Yep. Hadn't seen that one though,
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
I read a pundit quip a couple months back that the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to have a staging point to attack Pakistan. In the same article (wish I remembe where I read it but was likely on here), the pundit said the reason we attacked Iraq was to attack Iran... Ok I laughed the first time, but now y'all are scaring me... Next thing y'all will be telling me there is not Santa.
Get the important point out of the way real quick. ;)
Pakistan and Iran have never really been in the picture barring a major malfunction. METT-T and all that. Too hard box and guauranteed to disrupt world oil supply which we do not want to do.
Afghanistan was the Arm for an Arm of the WTC Fly-in. Iraq was for bases and also an Eye for Eye for attacks on US interests around the globe. Think about the corollary. Remember the ME is strong on retribution and he who does not respond in kind is looked on as a coward and a target. They're specific in their retribution. From OBL / Afghanistan to NYC and DC -- and right back atcha from DC to Afghanistan. They understood that.
They also understood they've been attacking us around the world for 20 years and we did little or nothing about it. Then came Iraq. Most westerners couldn't understand that, too many still don't because of the loopy way the admin pitched it. However, the ME understood it -- they said they didn't and tried to forestall it because of the consequences -- but they understood...
Not there on the ground it isn't. You're reporting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeffC
on political maneuvering in national capitals in the west. Last first; Fitzgibbon is the new governments defense minister -- they would like to get out of the ME totally but do not want to overtly hack us off in the process. That just begins the disengagement effort. Thus, no surprise there.
On the first item, you might wish to note two things; the author is Karen De Young, Tom Ricks understudy as the WaPO defense guru. I'd recommend careful scrutiny of her writing and mild skepticism. Secondly, note the 'issue is that there's a disconnect between the miltary and the intel community on what's what. No surprise there, usually is. We may differ on who's been correct most often...
See also the post I just placed on the Security and Stability in Afghanistan Thread.
What's your defintion of "permanent"?
Iraq sees need for foreign troops for 10 years (Reuters, Dec 17)
BAGHDAD - Iraq will need foreign troops to help defend it for another 10 years, but will not accept U.S. bases indefinitely, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
"Of course we need international support. We have security problems. For 10 years our army will not be able to defend Iraq," Dabbagh told the state-run al-Iraqiya television in an interview broadcast late on Sunday.
"I do not think that there is a threat of an invasion of Iraq, or getting involved in a war. (But) to protect Iraqi sovereignty there must be an army to defend Iraq for the next 10 years," he said.
"But on the other hand, does Iraq accept the permanent existence of U.S. bases, for instance? Absolutely no. There is no Iraqi who would accept the existence of a foreign army in this country," he said. "America is America and Iraq is Iraq."
The United States now has about 155,000 troops in Iraq, formally operating under a U.N. Security Council mandate enacted after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
Iraq has asked the Security Council to extend the mandate for what it says will be a final year to the end of 2008, and conditions for U.S. troops to stay on beyond that date are to be negotiated in the next few months.
Violence has subsided after the United States dispatched 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year, and Washington now says it will bring about 20,000 home by mid-2008. Troop levels for the second half of the year are to be decided in March.