Undermanned (it is contagious, sorry thinking about Iraq) today, I finished up a job east of Aspen, trudged down the hill to Independence Pass, sat in the joke of Aspen rush hour approaching the S-Curves, made it home by 6:30, got my beefy and cilantro burrito, laced it with cheddar and sour cream and tabassco, stripped out of dirty work clothes, replaced them with sweat bottoms and an Aggie sweatshirt, and made it to my lazy boy chair downstairs in front of the new big screen to catch our President’s speech regarding Iraq at 7, local time.
Within minutes, I was consumed with thoughts of sadness, embarrassment, anger and futility. I wanted seriously to hear something invigorating, something enlightening, something positive that made me want to say, “Yes, thats my President, good job Mr. Bush!”
What I heard, again, was much ado about nothing. I heard much of the same ol’ same ol’. I heard my President saying we were committed to victory in Iraq by sending another 21,500 troops there. Actually, about 17,000 will actually go to Baghdad, in two separate deployments. What I heard was a continual theme that he and the American people were becoming very impatient at the futility of the Iraqi government to take control of their country and defeat the insurgency. It was almost as if he was deflecting responsibility from us to them. Sure, the Iraqi people have a responsibility, but don’t we have so much more?
22,000 troops is nothing but a short term band-aid. This is nothing more than applying some neosporin to a deep wound that requires major surgery.
And further, our President made numerous mentions to Al-Queda, stating that “winning the war in Iraq, defeating Al-Queda would ensure that our children and grandchildren are safe.” What? Would someone escort me out to the woodshed and beat the snot out of me please? The entire idea of Al-Queda in this thesis in nothing but propoganda!!! Al-Queda didn’t exist in Iraq until we invaded, then sat around while they seized the opportunity to see us as sitting ducks as well as seizing a major PR opportunity! The “insurgency” didn’t exist in Iraq until we invaded and anniliated their country.
We created this dumbfounded mess. And tonight, I have to believe my President in his next step to fix it? For crying out loud… I’m not much, I came from not much, I’m just an ol’ country boy from West Texas with a couple of college degrees, and I live here now and work for all the rich people. But, hell, send me to Washington! I think someone as simple as me could do a helluva better job fixing this mess compared to what I witnessed on national television tonight!
I’m done. I’m pissed. I’ve got a headache. I’m going to bed so I can start this travesty all over again tomorrow. Hopefully tonight was just a dream. A couple shots of Crown Royale wouldnt’ even have mad his speech more bearable. Perhaps I should have afforded myself that treat. But oh, well. Good night.
B. Jon Traylor
Jon,
I really enjoy your posts, but as we have in the past, I can’t agree with some of your post. I myself am still evaluating the new plan, and will comment when I know more of the specifics and if it will accomplish what the objective will be.
In that light, I must point out an error in your thinking that appears to be perpetrated by the liberal left and not accurate. You state “The entire idea of Al-Queda in this thesis in nothing but propoganda!!! Al-Queda didn’t exist in Iraq until we invaded,” is completely inaccurate.
“Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa’eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal….While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa’eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies. When Abu Nidal refused, Saddam ordered his intelligence chiefs to assassinate him.” (below is the link so you can read the whole article) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
I could post more information regarding Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations active in Iraq before we got there. Hope this helps. If you or anyone wants more info, let me know.
Jon,
I really enjoy your posts, but as we have in the past, I can’t agree with some of your post. I myself am still evaluating the new plan, and will comment when I know more of the specifics and if it will accomplish what the objective will be.
In that light, I must point out an error in your thinking that appears to be perpetrated by the liberal left and not accurate. You state “The entire idea of Al-Queda in this thesis in nothing but propoganda!!! Al-Queda didn’t exist in Iraq until we invaded,” is completely inaccurate.
“Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa’eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal….While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa’eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies. When Abu Nidal refused, Saddam ordered his intelligence chiefs to assassinate him.” (below is the link so you can read the whole article) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
I could post more information regarding Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations active in Iraq before we got there. Hope this helps. If you or anyone wants more info, let me know.
[Al-Queda didn't exist in Iraq until we invaded…The "insurgency" didn't exist in Iraq until we invaded and anniliated [sic] their country…]
Great post B. Jon…
Your assertion (above) contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report, which says,
“Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
“To protect his own ties with Iraq, [Hasan al-]Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54”
~9/11 Commission Report, The Foundation of the New Terrorism, page 61
The agreement brokered by al-Turabi occurred in the early 1990s. With Sudanese officials acting as intermediary, bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum in late ’94 or early ’95 to request weapons, and, according to the Report, “the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections [between bin Laden’s al Qaeda and Hussein’s Iraq].”
If, as the Report states, bin Laden recruited one soldier in Iraq prior to March 20, 2003, that places militants faithful to bin Laden in Iraq prior to the war. While you could argue that these recruits weren’t al Qaeda–in truth, they likely became members of Mullah Krekar’s Islamic Movement in Kurdistan, which would eventually merge with Jund al Islam to form Ansar al Islam–I find that a distinction without a difference.
On September 13, 2006, the Kurdish deputy prime minister of Iraq Barham Salih gave a speech at the Brookings Institute. In this speech, he said “The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told… I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam’s regime.”
Cheers,
[Al-Queda didn't exist in Iraq until we invaded…The "insurgency" didn't exist in Iraq until we invaded and anniliated [sic] their country…]
Great post B. Jon…
Your assertion (above) contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report, which says,
“Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
“To protect his own ties with Iraq, [Hasan al-]Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54”
~9/11 Commission Report, The Foundation of the New Terrorism, page 61
The agreement brokered by al-Turabi occurred in the early 1990s. With Sudanese officials acting as intermediary, bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum in late ’94 or early ’95 to request weapons, and, according to the Report, “the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections [between bin Laden’s al Qaeda and Hussein’s Iraq].”
If, as the Report states, bin Laden recruited one soldier in Iraq prior to March 20, 2003, that places militants faithful to bin Laden in Iraq prior to the war. While you could argue that these recruits weren’t al Qaeda–in truth, they likely became members of Mullah Krekar’s Islamic Movement in Kurdistan, which would eventually merge with Jund al Islam to form Ansar al Islam–I find that a distinction without a difference.
On September 13, 2006, the Kurdish deputy prime minister of Iraq Barham Salih gave a speech at the Brookings Institute. In this speech, he said “The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told… I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam’s regime.”
Cheers,
Thanks, Alpha6. Very enlightening and interesting info. I’ll definately check out that online link you mentioned.
I like that we disagree, as usual, on some specifics, and only some. I think we only disagree on certain specifics only, certain interpretations, perhaps a bit in theory. Yet, its obvious we are on the same page in regards to principal. Your intellect and facts are good. Keep it coming. Perhaps a seperate blog would be in order.
I think I’m more into policy and procedure and principal — with strong ties to emotional and passionate courage.. You seem to be more analytical and studious, and thats welcoming. Best to you… — Jon
Thanks, Alpha6. Very enlightening and interesting info. I’ll definately check out that online link you mentioned.
I like that we disagree, as usual, on some specifics, and only some. I think we only disagree on certain specifics only, certain interpretations, perhaps a bit in theory. Yet, its obvious we are on the same page in regards to principal. Your intellect and facts are good. Keep it coming. Perhaps a seperate blog would be in order.
I think I’m more into policy and procedure and principal — with strong ties to emotional and passionate courage.. You seem to be more analytical and studious, and thats welcoming. Best to you… — Jon
If I’m “perpetrated by the Liberal Left,” its certainly not by choice. What motivates me is not leaning either direction. I spend thousands of hours gathering info, from all directions, and I make my own choices, form my own opinions, and yes, document many of those on this site.
I think there is a common ground, and I truly believe that THAT common ground is the true grassroots America.
Thats where I live, where I came from, where I’ll be buried (and yes, that spot about 13,500 feet, above timberline, is virgin common ground.)
Mitch Mulhall also intrigues me. Great reply, Mitch. Thank you. Interesting info. I’ll check in to that more too. (FYI, I’m not just about laying it out there in writing…. I like replies such as those from you two that motivate me to investigate and research more. The two of you, (as well as Star Eagle and others) add a wealth of direction and understanding to this site. Thank you both. Lets keep it rolling.. — Jon
If I’m “perpetrated by the Liberal Left,” its certainly not by choice. What motivates me is not leaning either direction. I spend thousands of hours gathering info, from all directions, and I make my own choices, form my own opinions, and yes, document many of those on this site.
I think there is a common ground, and I truly believe that THAT common ground is the true grassroots America.
Thats where I live, where I came from, where I’ll be buried (and yes, that spot about 13,500 feet, above timberline, is virgin common ground.)
Mitch Mulhall also intrigues me. Great reply, Mitch. Thank you. Interesting info. I’ll check in to that more too. (FYI, I’m not just about laying it out there in writing…. I like replies such as those from you two that motivate me to investigate and research more. The two of you, (as well as Star Eagle and others) add a wealth of direction and understanding to this site. Thank you both. Lets keep it rolling.. — Jon
B. Jon–
Thanks for the kind remarks.
I feel strongly that if I am going to comment on someone’s blog, my remarks should be constructive. Yea, I push those bounds from time to time… but not today.
I too am still digesting the larger implications of troop surge, which made my earlier comment a welcome diversion.
BTW, we have more in common than concern over the President’s proposed troop surge. I attended undergraduate school in West Texas….
Cheers,
B. Jon–
Thanks for the kind remarks.
I feel strongly that if I am going to comment on someone’s blog, my remarks should be constructive. Yea, I push those bounds from time to time… but not today.
I too am still digesting the larger implications of troop surge, which made my earlier comment a welcome diversion.
BTW, we have more in common than concern over the President’s proposed troop surge. I attended undergraduate school in West Texas….
Cheers,
I’ll never forget a 60 minutes segment in the 80′s where they filmed a journalist under cover purchasing a one way airline ticket under the name ‘abu nidal’ with cash.
“name please sir…”
“uh, Abu, Nidal, Mister…”
I’ll never forget a 60 minutes segment in the 80′s where they filmed a journalist under cover purchasing a one way airline ticket under the name ‘abu nidal’ with cash.
“name please sir…”
“uh, Abu, Nidal, Mister…”
“and your puppy’s name sir? ”
“isn’t he cute? I call him ‘jihad’”
“and your puppy’s name sir? ”
“isn’t he cute? I call him ‘jihad’”
and he had the balls to request a vegetarian meal for his puppy.
and he had the balls to request a vegetarian meal for his puppy.