Raid inside Syria by US SOF huge success (Bill Roggio)

[FAI]

It's not against international law to attack cross border if the country does not control its own territory, or allows hostilities to be carried out from its territory.

I believe you need to declare war first, though.

[meade95]

I could think of some, Chad/Sudan, in fact how about whole Chad, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo area. Then there is most, if not all of the countries bordering Russia. I mention those countries and regions in particular because I have some knowledge of the histories there. I am sure that I could find some in Asia if I could give a crap to look. Needless to say I would rather drink a beer.

I was speaking more in reference to Europe (in observation of what Steve had posted). Regardless, loved your last sentence. Bravo!

But even with those you listed....Those are not assoicated with attacks on the U.S. For which the U.S. is most concerned with (and rightfully so).

[FAI]

I was speaking more in reference to Europe (in observation of what Steve had posted). Regardless, loved your last sentence. Bravo!

I didn't know that none of the countries bordering Russia is in Europe.

[Dogface]

I was speaking more in reference to Europe (in observation of what Steve had posted). Regardless, loved your last sentence. Bravo!

But even with those you listed....Those are not associated with attacks on the U.S. For which the U.S. is most concerned with (and rightfully so).

There is a US involvement in all of the above both covert and overt. Also from memory there was a US state department employee or US diplomat killed in Sudan at the beginning of the year. Also, most of the European areas fit the cross border incursions and tribal strife as has occurred in the Pakistan Afghan border areas.

And yes the IPA was good.

[Battlefront.com]

meade95,

But these countries by and large are directly trying to stop such from happening / and or trying to stop such people from openly operating...... Nor are these people directly attacking U.S. based troops and entering another ally Country to do so.

In the past there have been such attacks, but that's not really my point...

There really is no serious comparison between the border regions of Pakistan (and what is happening there...what the history is there) as compared to other nations.

No, of course not. I was simply arguing BigDuke6's accurate point that who decides these things? Who decides if Syria is not doing enough to curb the activities there? Who decides if Germany is? Who decides if Georgia is doing its best? Which is why international law does not leave room, as far as I know, for one party to define "doing enough" based on no established standards or protocols. Which is the problem I pointed out.

Current international law is seriously outdated. Declarations of war are not likely to happen again, or if they do I think we won't have to worry about much anyway since we'll all likely be dead as a result of the military conflict that follows! So if international law doesn't allow for small, limited strikes... it needs to be given a working over. Yet that is unlikely to happen because countries with the power to launch such attacks and "get away with it" are the same ones that sit on the Security Council. Therefore, the status quo suits them just fine.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and I just remembered that the US did get caught doing a covert on-the-ground action within a NATO ally's border; the CIA kidnapping of Abu Omar who was tortured under the infamous "rendition" program. The trial is going on now, but of course with no participation by the US on the defense since AFAIK there has been no admission of the operation. There was also a kidnapping of a German citizen in Macedonia that got a lot of attention since the guy was 100% innocent (he had the same name as the guy they were looking for) and spent a while being tortured at Bagram in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure his lawsuit is also in the courts right now.

Anyway, just mentioning this stuff as an aside. It's not like what happened in Syria per se, but in terms of international law it's part of the same thing.

Steve

[meade95]

meade95,

No, of course not. I was simply arguing BigDuke6's accurate point that who decides these things? Who decides if Syria is not doing enough to curb the activities there? Who decides if Germany is? Who decides if Georgia is doing its best? Which is why international law does not leave room, as far as I know, for one party to define "doing enough" based on no established standards or protocols. Which is the problem I pointed out.

Steve

Agreed, to a point - However, when it comes to our (U.S.) national security.....We decide if we believe enough is being done. Plain and simple in my mind. If we believe enough is (or alternatives in the short run aren't worth it....we go with the status quo)... If we believe enough isn't....and the status quo is not a viable option.... Then we should choose to act in whatever ways we deem necessary for our national security (short and long term, depending).

As for 'international law'......We feed and cloth much of the world. We rescue the world in events after events.....We are the only Super Power....We get a trump card to play because of this. People don't have to like it.....fine. But that is how I see it...and the world is better off without quesiton because of our Nation's existence and what we have done for the rest of it...(flame away people!).

You make a great point Steve about the need for international law to be updated regarding such a topic.....and also for why it most likely will not be......But that leaves me with my positoin above....

Strikes like in Syria a few days go......Make perfect sense to me. Both tactially as well as strategically. Syria, Pak, none of these countries are going to war over AQ / mimics of such being taken out. They may huff and puff and cry to the media / UN or whomever will listen.....but they ain't going into a direct shooting war over them....

Regarding Pak - I believe we should be using more cross border raids (there is no border actually...the Pashtuns have never really recognized such). I believe more raids into these no man lands are definitely needed......

Along with butter and gold for those who help give us targets...... We should (and likely are) looking for our own young, aggresive mean sumbitch knuckle-dragging Pasthun or Uzbek who wants to be king of his own section of this no-mans land.......Give him all the gold and treasure he desires...as long as he provides us scalps or actionable target locatoins for us to put guns on.........

Ugly as it may sound or is....that is what sometimes is needed..... We've gone the route of working with the Pak Gov't......it has been helpful to a degree....but they are about maxed out at what they can do....or what they are willing to do (with this region of their country). So be it. We are not.

[meade95]

Oh, and I just remembered that the US did get caught doing a covert on-the-ground action within a NATO ally's border; the CIA kidnapping of Abu Omar who was tortured under the infamous "rendition" program. The trial is going on now, but of course with no participation by the US on the defense since AFAIK there has been no admission of the operation. There was also a kidnapping of a German citizen in Macedonia that got a lot of attention since the guy was 100% innocent (he had the same name as the guy they were looking for) and spent a while being tortured at Bagram in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure his lawsuit is also in the courts right now.

Anyway, just mentioning this stuff as an aside. It's not like what happened in Syria per se, but in terms of international law it's part of the same thing.

Steve

Point taken -

[Bigduke6]

Agreed, to a point - However, when it comes to our (U.S.) national security.....We decide if we believe enough is being done. Plain and simple in my mind. If we believe enough is (or alternatives in the short run aren't worth it....we go with the status quo)... If we believe enough isn't....and the status quo is not a viable option.... Then we should choose to act in whatever ways we deem necessary for our national security (short and long term, depending).

In and of itself, that is a policy that any nation state would follow.

The problem we have here, is that there is one nation state - the US - whose opinion of "national security threat", "alternatives", and "viable option" differ substantially with most other nation states. And just because you have the capacity and others don't, it does not follow that others will accept your use of that capacity as legitimate, nor does it follow that they will buy your arguement that you are under some kind of security threat, when they often have lived with the same threat for decades.

The essence of the problem is this: What the leadership is "deeming necessary" has repeatedly turned out to be foreign policy idiocy.

As for 'international law'......We feed and cloth much of the world. We rescue the world in events after events.....We are the only Super Power....We get a trump card to play because of this. People don't have to like it.....fine. But that is how I see it...and the world is better off without quesiton because of our Nation's existence and what we have done for the rest of it...(flame away people!).

I suggest you check the calendar, it's not 1945 any more. China is by many standards the largest manufacturer in the world these days, not America. It is true the US did alot of good for Europe in the 1950s with the Marshall plan - but are you seriously saying US foreign efforts more recently - i.e., the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the attempted isolation of Iran, the attempted reduction of Russia to third rate power - have made the world better?

I am not flaming, I just defy you to justify even a part of that as sensible foreign policy that made the world a better place. To anticipate you, the best claim you can make is the old reliable "Well, Saddam's dead," to which I will naturally respond "Yeah, and count the number of dead Iraqis then, and now, and tell me which Iraq was more dangerous for Iraqis to live in."

You make a great point Steve about the need for international law to be updated regarding such a topic.....and also for why it most likely will not be......But that leaves me with my positoin above....

Strikes like in Syria a few days go......Make perfect sense to me.

Both tactially as well as strategically. Syria, Pak, none of these countries are going to war over AQ / mimics of such being taken out. They may huff and puff and cry to the media / UN or whomever will listen.....but they ain't going into a direct shooting war over them....

[Wrath of Dagon]

Wrath of Dagon,

Well, by that definition the US should be able to conduct operations within pretty much every European country since they all have armed groups within them that are trying to attack the US and/or its interests. Some of the most significant aspects of the 9/11 attacks happened within Germany, for example. There was also foiled attempt to blow up several airliners over the US coming over from the UK. Then there is that bastion of terrorists... Canada to think about!

That's right, foiled attempts. There is such a thing as applying common sense you know. Do you think if there were constant attacks on our territory from Canada or Mexico we would just sit on our hands? Ask Spain how they lost Florida.

[meade95]

but are you seriously saying US foreign efforts more recently - i.e., the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the attempted isolation of Iran, the attempted reduction of Russia to third rate power - have made the world better?

And if you actually believe sending some US troopies across the border and killing Pathans in Pakistan, will not bring more Pathans to the banner of the jihad vs. the Americans, then aren't you even a little worried your thinking has come unhitched from common sense?

Yes. I am saying that. And if you cannot see / admit that the world is better off without Saddam in power (a reckless / enraged brutal dictator that started 3 wars) if you cannot admit that the world is better off without the Taliban in power (hiding/sheltering AQ and brutalizing their own people).......If you cannot see that the world is better off with the values and notions of freedom and self-worth taking root in the heart of the ME (Iraq) as well as in Stan............Than I'll stick with a more intelllectually honest conversation that Steve and I have been having.....

As for Pak border regions - Guns and butter baby - Butter to those that help us...and guns on those who don't. Plain and simple.

Do you believe we create more criminals/ murderers by arresting them? Please. That is circular thinking and worthless.....especially when you're already talking about Pak-Taliban types.

Of course reckless killing or harrassing civilians....could have a very negative blowback....however that is not what we are talking about going into these no-man lands of Pak.

Reality is there are AQ elements in the Pak border regions that need not be alive. We have given Pak 7 years to work within themselves....that has been productive too a degree....but the time for other options is now needed......

Lastly, regarding your comments......it not being the 1950s any longer. If you want to absurdly fail to recognize that the United States today provides more medicine, treasure, food , clothing and expertise in various ways ....than you are so completely unwilling to be intellectually honest no discussion with you needs to carry on further.

[Sgt Joch]

Meade95,

Regarding the humanitarian impulses of the USA, perhaps you would care to comment on why the US has let in less than 20,000 refugees from Iraq since 2003 while Sweden has taken in more than 80,000 and "evil" Syria has let in

1-1.5 million.

[meade95]

Meade95,

Regarding the humanitarian impulses of the USA, perhaps you would care to comment on why the US has let in less than 20,000 refugees from Iraq since 2003 while Sweden has taken in more than 80,000 and "evil" Syria has let in

1-1.5 million.

Do we really want a comparison of who has taken in more people willingly from around the world?...and given them more rights and chances for themselves to shape their own futures.....Please.

[meade95]

Some more interesting Info - News story appearing today -

US election: If Iraqis could vote it would be for McCain

Oct 30 01:02 PM US/Eastern

For five years Ali and Mohammed have lived alongside US soldiers in their Baghdad neighbourhood near Rasheed Street, a prominent commercial artery running through the heart of the Iraqi capital.

During that time American culture and politics have become familiar to them, and they say that if they could, they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain in next week's US presidential election.

"McCain would be best for Iraq because he would ensure stability," said Ali, 66, an expert on the Sumerian era.

The personal qualities and political platforms of McCain and his Democrat rival Barack Obama are of little import to Ali, however. His focus is on Iraq and its neighbours such as Iran.

"The Iranians believe that if Obama is elected he will not take action against them despite their nuclear ambitions. That worries me," said Ali, sitting on an old bench in Al-Zahawi coffee shop.

"If the Iranians get the bomb they will become the Tarzan of the region," said the former teacher and lecturer at the University of Baghdad, referring to the vine-swinging strongman of the jungle in old Hollywood movies.

Mohammed, also a professor at the university, said he too preferred McCain "because Obama supports a rapid withdrawal of US troops."

"Our army is still too weak and Turkey and Iran are threats. Iran's President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad has warned Iran would fill the void left when US troops depart," he said.

Rasheed Street with its 1920s-style buildings is still closed to vehicles, and groups of anti-Al-Qaeda fighters guard the stretch that runs north to south.

The street was the scene of major attacks by insurgents after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003 to US-led invading forces. But even before that many business establishments had begun to move away from the thoroughfare.

Today, a few hundred metres (yards) from Al-Zahawi coffee shop, is the famous Al-Mutnabi books market, the only place where Baghdadis can find English books and magazines.

Booksellers display a range of computer publications, periodicals, works of fiction and school textbooks on wooden shelves.

Barack Obama's image peers out between two editions of "Vanity Fair" magazine kept next to the memoirs of former US president Bill Clinton.

But "The Audacity of Hope," one of Obama's books, has yet to find a buyer.

"I have no customer for this book. Iraqis are interested in the campaign, but they prefer to read texts translated into Arabic," said bookseller Shallan Zaidan.

Such Arabic versions, translated and published by Lebanese companies, include "My Year in Iraq" by Paul Bremer, the former US administrator of Iraq, and "Bush at War" by renowned investigative journalist Bob Woodward.

But there are no translations of books on the two candidates bidding to enter the White House.

Iraqis prefer instead to rely on the latest issues of weekly news publications such as Time and Newsweek, said government official Whamith Shadhan, who was browsing through second-hand books and magazines.

"I trust the Republicans more. They're more capable of establishing democracy in the world, especially in Arab countries," said the 33-year-old. "Obama is far too left."

Since the invasion more than five years ago, the Mutanabi market has been twice hit by bombs. The area is predominantly Sunni, and judging by some graffiti on the walls Al-Qaeda is never far away.

"The insurgents aren't bothered by political books sold on the street. They focus on religious ones," said Yasser Ali, an Obama supporter and seller of books for 22 years.

Obama "interrupted his campaign to visit his sick grandmother. That speaks volumes about the man," he said.

Back on Rasheed Street itself, Abu Ahmed waited at a men's hairdresser as his friend got a shave.

"We accept black people more readily in the Middle East. We feel closer to them. We have common sufferings," said the long-time sports coach.

[Sgt Joch]

Do we really want a comparison of who has taken in more people willingly from around the world?...and given them more rights and chances for themselves to shape their own futures.....Please.

Whats the matter...question is too tough for you?

[Bigduke6]

Yes. I am saying that. And if you cannot see / admit that the world is better off without Saddam in power (a reckless / enraged brutal dictator that started 3 wars) if you cannot admit that the world is better off without the Taliban in power (hiding/sheltering AQ and brutalizing their own people).......If you cannot see that the world is better off with the values and notions of freedom and self-worth taking root in the heart of the ME (Iraq) as well as in Stan............Than I'll stick with a more intelllectually honest conversation that Steve and I have been having.....

Whom you choose to attempt to foist your opinions on, is of course your business. I will point out that your favorite rejoinder, "please", is not normally considered a substantial arguement in the BFI forum.

I'll leave the wisdom or lack thereof of the invasion of Afghanistan for another post, Lord knows I've done the "Only the Mongols ever beat the Pathans, and we're not the Mongols" dance often enough.

But ok, let's for the sake of discussion consider your arguement about Iraq. You're saying that kicking Saddam Hussein out of power was a net good for the world. You say that is good because no longer was a brutal dicator, er, brutalizing his people, and by that same token the brutal dictator was not invading his neighbors. You further argue that democratic values are as a result of US intervention, and I am going to quote you because otherwise people might think I was making it up "the notions of freedom and self-worth (are) taking root in Iraq."

You seem to think your logic is seamless, so it should be easy enough for you to answer these questions, first group about the quality of life in Iraq:

1. Does the average Iraqi feel better or worse off than during the regime of Saddam?

2. Does the average Iraqi run a greater, or lesser risk, of death, violence, or loss of property than during the regime of Saddam?

3. Was basic crime in Iraq better controlled in Iraq under Saddam, or after Saddam?

4. Were basic supplies - food, safe water, electricity, stuff like that - available to average Iraqis more during Saddam's reign, or afterwards?

5. Were the prices of those basic supplies relative to salaries more affordable during Saddam's reign, or afterwards with hyperinflation and US dollars flooding the Iraqi economy?

6. Was the average Iraqi in more in danger of getting picked up by the police for no good reason during Saddam's reign, or afterwards?

7. A modern educated Iraqi woman wearing a modest Western suit and skirt had more chances of being harassed for violating fundamentalist dress codes while walking down a Bagdad street when - when Saddam was running things, or now?

Ok, now for the region.

1. Was the Saddam regime a greater or lesser counterweight to Iran, than the present regime?

2. Was there a multi-sectarian insurgency and battle for power involving Syria, Iran, Turkey, as well as non-regional actors, played out and desabilizing the region during Saddam's reign, or after Saddam's reign?

3. Was Al Quaeda operational in Iraq during Saddam's reign? After Saddam's reign?

4. Was instability in the region caused by Iraq easier to control when Saddam was making his periodic power plays, or when the country has become a vortex of chaos?

5. During Saddam's reign sectarian violence was next to nothing, Iraq was by regional standards an island of the principle divided church and state. Now it drives all politics in the region.

And of course how about the US -

1. Which cost more American lives: Living with Saddam and then Gulf War I, or fighting an insurgency from 2003 - present?

2. Which cost more US taxpayer money: Living with Saddam and Gulf War I, or the invasion and five year's occupation of Iraq?

3. When were the assertions of the US of an international threat - an extremely powerful tool of US foreign policy provided the rest of the world took those assertions seriously - considered beyond questioning by our allies; before the WMD fiasco, or after?

4. When was it safer for a US citizen to identify himself as such abroad - before the US invasion of Iraq, or afterwards?

4. The war in Iraq has cost on average 50 billion dollars a month, and it has gone on ballpark 60 months. That's 300 billion dollars, and that's just military operations, the actual number is probably twice that. But even if the bill so far is 300 billion dollars - is whatever nebulous success that may or may not have been achieved in Iraq, worth all the stuff the US sacrificed to pour that money into Iraq? That's how many schools and teachers? Health care for elderly? New aircraft carriers and bombers to keep the Russians intimidated? R&D to keep the US technological edge over the rest of the world? Tax rebates for US citizens that just hate the guvmint?

Are all those possibilities, all that sacrifice, by any measure worth whatever has been achieved in Iraq? With the benefit of hindsight, how would the US be better off, having invaded Iraq, or not having invaded Iraq.

I think the answer to all those questions are as obvious as blood on a wedding dress, as a fart in a church, as a prostitute in a nunnery, as a lawyer at a good Samaritans' convention - you know, really friggin' impossible to miss - to any one with even a dram of reason and an ounce of sense. The invasion of Iraq was the worst US foreign policy error since Vietnam, i.e., in the last 40 years.

You are welcome to your unique and individually-reasoned point of view, of course. You've ignored difficult questions before rather than try and answer them, I have no doubt that's what you'll do here as well.

[G B Scurlock]

Sorry to be so shallow, but I wonder if someone might put togeather a scerario around this raid?

[Splinty]

BigDuke I'm only going to hit 2 of your points here,

1. The WMD fiasco. Yes you're right, no WMDs were found, but before the invasion in 2003 all eight of the worlds major intelligence agencies were sure he still had them.

2. Having seen them lot's of women in Baghdad at least wear Western clothing whenever they want.

And finally again having been there just last year, Iraq is getting better by the day, why do all you guys refuse to acknowledge that?!!!

[Sgt Joch]

.

And finally again having been there just last year, Iraq is getting better by the day, why do all you guys refuse to acknowledge that?!!!

It's not that we don't acknowledge it. It is clear that the recent moves by the US, namely the "surge" and other moves have helped to lower the violence in 2008 as opposed to prior years, the issue is more what will happen after the US leaves...I tend to hold a fairly apocalyptic view, so put me in the "pessimists" club.

[Bigduke6]

Splinty,

I see what you're saying, but I'm trying to look beyond the next month. Medium to long term, I just don't see things getting "better". No question, attacks against US soldiers are down. But that isn't the way to win the game. The way to win the game is, by most definitions including Meade95's, create in Iraq a strong secular democracy where Iraqis can live normally and safely. Present conditions, although relatively calm, aren't anything close to that, I'm sorry to say.

To my mind, the surge had far less to do with the relative fall of violence, than US arming of and paying salaries of to Sunni militias, a/k/a the guys that used to be fighting the Americans. So now you have a form of peace, but you also have created a an armed Sunni minority with all sorts of incentives to ignore the Shia majority, and indeed not even participate in a national Iraqi government. Why should they? If there is a functional Iraqi democracy the Sunnis are going to get whomped, they are outnumbered. So better to stay armed and run the Sunni provinces.

The same can be said of Kurdistan - they are armed, they acknowledge no law above them, and what they choose not to do, they don't have to do. And this is supposed to be a success leading to a free and democratic Iraq? I see that as unlikely.

The militias now cannot be disarmed, nor can they be made to acknowledge much of the national law. A thief steals something in a Shia neighborhood, and then runs to a Sunni neighborhood. Do you think the Sunni militias are going to allow the national police to just drive in and arrest the crook?

The reverse is just as true, if the thug is a Shia then how willing is the national police, who are largely Shia, going to be to track him down?

Now, ask yourself, how safe an Iraqi property owner feels in conditions like that? His only protection is a bunch of guys with guns that are loyal for one reason or another to him or one of his neighbors. If he has a dispute, laws mean nothing, relatives and connections mean everything. Judges are under no obligation to be fair, rather, their motivations are personal enrichment (bribes) and loyalty to relatives and whomever got the job.

And I think it is worth remembering that although the attacks on US troops are down, Iraqis are still dying in violence at a horrendous pace. As you well know, there are terrorist bombings, contract hits, mobster turf battles, and of course boring old generic crime and domestic mayhem, that is part and parcel of modern Iraq. The Iraqis live with this day by day, and those older than the age of about ten are not going to do what the US supporters of the Surge do - hearken back to 2005 and then declare that things are looking.

It's their country, and the Iraqis remember quite well how one lived during the reign of Saddam. By that standard, things are hardly getting better, the best that can be said is that one form of chaos and violence was replaced by another, more virulent form of chaos and violence. What the US has created in Iraq is not a democracy, but rather an armed and lawless society with all sorts of built-in reaons never to unite, and corruption embedded throughout government from top to bottom.

And a fractious Iraq plays into the hands of - wait for it - yes, the Iranians, our supposed opponents in the region. Are the Iraqis grateful that we invaded their country? Apparently not, judging by their parliament and executive branch they seem to be intent in getting all US troops out, as fast as possible - which of course makes perfect sense from an Iraqi decision-maker point of view, as with the American soldiers gone the local militias will be that much more powerful, and of course any it will be so much easier for any official at any level to extort bribes from the Iraqi populace.

I do not call a foreign policy that has imposed a limited calm at the point of a gun (the precise ruling technique used by Saddam you know) and at the same time advances the interests of Iran, and as a free bonus inclines the Iraqis not to allow American forces to stay around, a great leap forward for the average Iraqi future, or anything like a US foreign policy success.

As for WMDs, me, I don't give a hoot that a bazillion intelligence agencies thought there were WMDs, that they smelled WMDs, that reallly super-reliable sources using the correct sources on their secret decoder rings told them there were WMDs, that Saddam really really wanted WMDS, and that basically it's a real shame there weren't WMDs.

No decision in foreign policy is ever made in perfect intelligence, and in 2002-3 there were plenty of indications invading Iraq on grounds of WMD was a stupid idea. I don't have the poll numbers at my fingertips, but I think we all remember there was plenty of public critique inside the US never mind outside, arguing a WMD pretext, without UN sanction, with the CIA really not sure, and IAEA even less sure, and a war already in progress in Afghanistan, was nothing less than a moronic casus belli.

There are lots of bad guys in the world, we do not unilaterally move to kick them out of power, we never have and we never will. "Well, Saddam is gone, so it was worth it" is, given the lives and money and reputation the US has poured down the Iraq hole, not even a sad justification for the war, it is funny.

So that's why I am not doing kowtows to the Surge. It is a bandaid on a terminal patient. The only benefit the Surge has brought is, it has reduced numbers of dead and maimed Americans. And if the only index of success in Iraq is reduced numbers of dead and maimed Americans, then the easiest way to "win" is of course to send our troops home on the next airplane.

[meade95]

I will be back to contributing to this on going conversation this weekend - Pointing out where I see Iraq today and in the futre and why it was the correct course of action and how we are succeeding and how Iraq / Iraqis are better off - Along with answering many of BigDuke's questions / opinions........

I'm just under the gun on a big project here at work.......likely not enough time today to sit down and put thoughts/information to the keyboard ....

[Clavicula_Nox]

Wrong. You must start to be WILLING to be intellectually honest. It is clear you're not at this time. You refuse to let facts or reality interfer with your already established bias....

Here is just some of the bio on Zarqawi and his direct affliation to AQ/Bin Laden....

In 1989, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to join the insurgency against the Soviet invasion, but the Soviets were already leaving by the time he arrived;[6] where he met and befriended Osama bin Laden while there.

.....

Upon his release from prison in 1999, Zarqawi was involved in an attempt to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman, where many Israeli and American tourists lodged.[8] He fled Jordan and traveled to Peshawar, Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border. In Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a militant training camp near Herat, near the Iranian border.[9] The training camp specialized in poisons and explosives.[10] According to Jordanian officials and court testimony by jailed followers of Zarqawi in Germany, Zarqawi met in Kandahar and Kabul with Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders after travelling to Afghanistan.[8] He asked them for assistance and money to set up his own training camp in Herat.[11] WITH al-Qaeda's SUPPORT, the camp opened and soon served as a magnet for Jordanian militants.

.....

Jordanian and European intelligence agencies discovered that Zarqawi formed the group Jund al-Sham in 1999 with $200,000 of start up money from Osama bin Laden.[12] The group originally consisted of 150 members. It was infiltrated by members of Jordanian intelligence, and scattered before Operation Enduring Freedom.

.....

After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again traveled to Afghanistan and joined Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters resisting the U.S.-led invasion.[14] He was allegedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi settled in northern Iraq, where he fought along side of the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region.

......

..before the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi ran a "terrorist haven" in Kurdish northern Iraq, and organized the bombing of a Baghdad hotel.[36] According to a March 2003 British intelligence report, Zarqawi had set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad before the Iraq war. The report stated "suggests that senior al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a U.S. occupation of the city...These cells apparently intend to attack U.S. targets using car bombs and other weapons. (It is also possible that they have received [chemical and biological] materials from terrorists in the [Kurdish Autonomous Zone]),...al Qaeda-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March."[37]

Before I address your post, I'll give some background on myself.

I am a former US Army soldier with two deployments to Iraq, and 1 to Afghanistan. Two of those deployments were with a detachment from USASOC (Army Special Operations Command) under JSOC control. Our direct mission was to hunt down and destroy Al-Qaeda cells in Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of that mission, we also dealt with other groups. Most of my Iraq time has been in the South (Babylon and Karbalah provinces primarily) and in the North West on the Syrian border, near Tal Afar and Al-Qaim. I am a graduate of Ranger school, Airborne school, Air Assault school, SERE-C, and a few other neat little courses. As awards go, I wear a CAB with 1 star above my jump and aaslt wings, was awarded a Bronze Star with Valor device in Iraq, I have also been wounded in combat, and thus have been awarded a Purple Heart.

I've been there, I've seen it, I've talked to the people, I've lived among them, and did my best to help however I can. Don't write me off as being intellectually dishonest simply because I disagree with you, and don't assume I'm under some kind of strange ultra-liberal bias just because I think we have been waging war stupidly for the past 7 years.

Now, your post.

Zarqawi had no links, or at best, minimal links, to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda before 2004. Period. The man was nothing more than a willing scapegoat for Al-Sadr and Iranian backed interests. Period.

In 2004, Zarqawi and Sadr's troops took turns causing trouble in various parts of the country. When it seemed that one group would get hit particularly hard, the other would start trouble and divert attention and resources.

Zarqawi was a rival of Bin Laden, and was rejected from membership in Al-Qaeda, which caused him to open his own school in Herat, from there his path goes to Iran, and finally, to Iraq.

Even "U.S. Intelligence officials" who once used Zarqawi as a means to link Saddam to Al-Qaeda was dubbed "misinformation" after the onset of war. Their claim that he had lost a leg in Afghanistan was later re-tracted, and in intercepted correspondences with Bin Laden, he is quoted as saying "We do not see ourselves as fit to challenge you," in reference to his group.

The receipt of money, if it is factual, is meaningless. Al-Qaeda's role in the International Islamic Front For the Jihad against Jews and Crusaders is a leadership one, it provides finances, training, and ideology to smaller local groups.

Zarqawi's backing primarily comes from Sepah, or what you would probably call Iran's "Quds" Revolutionary Guard. They smuggled him out of Afghanistan and into Lebanon, connecting him with Hezbollah, and, as we saw, Iranian interests arethe ones who benefited whenever Zarqawi took the blame for every terrorist action in Northern Iraq.

At the very best, Zarqawi was loosely associated with Bin Laden, at the very best. The indications make a better case at attaching him to Iranian interests.

If you really believe that Zarqawi was a long-time or close associate wth Bin Laden, why would he (OBL) say on 27 Dec 2004 that he (zarqawi) had:

"Taken great steps towards unifying the mujahideen"

-Not something that would be said to someone's righthand man.

Further, why would Zarqawi change the name of his group from: Tawhid and Jihad, to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and pledge allegiance to AQ in late 2004 if he was already part of the network prior to that? Seriously, use your brain, that's what it's for. The Eastern method of warfare stresses deception, and you are falling into the trap of taking the enemy's words at face value.

Stop thinking like a Westerner, and try thinking from the enemy's perspective, what did Sun Tzu say? "Know you enemy."

If the only response you can have for someone who disagrees with you that they're biased or intellectually dishonest, then I'm not sure what to say, but I think you should stop pointing fingers.

[meade95]

Further, why would Zarqawi change the name of his group from: Tawhid and Jihad, to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and pledge allegiance to AQ in late 2004 if he was already part of the network prior to that? Seriously, use your brain, that's what it's for. The Eastern method of warfare stresses deception, and you are falling into the trap of taking the enemy's words at face value.

Stop thinking like a Westerner, and try thinking from the enemy's perspective, what did Sun Tzu say? "Know you enemy."

.

First you're simply wrong (and that is scary as hell if you have the creds you say you do)... I gave you the REAL bio of Zarqawi and his links to UBL / AQ for years prior to OIF - You went from originally saying in your first post to me...that there was NO relationship whatsoever to now hedging that it was 'minimal', 'loosely' , etc......at best. Reality is there were numerous direct links between Zarqawi / UBL & AQ prior to OIF.

As for your comments directly highlighted above - We already know the answer to this (and with your creds you should have as well? Shocking that you don't to be honest). It was precisely because AQ, which was already operating in Iraq ....needed it to look like a pure homegrown al-Qeada element for their insurgency to gain further traction.....Thus the name chage...thus the FAKE Iraqi front man Abu Abdullah-al-Baghdadi (after Zarqawi's death).

Facts are 'AQ of Iraq's' leadership was all from AQ elements orginating outside of Iraq to begin with....

They (AQ) made up a fake Iraqi/AQ leader....because there was no indigenous AQ element leader within Iraq to take over for Zarqawi once he was dead.....So they tried to create an "Iraqi" to appear as such.

Reality and facts are Zarqawi was aligned with AQ before OIF. The leadership and top tier commanders of 'AQ of Iraq' have always been outside AQ elements ...Not Iraqis. That remains true with al-Marsi today....

Also, lets note....Zarqawi declared all out war with the Shia(thug-dropout Sadr) in 2005 in a further failed attempt to create an all out civil war witin Iraq.

[Clavicula_Nox]

First you're simply wrong (and that is scary as hell if you have the creds you say you do)... I gave you the REAL bio of Zarqawi and his links to UBL / AQ for years prior to OIF - You went from originally saying in your first post to me...that there was NO relationship whatsoever to now hedging that it was 'minimal', 'loosely' , etc......at best. Reality is there were numerous direct links between Zarqawi / UBL & AQ prior to OIF.

As for your comments directly highlighted above - We already know the answer to this (and with your creds you should have as well? Shocking that you don't to be honest). It was precisely because AQ, which was already operating in Iraq ....needed it to look like a pure homegrown al-Qeada element for their insurgency to gain further traction.....Thus the name chage...thus the FAKE Iraqi front man Abu Abdullah-al-Baghdadi (after Zarqawi's death).

Facts are 'AQ of Iraq's' leadership was all from AQ elements orginating outside of Iraq to begin with....

They (AQ) made up a fake Iraqi/AQ leader....because there was no indigenous AQ element leader within Iraq to take over for Zarqawi once he was dead.....So they tried to create an "Iraqi" to appear as such.

Reality and facts are Zarqawi was aligned with AQ before OIF. The leadership and top tier commanders of 'AQ of Iraq' have always been outside AQ elements ...Not Iraqis. That remains true with al-Marsi today....

Also, lets note....Zarqawi declared all out war with the Shia(thug-dropout Sadr) in 2005 in a further failed attempt to create an all out civil war witin Iraq.

I, and quite a few regional experts, both military and civilian, disagree whole-heartedly with you; and that's okay.

*edit*

You need to knock off the "bias" and intellectual dishonesty crap; most of us who disagree with you have pretty good reasons, and sweeping it away because your reasons differ is no way to conduct a conversation.

[theFightingSeabee]

I don't give a crap who knows who.

If you're working to blow people up for any reason other than saving the lives of the innocent, you need a JDAM sandwich. Period. Simple as that. Good day.