troops into the firefight. And the American people, even those of us of another political persuasion, are not the enemy. We’re your comrades, neighbors, brothers and sisters.

      I agree completely that just throwing more troops at the problem is not going to work. It is going to take a show of “will” on the part of Iraqi people that we haven’t seen yet.

      American deaths bother me greatly, but I don’t want to see a replay of the massacre that happened in Vietnam after we left happening in Iraq. American deaths, Iraqi deaths… it’s all red blood, and it’s all human. That doesn’t mean that I feel one slightest bit of remorse when we kill a terrorist. I’m all for terrorist deaths. It’s just getting hard to see who’s an actual terrorist and who is a Sunni or Shia with a gun.

      Unfortunately, this is what Iran wanted, and they did a masterful job of getting the people pissed.

      My father used to quote Captain Kirk from Star Trek; “I don’t believe in the no win situation”. I want to believe him, and find that win/win for us here at home, and for the Iraqis and for the Middle-East in general.

      I will freely admit that everyday the death roll rises I get more and more angry and confused. I can’t understand why anyone would choose to kill his neighbor instead of choosing to work with the current Iraqi government to make Iraq a better place or Shia/Kurd and Sunni. I can’t understand that mentality.

      There has to be a way to come out of this, not without blood on our hands, but with a result we can all live with.

    6. David Terrenoire on December 9, 2006 14:41

      I should have been clearer. My fault. I don’t think it serves our purpose here to rehash the old argument about why we’re in Iraq. It’s true that I don’t think the administration was completely honest about our reasons for going. I think the WMD was an excuse to overthrow Saddam and plant a democracy in Iraq that would then spread to the neighboring countries, which was PNAC’s strategy set out in 1991. There’s a lot of evidence to support that the admin carefully chose intel to support the WMD story because they didn’t trust the American people to support the larger, more complicated goal. Nation-building and all that. So while I’m not one of those people who say Bush lied, I certainly don’t think he was straight up about this either.

      But all that’s history and, like you, I’m interested in a way forward. Let me say real early here that I don’t have a good idea how to move forward. That’s part of why I’m so angry with the administration. Yes, I’m a liberal, and yes, I never trusted George Bush, but goddamn, I hate being right about this. I would be just as angry with a Democrat who screwed the pooch this badly. Hell, I was angry with Clinton for a lot less.

      But, for the sake of discussion, and partly to work this out for myself, I’m going to pretend the country is in such dire straits as to ask me for my advice, and God help us all if that day ever comes. Here goes:

      Start taking Iraqis out of Iraq for 16 weeks of boot camp and AIT. Hell, run ‘em through Fort Polk and they’ll be happy to get back to Iraq. Start building an officer corps the same way. This is going to take time, and we should have started three years ago. You don’t build a strong non-com force overnight and it’s non-coms, lieutenants and captains who run the army.

      In the meantime, start building a bureaucracy within the Iraqi government. Everyone knocks bureaucrats, but without them, nothing works. We may be too late for this. That we put young GOP operatives with zero experience in charge of so many vital assets like rebuilding finance, tells me that this administration either didn’t know how important this was or didn’t care. To see how bad it is, check out the Police Academy barracks we built for training the Iraqis. This stuff is criminal and people should be in jail.

      Sit the warring factions in a room and give them oil incentives so that the oil can flow again. Make it clear that without the oil, nobody wins anything but blood and sand. Actually, I think they must know this and don’t care, or believe they can have it all. I don’t know. But they need a reason to stop fighting. Shooting your neighbor is a lot easier than compromising, especially if your differences go back to the time of Mohammed. If that doesn’t work, institute a renewed Phoenix program. Maybe a little 50-cent justice will convince them.

      Secure the borders. Why we didn’t do this from the get-go is a mystery to me. I don’t trust Syria or Iran, but to not talk to them is the Paris Hilton school of diplomacy. We don’t lose anything by talking. We talked the USSR out of existence, we can talk to a bunch of rug merchants.

      Put people in place here who understand the language and culture of the Mideast. It’s astonishing that Bush didn’t know there were three separate powers within Iraq before he wen to war. Hell, I knew the difference between the three and I’m just a schmuck in North Carolina. Right now, five years after 9/11, we have six people within the primary DoD group who can speak Arabic. Six. One of the Arabic language experts we did have was fired because he was gay. Now, tell me, which war is more important here? The culture war or the war on terrorism?

      It is one of the oldest tenets of warfare that you know your enemy. This, ultimately, was the reason for our defeat in Vietnam. If we don’t pull up our socks, as Rummy said, and learn how to tell the difference between an Arab and a Persian, and what makes each tick, we’ll lose this one too.

      Like I said, I have no good solutions, but I know what options we have are bad. We owe the Iraqi people a government at least as good as the one they had before and if you listen to Washington now, that’s the best they’re hoping for, too.

      That’s what I meant by changing the meaning of victory. First it was democracy. Now we’d be happy if they’d just stop shooting long enough to keep the lights burning and the water running. Because of gross incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and wilful hubris, we’ve created a recruitment and training center for future terrorists. It didn’t have to be this way.

      I’ve gone on too long, and don’t think I’ve really answered anything. But I appreciate a chance to work it through my own head. Unfortunately we keep coming back around to the point where we’re well and truly screwed.

      Oh, one thing I should clarify: When I said the NG and Reserves’ families were suffering financial hardship, I’m with you about their day job pay vs combat pay. Up to a point. Yes, these people signed up. I don’t think they signed up for three tours. Now, my brother-in-law, a retired LTC, is more along your thinking. Me, I worry that we’ve asked them to sacrifice more than they could have expected in 2000. On the other hand, I have no patience with young college Republicans who think this is an important struggle and don’t have the honor or cojones to pick up a rifle and serve. It’s a replay of Vietnam. A lot of men like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol and even our CINC found a way to let someone else fight their wars. I can’t stand to see it happen again.

      Sorry I’ve gone on so long and hope I didn’t ramble too much. But I wanted to give you my thoughts.

    7. Sniper One on December 9, 2006 15:34

      You make some excellent points. One thing I will chime in on is for the securing of the borders in Iraq. We should have done it there, and we should of long since done it here. However, I guess since it hasn’t been done in either place, we can at least appreciate the symmetry.

      However, I do disagree with you about speaking with Syria and Iran. We have stated that in order for there to be talks with Iran, Iran must stop the enrichment of Uranium.

      While Iraq is a huge issue, Iran having nukes will have longer ranging consequences in my opinion. I am unwilling to back down on Iran’s nuclear enrichment.

      I would expect that the US/UN allowing Iran to enrich Uranium would be part of any kind of negotiation with Iran. The Persians aren’t stupid… crazy like a fox and vulture like maybe… but not stupid.

      I think we lose by giving Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hebollah (All heads of the same Hydra in my opinion) an audience without meeting the conditions we have set forth concerning uranium enrichment.

      I appreciate the time you have put into this, and I welcome your thoughts.

    8. Sniper One on December 9, 2006 17:57

      It’s true that I don’t think the administration was completely honest about our reasons for going. I think the WMD was an excuse to overthrow Saddam and plant a democracy in Iraq that would then spread to the neighboring countries, which was PNAC’s strategy set out in 1991. There’s a lot of evidence to support that the admin carefully chose intel to support the WMD story because they didn’t trust the American people to support the larger, more complicated goal.

      I haven’t seen that evidence, but then I haven’t been looking for it. I’ve watched the Plame story get debunked. I do believe that Bush believed that Saddam had WMDs beyond the ones (expired Sarin Gas warheads) we’ve found.

      Also I discussed your idea about boot camp with Rain, my wife. She went through the Boot Camp portion of training in 2004, however she was medically discharged before AIT. She can still speak more intelligently about it than I.

      She and I agree it’s a good idea that put the Iraqis through boot camp. However, we both have issues with bringing them here to the US to do it.

      We both feel that taking Ft. Polk to them would be a better investment. (I’m sure there are those in the Army who wouldn’t much miss it, but I digress) They are going to need to train new ‘cruits after we leave. Might as well teach a man to fish, than give him a fish.

    9. David Terrenoire on December 10, 2006 18:00

      Snipers One and Two,

      I’ve thought about this talking with Iran and Syria quite a bit, because you made this the primary place we diverged, and that’s OK. Like I said before, I’m just a schmucj here in North Carolina, and don’t have all the answers, so I’m always challenging my core beliefs to make sure I’m working things through honestly.

      My father, a truly great guy and very Republican, taught me this. (This isn’t his language, but mine.) He said that yes, some men are natural assholes, but give them a chance to prove they’re not, and sometimes they’ll surprise you. Not often, but sometimes.

      That’s why I say talk. If you don’t talk to Iran and Syrai, things will proceed except now you’ve sacrificed whatever direct influence you could have. You don’t give up a thing by talking. Your chances to gain leverage are improved. But, if you make nuclear enrichment, and I agree this is the most important issue, the one thing that will keep you away from the table, then you’ve given Iran all the power. We’ve taken ourselves out of the discussion so now we have no leverage.

      Thanks to our bungling in Iraq, we have put ourselves in a position of weakness in the region and to say we won’t talk is, in my opinion, foolish. It is letting pride get in the way of pratical issues, and frtankly, we can’t afford it.

      Give Iran and Syria a chance to prove they’re not assholes. Give them a chance to step up. Chances are they won’t, and then where will we be? Right where we are now. We haven’t lost anything. If need be we can still unleash the tactical nukes. And God help us if that happens. Because then we have truly unleashed the geni.

      As for the Fort Polk analogy, all I meant was that we need to take the Iraqis out of Iraq. Train them in Germany, or even Afghanistan. But some place safer than where they are now. But I did mean to diss Polk, which is a nasty place to do basic.

    10. Sniper One on December 10, 2006 18:19

      I can respect your opinion that not talking is foolish, and under some other circumstances we might even agree.

      However, I don’t trust Iran.

      I’m going to have to cite a whole bunch of stuff to back this up… so bear with me on this…

      To Heck with it…  just check out the stuff filed under Iran.

      If Iraq wants to make deals with Iran and Syria, more power to them, however I don’t think that the US should.

    Name (required)

    Email (required)

    Website

    Speak your mind

    If your comment/trackback doesn't show up, please refer to the Comment & Trackback Policy Page.