Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
Getting embroiled in the back and forth attacks will not be helpful in developing the future of the US intelligence community (communities, to be more accurate). As I read Ishmael Jones, Gary Berntsen and Bob Baer, all are genuinely committed to US interests. Each of them has a different slant on what should be done to further those interests.

My own reading on Islam covers the spectrum from Karen Armstrong to Robert Spencer, with people like John Esposito, Bernard Lewis and A.J. Arberry in the middle - and with the Qur'an as the ultimate source (since I am not an Arabist, I have to make do with M.H. Shakir's translation).

I guess my final point is that it helps to be a bit eclectic - and open-minded - in considering the different points of view before reaching a black & white conclusion.
thanks for all the feedback, gents... and i agree whole heartedly with this post, jmm99 (thanks for the hint).

not as widely read as most in this forum, i'm not really contributing much as far as analysis goes, but definitely learning a great deal from everyone here (i appreciate the slight nudge away from mediocre thinking or conclusions).

as far as black/white, us/them, i do have my bias against the stuff coming out of arabia. thanks for the book/author recommendations.

---
just finished reading 'operation hotel california' by faddis. it's pretty much on the same line as jones, baer, berntsen--HQ sucks ass and is run by a bunch of pansies. but then half way through the book, faddis sets his sites on one individual--col. waltemeyer, 10th SF group.

faddis paints him as the biggest Ahole ever to walk the earth (a complete opposite from linda robinson's portrait of the guy, in her book 'masters of chaos', but then again she wrote everyone up like heroes in romance novels).

according to faddis, waltemeyer, by simply being an Ahole lost the surrender of saddam's northern command, the 5th corps. the surrender of the 5th corps would've led to other such official surrenders throughout iraq, thus preserving the security apparatus needed to maintain peace and order, after the invasion.

is this possible? can one man actually screw up an armistice or formal surrender by just simply being an Ahole? i thought the checks and balances within the chain of command was designed to prevent such occurences (if it did happened as faddis described)-- this is the reason there are XOs, adjutants, officers w/ law degrees and even senior NCOs.

---

thought this was a good documentary: www.torturingdemocracy.org