al-Zarqawi ?

[Dillweed]

He was mentioned in th Syrian border dispute thread, got me thinking. Anybody heard news about him? Last I had heard they were scraping some goo off a wall in Mosul with the intent of test it for DNA.

[Sergei]

Got you thinking, what? Why not just check the latest news? Come on, don't be mysterious...

[Dillweed]

As a matter of priciple I only take my news in comedy form. And the Daily Show isn't on until tommorrow.

[Sergei]

Well in that case, a priest, a rabbi and al Zarqawi stepped into a bar, and...

[stoat]

The question at this point is whether or not he is still alive. And even if they did find a nice puddle of his blood in some dirty street, what would they have to compare the sample against?

If he's dead, it will be a while before we know, and if he's alive, he'll wait until he can get the most capital out of an appearance.

[stoat]

And if your solitary news source is the Daily Show, you need help. I happen to like the Daily show (for the most part), but everything has to be taken with a grain of salt, as I'm sure was intended. The people who take that stuff literally are scary.

[Battlefront.com]

What are you talking about Stoat? The amount of coverage the Daily Show's reporters transmit back from ON LOCATION spots is stunning BTW, I was a big fan of the Daily Show until I got rid of the overpriced crap that was Satelite TV. Now I have to make do with "America - The Book"

From what I can tell about al-Zaraqwi is that he is rummored to be dead. However, it hasn't been 100% confirmed and recently he sent a voice recording to explain why so many innocent Muslims had to die in Jordan because he has a hair across his ass about something. His family also seems to think he is still alive since they just came out and stated they've cut ties with him thanks to his murdering spree in Aman. So I'd say the jury is still out whether he is really dead or not. Like Bin Laden, it doesn't really matter. This is a movement we're talking about, not a single man's agenda.

Steve

[stoat]

I'm lucky enough ot get it on cable.

Zarqawi could be dead, or he could be living. If he's dead, we won't know unless we find a body that can be ID'ed. There could be any number of middle aged Arabic men speaking into microphones preaching the words of Zarqawi. At this point, he is no longer a leader, but instead a symbol, something for the insurgents to rally behind. ALive or dead, this symbol will be used until it is no longer effective or feasible.

[Dillweed]

Really, I thought old al-Z was more hands on, in addition to being a symbol. I agree that killing these big shots isn't likely to solve any problems, we all know how they love their martyrs.

[MikeyD]

And let's not forget public enemy #1. Rumors are circulating that Bin Laden *might* have been among those 50,000+ earthquake victims in Pakistan recently. I somehow doubt that rumor's really based on anything more substantial than wishful thinking. Hey, if we're lucky maybe he was sunning himself on the beach when that tsunami hit Indonesia earlier in the year, or partying in New Orleans when the hurricane hit!

[GSX]

Why are we so fixated on individuals, and why are we so fixated on the ME?

If we withdrew tomorrow from everywhere. What would be the consequence?

Would the West Fall?

I think we forget that its not who controls the Oil at source that matters, but who can buy it.

After all we didnt give a toss when Iraq attacked Iran (oil involved). But we did when Iraq attacked Kuwait (less oil involved).

I really do think that our representatives, should represent us and not their own financial interests.

[stoat]

Originally posted by GSX:

Why are we so fixated on individuals, and why are we so fixated on the ME?

If we withdrew tomorrow from everywhere. What would be the consequence?

Would the West Fall?

I think we forget that its not who controls the Oil at source that matters, but who can buy it.

After all we didnt give a toss when Iraq attacked Iran (oil involved). But we did when Iraq attacked Kuwait (less oil involved).

I really do think that our representatives, should represent us and not their own financial interests.

Because they are leaders. Leading individuals make all the difference.

There would most definately be consequences. The West wouldn't fall, but it would be less secure, especially it's interests abroad. And what would happen in Korea, what could have happened in Korea, without the 2nd Inf division or at least brigades of it stationed along the DMZ?

It only gets more political, but I guess this thread was always on that line.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by GSX:

Why are we so fixated on individuals, and why are we so fixated on the ME?

If we withdrew tomorrow from everywhere. What would be the consequence?

Would the West Fall?

I think we forget that its not who controls the Oil at source that matters, but who can buy it.

After all we didnt give a toss when Iraq attacked Iran (oil involved). But we did when Iraq attacked Kuwait (less oil involved).

I really do think that our representatives, should represent us and not their own financial interests.

Has anyone considered that the real reason we went into Iraq wasn't the WMDs, or the oil, but simply where Iraq is?

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Has anyone considered that the real reason we went into Iraq wasn't the WMDs, or the oil, but simply where Iraq is?

Yes.

[PseudoSimonds]

I haven't. I just want their oil.

[Saviola]

After all we didnt give a toss when Iraq attacked Iran

I beg to differ, the US did “give a toss” about the Iraqi invasion of Iran, only not overtly and on satellite television. It was in fact the US who advocated the first Gulf War, it supported and encouraged Saddam to invade, it even supplied him with intelligence and low level military aid to crush the newly formed Iranian Islamic Republic. It was a form of payback for the humiliating ousting of their ally the Shah. Moreover, it was further payback for the US hostage crisis and the failure of the CIA to predict a sweeping Islamic revolution in Iran.

The US strategy and covert policy was even more sinister, it didn’t advocate nor seek a swift victory for Saddam, a clear, quick outcome and cessation of hostilities didn’t suit its grand design for the gulf. The Reagan administration sought to sap both the Iranian and Iraqi military strength, it advocated the destruction of both armies and their assets while favoring a pyrrhic victory for Saddam.

The US ultimate goal was to weaken the Iranians to a point whereby they cease to be a regional power who’s a threat to its oil rich gulf neighbors. As for Iraq, the Americans’ objective was to neutralize its threat to Israel and allow the Jewish state to maintain overwhelming military superiority in the Mid East.

As we all know today, neither US objectives were satisfactorily achieved. And had it not been for US intervention in 1990, the Iraqi objective would’ve failed miserably. The Iranians presently are a regional power who’s heading nuclear. And unlike what the US predicted, the Iranians materialized into a military threat to Israel rather than their gulf neighbors. Moreover and ironically, it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait, a country that feared Iran and which the US was trying to protect from Iranian aggression and hegemony.

In consequence, the Iraqi leader came out of a war with a huge, albeit ineffective military machine, but no resources to pay for its maintenance and the enormous debt he acquired. So right about then, Kuwait looked real good to him, and again who had no objection to and encouraged his new adventure? You guessed it.

[Gregg Gallagher]

E-O:

I agree with the general theories put forth in your posting - rather basic "balance of power" realpolitik approach for the U.S., IMHO.

However, the "red herring" of our having encouraged Saddam to invade Iraq has never been proven. Every account I have read of the meeting between the U.S. ambassador and Saddam seems to point more towards ineffectual communications by that lady that may have been misread by Saddam, as compared to conscious, overt encouragement to attack.

I've yet to see any specific offical pronouncment by Saddam before, during, or after Gulf War I that he believed the U.S. gave him the go ahead to attack Kuwait.....or did I miss something?

[Dogface]

April Glaspie:

We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

While not a "go ahead and attack Kuwait" it does seem to say that the US would turn a blind eye.

[Peter Cairns]

Dogface,

I think it more poor communications due to what you might euphemistically call " cultural differences".

For the US as a western democracy " not associated with America", ment sit down together and iron out an agreement over soverignty the way we do, over trade or commerce.

For Saddam, it ment sort it out yourselves , which to him ment do waht you always do "kick the **** out of them".

In this respect it has to be a US political failure in not understanding the mentality of the people they were dealing with and putting your message in a clear way that they would understand.

Peter,

[Dogface]

what about the "we have no opinion" part. That combined with the "it is an arab - arab affair" and "Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" (emphasis mine) says to me "go ahead and do what you need to do, the US will not do anything about it." I find it hard to believe that the State Department would not understand the mentality of Saddam. I mean hell, I am by no means a Arab expert, but I realize that there are many mitigating factors in Arab politics (clan/tribal affiliation, ethnic background ect.). If I can see that just from the couple of books I have read on the subject (and by a couple I mean 2 books and some other papers/writings), I would hope that a trained Diplomat and the Sec. of State would understand that also.

[Peter Cairns]

Dogface, To theories

Mine, They didn't understand it and didn't think he would invade, which is why they were shocked and ended up kicking him out.

or

They knew what they were doing and wanted him to invade so they could kick him out. But Why?

I am for cockup over conspiracy any day.

Peter.

[Dogface]

The problem with my quotes, I am comming to understand is that the transcripts I have been reading were released by Iraq and not the US. It seems that some things that were said by/between Glaspie and Saddam were not included in the released transcripts. Another problem is that from what I understand the transcripts that the state department have are still classified. So as of now its kinda hard to say who said what and what did they mean.

But I would hope that someone who had been part of the department of state since the late 60's and who was considered an Arab expert whould have realized what was going to happen.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential library:

The President today announced his intention to nominate April Catherine Glaspie, of California, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, as Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq. She would succeed David George Newton.

Since 1985 Ms. Glaspie has been Director of the Office of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syrian Affairs in the Department of State. From 1983 to 1985, she served as political officer and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria. Ms. Glaspie has been Director of the language institute at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, 1981 - 1983; political officer at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York, 1980 - 1981; political officer at the U.S. Embassy in London, England, 1978 - 1980; staff assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, 1977 - 1978; and political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, 1973 - 1977. Ms. Glaspie has been a member of the Foreign Service since 1966.