Experts Say U.S. Is Losing War On Terror - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug · 11-01-2005, 10:07 AM

Isn't this becoming painfully apparent?

---------------------------------------------------------------
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing.

Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in
Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say
President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in
Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.

America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take more than a generation to set right. And Bush's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold U.S. initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism, they say.

"It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999.

"We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview.

Benjamin and Simon, a former State Department official who was also at the NSC, are co-authors of a new book titled: "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right" (Times Books).

Following on from their 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House), Benjamin and Simon list what they call U.S. missteps since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

The Bush administration presents the war on terrorism as a difficult but largely successful struggle that has seen the gutting of al Qaeda's pre-September 11 leadership and prevented new attacks in the United States over the past four years.

Bush said last month the United States and its allies had disrupted plans for 10 al Qaeda attacks since September 11, including one against West Coast targets with hijacked planes.

The White House describes Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism and says the building of democracy there will confound militant aims and help to propel the entire Middle East region toward democracy.

Benjamin and Simon's criticism of the Bush administration in Iraq follows a path similar to those of other critics, including former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.

"We may be attacked by terrorists who receive their training in Iraq, or attacked by terrorists who were inspired, organized and trained by people who were in Iraq," said Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University.

"(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially."
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/8bpod

Hotrod · 11-01-2005, 10:13 AM

"the two former Clinton administration officials say"

I stopped reading when I got to this point.

Rascal · 11-01-2005, 10:21 AM

Glad I wasn't the only one...a truly unbiased analysis

Bronco_Beerslug · 11-01-2005, 10:32 AM

I guess I can't blame Bush supporters for wanting to forget about what's really happening in Iraq.

-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq for Oct. Up to 93
By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 1,10:12 AM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. Army soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in central
Iraq, the military said Tuesday, raising to at least 93 the number of American service members who died in October, the fourth-deadliest month for the troops in the Iraq war.

The soldier, whose name was not released, was killed Monday when a bomb exploded near his foot patrol in Haswah, 31 miles south of Baghdad, the military said. The soldier was the seventh American service member killed Monday in three separate attacks.

All were victims of homemade bombs, which the military refers to as "improvised explosive devices," or IEDs.

The deaths raised to at least 2,026 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The U.S. military death toll for October is now at least 93, the highest monthly total since January, when 106 American service members died — more than 30 of them in a helicopter crash that was ruled an accident.

Only during two other months since the war began has the U.S. military seen a higher toll: in November 2004, when 137 Americans died, and in April 2004, when 135 died.

Four roadside bombs exploded Tuesday — three in Baghdad and one south of the capital — killing two Iraqis and wounding four others, and drive-by shootings killed two police officers and an Iraqi physician, officials said.

In Kirkuk, 180 miles north of Baghdad, a suicide attacker detonated explosives hidden beneath his clothes while lunging at a police patrol stuck in traffic, wounding the city's police commander and his driver, police said.

In Kuwait, a U.S. military investigating officer recommended a court-martial for a National Guard soldier charged with killing two of his superiors in Iraq this summer and raised the possibility of a death sentence.

Col. Patrick Reinert said he found "reasonable cause" to believe that Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez of Troy, N.Y., used an anti-personnel mine and three grenades to kill a captain and a lieutenant in a "personal vendetta."

It was believed to be first case of an American soldier in Iraq accused of killing his superiors. Martinez's defense counsel had argued there was no real evidence against their client.

Military commanders have warned that Sunni insurgents will step up their attacks before the Dec. 15 election, when Iraqis will choose their first full-term parliament since the collapse of
Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003.

To guard against such attacks, the military has raised the number of American troops in Iraq to 157,000 — among the highest levels of the Iraq conflict.

On Tuesday, the U.S. command issued a report showing its efforts to combat the threat from IEDs, which have emerged as the deadliest weapon in the insurgent arsenal. The report, summarizing combat operations around Baghdad during a five-day period, said U.S. forces had found several powerful roadside bombs hidden in two vehicles Saturday.

"We're getting more intelligence that's allowing us to stop more of these things, find more of them. So we're learning from them and the enemy is learning from us, and it's going to be that way for as long as there is an insurgency," said
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita.

On Friday, soldiers caught three suspected insurgents planting a bomb on the side of a street and defused it. On Thursday, soldiers chased three Iraqi men into a nearby home after a bombing and found bomb-making materials, the military said.

Also on Friday, an IED killed Col. William W. Wood, 44, of Panama City, Fla., an infantry battalion commander. He was promoted posthumously, making him the highest-ranking soldier killed in action in the Iraq conflict, according to the Pentagon.

Bombs have also taken a heavy toll on Iraqis.

On Monday, a powerful roadside bomb exploded among civilians in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city and the major metropolis of the Shiite-dominated south, which has witnessed less violence than Sunni areas. Police said 20 were killed and 71 wounded. The attack occurred along a busy street packed with shops and restaurants as people were enjoying an evening out after the daily fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

To mark Eid al-Fitr, the holiday that concludes Ramadan, 500 detainees were released Tuesday from
Abu Ghraib, the notorious U.S.-run prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Meanwhile, an Internet message posted Tuesday in the name of al-Qaida in Iraq said two kidnapped Moroccans were to stand trial in an Islamic court.

On Oct. 25, the group claimed to have abducted the two, identified by the Moroccan government as Abdelkrim el Mouhafidi and Abderrahim Boualam, employees of its Baghdad embassy who were kidnapped while driving back from Jordan.

The authenticity of the statement could not be verified, but it was posted on an Islamic Web site known for publishing the group's material.

Al-Qaida in Iraq has claimed responsibility for executing numerous hostages, including diplomats from Egypt and Algeria.
http://tinyurl.com/bwabh

Bronco_Beerslug · 11-01-2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotrod

"the two former Clinton administration officials say"

I stopped reading when I got to this point.

Of course you and Rascal would, why even research the authors, that would be tantamount to NOT voting strict party lines.

STEVEN SIMON, assistant director and senior fellow for U.S. Security Studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, served on the National Security Council staff as director for global issues from 1994 to 1998 and senior director for counterterrorism from 1998 to 1999. Prior to entering the administration, he held several positions at the U.S. Department of State dealing with regional security and nonproliferation. He holds degrees from Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton and was an international-affairs fellow at Oxford University.

DANIEL BENJAMIN, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff from 1998 to 1999 and as special assistant and foreign-policy speechwriter for President Clinton from 1994 to 1997. Prior to entering the administration, he was Berlin bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal and has been a foreign correspondent for Time. He holds degrees from Harvard and Oxford, where he was a Marshall Scholar.
http://tinyurl.com/bp85x

---------------------------------------------
Best book on Terrorism yet, May 21, 2005
Reviewer: J. Allen (Ashburn, VA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
If you're interested in how today's current terrorist threat evolved over the centuries, through the 1980's Afghanistan War, and throughout the 1990s - read this book. I have given out many copies after first reading it. I had an opportunity to spend two hours with Dan Benjamin in a very small group setting after reading this book. He's a wonderful person, very passionate about the subject, and extremely non-political - unlike other counterterrorism authors coming out of the intelligence community.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Fundamental Islam not all encompassing, May 18, 2005
Reviewer: Leila Compton (USA) - See all my reviews
A good book to help understand fundamental Islam, however it is also important to understand ordinary Arabs (so as not to make prejudgements), the majority of who have nothing to do with terrorism. A great book that does this is Arab Voices Speak to American Hearts @ www.arabvoicesspeak.com.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
A must read!, March 16, 2005
Reviewer: J. Grammer (Iraq) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
The Age of Sacred Terror is a good book that details the modern threat of terrorism. It explains the roots of the ideology of what is known as Wahhabism. Wahhabism is said to be the excuse that people like Osama bin Ladin use to spread his hatred. This book gives you the history of Wahhabism and the link it has to terrorism. The book truly illustrates the new threat that the world faces and that we should not underestimate religious radical groups and what they are capable of achieving. The one problem I did see with the book is that it uses unnecessary words that require a dictionary and long tangent explanations. Over all I loved the book. I would recommend this book to all studiers of terrorism.

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
Interesting conclusions, August 30, 2004
Reviewer: M. D. Cook "mrmatto" (Southern Mississippi) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I read this book quite carefully trying to detect any bias from the authors. It seemed as if this book gave more credit to Clinton then he deserved. While I don't have the insights into what was going on in Washington and Clinton's mind at the time of his presidency I find it hard to believe that he was focused as clearly on terrorism as the authors claim. It appears from other works that I have read that he was much more focused on saving his presidency and creating his legacy.
That said, the first half of this book was very enlightening on the mind set of modern islamic terrorism.
I recommend this book to anyone wanting to increase their understanding. You should also read "Bin Laden, the man who declared war on America".

Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
Everything we needed to know, and could have, May 9, 2004
Reviewer: C. Cleveland (Dryden, NY United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
The Age of Sacred Terror tells us everything we needed to know about Al Qaeda immediately after 9/11. Which is, of course, everything we needed to know *before* 9/11. And it then turns out that we could have known just these facts before 9/11, that the authors and others were trying to tell us what this new threat was, and where it came from, and how it should change our international policy priorities and our domestic security aims. Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Simon were ideally placed in the Clinton administration's counterterrorism structure to acquire most of the knowledge the US government had about Al Qaeda and its ancestor organizations in the Middle East. They also have a thoroughly scholarly bent, and are able to summarize admirably the origins of a particular interpretation of one of the Five Pillars of Islam in the 12th century. It is this interpretation of what constitutes Jihad that informs Usama bin Laden's thought, and enables him to convert disaffected Muslims to his cause and to inspire them to dedicated and often successful acts of terror against civilian populations, which may include other Muslims. The history Simon and Benjamin tell is detailed, insightful, and fascinating. For those who had the acumen to look for patterns in the strategies of the organizations that preceded bin Laden's, it seems almost obvious what we should have expected from Al Qaeda at any time after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and certainly after the embassy bombings in 1998. But it only seems obvious because Simon and Benjamin expose the pattern superbly. Although the authors maintain a scholarly and balanced tone of voice throughout, they are never dry and they are often insightful.

The authors move on, after describing Al Qaeda's first incursion onto American soil, and their succeeding, always more ambitious plots, to a thorough history of the efforts of the Clinton administration to deal with a threat they perceived remarkably well, considering they were working on the problem at least six years before the towers fell. Each of the organizations with major roles in the catastrophic failure of intelligence that was 9/11 is analyzed, and its successes and failures noted. The major personalities of the heads of these organizations are sketched insightfully, and both the powers they had and the constraints they worked under are scrutinized. Among the conclusions I drew is that America is paying an awful lot of money to enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to misprioritize their work and noncommunicate with each other.

And Al Qaeda is still out there. This war has just begun, and all of us are soldiers in it, because we are civilians. Stateless terrorism knows it doesn't have to fight our armies to defeat us. If we missed the first announcement of the war, there is no longer any excuse to avoid meeting our enemy, and this book is an excellent place to start. It is impossible for me to imagine a better place to start.
CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/d8r9o

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-02-2005, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotrod

"the two former Clinton administration officials say"

I stopped reading when I got to this point.

Yeppers.

Every smart right-winger knows the statement "2+2=4" is false when a former Clinton administration official makes it.

rofl

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-02-2005, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Of course you and Rascal would, why even research the authors, that would be tantamount to NOT voting strict party lines.

Exactly.

And notice how they don't challenge any of the substance of the piece you posted?

Just the same old "attack the messenger and pretend you've discredited the message" con we've seen a million times before.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-02-2005, 03:49 AM

Hotrod · 11-02-2005, 07:06 AM

Ya like you would take a long objective look at an article written by a couple of Bush admin peeps saying "War in Iraq going better then hoped"

bendog · 11-02-2005, 07:18 AM

You can argue it both ways, I suppose. In a way, Iraq seems to be getting better, with at least some sunnis wanting to vote for a new parliment, but then on the other hand, both spain and brits were attacked because of Iraq, and brits didn't even involve al queda, just po'd muslims, and I read on yahoo news yesterday some iraqies saying anyone with skills had left the country to avoid the terrorists. Now it seems inevitable that we'll have troops there trying to prop up their govt through the next admin.

Wouldn't everyone be able to agree that the "war on terror" is best waged by pointing out that fundy islam is not about allowing people to make choices for themselves and increasing peoples standard of living and health? Imo, bushii had that partly in mind in invading Iraq.

Antilles · 11-02-2005, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotrod

"the two former Clinton administration officials say"

I stopped reading when I got to this point.

hahaha so did I. And I actually happen to believe the premise of the article.

Bronco_Beerslug · 11-02-2005, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Ya like you would take a long objective look at an article written by a couple of Bush admin peeps saying "War in Iraq going better then hoped"

Of course there are many other people who see the same thing...

------------------------------------------------

Senior CIA Officer Says U.S. Losing Terror War
http://tinyurl.com/dorop

CIA report says Iraq is becoming an urban warfare training ground for terrorists.
http://tinyurl.com/cftk5

Bush administration eliminating 19-year-old international terrorism report

By Jonathan S. Landay
WASHINGTON - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.
http://tinyurl.com/domdo

War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told
Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency

By Dana Priest and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 17, 2005;

The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday.

"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/4qyak

Rascal · 11-02-2005, 08:50 AM

Experts Say US is Winning War on Terror

U.S. terrorism experts Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is winning.

Point made?

W*GS · 11-02-2005, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Every smart right-winger knows the statement "2+2=4" is false when a former Clinton administration official makes it.

Likewise, every time a Bush administration official, a Republican, a conservative, or just about anyone else who doesn't agree with your ideology says "2 + 2 = 4", they're a Nazi, sociopathic, racist, kool-aid drinking, neo-fascist, right-wing-nut, scum.

Hotrod · 11-02-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rascal

Experts Say US is Winning War on Terror

U.S. terrorism experts Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is winning.

Point made?

See now that seems more reliable right there

bendog · 11-03-2005, 12:43 PM

What concerns me is IraN (NOT IRAQ, a typo) and less so NK, and both show what seems to me the basic flaw in dubya's attempts at foreign policy ... and both go back to wolfowitz. Our invasion of Iraq so pissed off the arab street that the reformers who used to consistently win at the polls, and thus limited to a degree what autocratic/anti-west policies the mullahs could pull off, got tossed out on their ears. Most Iranians, even the young adn potentially west friendly, want a nuke bomb. Most Iranians want their country to have prestige, but with bushii's emphasis on Uninlateral military confrontation, their response is Unilateral military confrontation.

Wolfowitz got fired from the Reagan admin for his desire to confront China militarily and eschew diplomatic relations with them. BushI never even hired the guy. Enter dubya and the tough words about we won't deal with Kim. Then, we found out that Japan, Taiwan and esp S.Korea told us to take a hike on that crap. Then we found that China was the best avenue we had. And Wolfowitz got a promotion to the World Bank.

Bushii had an inkling that promoting individ liberty and the right of nations to take their own destiny into their own control were our biggest weapons against fundy islam. Unfortunately he just didn't have the stones/seasoning to avoid being the bullying little cowboy he became, and it's too late for him to regain the US's lost prestige now. Maybe the next admin can do better.

Meck77 · 11-03-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotrod

"the two former Clinton administration officials say"

I stopped reading when I got to this point.

lol.........

Slug can you please summarize Clinton's successful war on terror? Oh wait there was no war on terror then. Our country was asleep enjoying Gore's internet invention and watching Yahoo shares sore to 300 bucks a share. Now that was a solid economy.

Have you read the book "The world is flat yet" like I recommended. The interenet bubble was a great time but man are we paying the price for it now.

We were a bunch of fools asleep at the wheel then. I'm not saying things are perfect. Not even close but atleast we were humbled by the SECOND attack on our world trade centers. Our admin at the time swept the first one under the rug while Monica took care of the real important matters at the white house.

alkemical · 11-03-2005, 01:43 PM

Actually the stage for the current geopolitical climate was started from the overthrow of the Shah, and intensified through the late70's-80's. So In reality Clinton, like the rest of us - paid no attention to radical islam. Can he be blamed. Could be/should be? I guess it's up to whether you want to argue semantics. I could say that putting saddam in power, or overthrowing the shah could make better arguments for today's issues.....

But to argue over who is to blame doesn't solve the problem, it distracts us from the solution.

Fact: We won't win the war on terror with the current model of engagement. We should switch it to an economical based form of warfar and try to find a way to reduce our dependancy on oil. We use oil like a herion addict.

If we were to find a way to augment and induce a little change in how we Americans live our life, we can strengthen our future.

Meck77 · 11-03-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amesj523

But to argue over who is to blame doesn't solve the problem, it distracts us from the solution.

.

Very valid point. However the battle between muslims and christians began much ealier than this. If I had to pick a major turning point of events in the last century I'd look to the middle east in the late 40's myself.

alkemical · 11-03-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meck77

Very valid point. However the battle between muslims and christians began much ealier than this. If I had to pick a major turning point of events in the last century I'd look to the middle east in the late 40's myself.

Look, being humans, we aren't going to rid ourselves of competition. Competition is even on a microbial scale -

But what has created a greater or bigger benifit:

Our competition with Japan during WWII

or

Or economic competition with Japan since?

Bronco_Beerslug · 11-03-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meck77

lol.........

Slug can you please summarize Clinton's successful war on terror? Oh wait there was no war on terror then. Our country was asleep enjoying Gore's internet invention and watching Yahoo shares sore to 300 bucks a share. Now that was a solid economy.

Have you read the book "The world is flat yet" like I recommended. The interenet bubble was a great time but man are we paying the price for it now.

We were a bunch of fools asleep at the wheel then. I'm not saying things are perfect. Not even close but atleast we were humbled by the SECOND attack on our world trade centers. Our admin at the time swept the first one under the rug while Monica took care of the real important matters at the white house.

Ah, equating lying about a blow job to lying a country to war. Brilliant!

Who said Clinton won the war on terror? To boast of ignorance (about sources based on party affiliation) doesn't speak well of ones education or knowledge.

And to further dismiss the ineptness, deception and outright lies of the Bush administration based on what Clinton did or didn't do, said or didn't say, is
sticking your head under rock and hoping the sh*t doesn't land on you.

It's obvious that Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq has added MORE terrorists to the world not less, by our own government's admission.

Have you seen the latest numbers on Bush? He just caught up with Nixon.
To ignore the damage this administration has done to this country is what really is unpatriotic!

Broncos Rule · 11-03-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amesj523

Look, being humans, we aren't going to rid ourselves of competition. Competition is even on a microbial scale -

But what has created a greater or bigger benifit:

Our competition with Japan during WWII

or

Or economic competition with Japan since?

The economic competition with Japan was not even remotely possible untill we first:

Militarily squashed them like a bug,

Nuked 'em twice,

and Occupied their ass with a bigger standing army than the one presently in Iraq for TEN YEARS and generally treated them like children - telling them exactly what to do and how to do it.

Was there any other way? Perhaps, but the course that was followed resulted in the thriving economy/democracy/culture that is modern Japan.

A similar level of commitment to Iraq would undoubtedly yeild similar results -

in a similar time frame.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-03-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meck77

lol.........

Slug can you please summarize Clinton's successful war on terror?

The only summary that matters:

Number of Americans killed by terrorism during Clinton's eight-year watch:

34 (Mostly overseas.)

How many thousands did the court-appointed pinhead lose in his first year alone?

enjolras · 11-03-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broncos Rule

The economic competition with Japan was not even remotely possible untill we first:

Militarily squashed them like a bug,

Nuked 'em twice,

and Occupied their ass with a bigger standing army than the one presently in Iraq for TEN YEARS and generally treated them like children - telling them exactly what to do and how to do it.

Was there any other way? Perhaps, but the course that was followed resulted in the thriving economy/democracy/culture that is modern Japan.

A similar level of commitment to Iraq would undoubtedly yeild similar results -

in a similar time frame.

Bingo...

After the initial failings in motivating the war in the first place, we've proceeded to make a bad situation worse by refusing to truly commit to finishing what we started.

Pulling out isn't the answer.. we need to go all in.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-03-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broncos Rule

The economic competition with Japan was not even remotely possible untill we first:

Militarily squashed them like a bug,

Nuked 'em twice,

and Occupied their ass with a bigger standing army than the one presently in Iraq for TEN YEARS and generally treated them like children - telling them exactly what to do and how to do it.

Was there any other way? Perhaps, but the course that was followed resulted in the thriving economy/democracy/culture that is modern Japan.

A similar level of commitment to Iraq would undoubtedly yeild similar results -

in a similar time frame.

So you're suggesting that we nuke Iraq twice? rofl

The war against Japan was a conventional war against a conventional army.

The war in Iraq is a guerilla war which is more similar to Vietnam than WWII.

Check your history book and see where all the bombing and overwhelmingly superior military force got us there.

While you're at it, go back even further and read about what happened to every invading power that has tried to colonize Iraq.

11-01-2005, 10:07 AM	#1
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	Experts Say U.S. Is Losing War On Terror Isn't this becoming painfully apparent? --------------------------------------------------------------- By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing. Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States. America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take more than a generation to set right. And Bush's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold U.S. initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism, they say. "It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999. "We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview. Benjamin and Simon, a former State Department official who was also at the NSC, are co-authors of a new book titled: "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right" (Times Books). Following on from their 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House), Benjamin and Simon list what they call U.S. missteps since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America. The Bush administration presents the war on terrorism as a difficult but largely successful struggle that has seen the gutting of al Qaeda's pre-September 11 leadership and prevented new attacks in the United States over the past four years. Bush said last month the United States and its allies had disrupted plans for 10 al Qaeda attacks since September 11, including one against West Coast targets with hijacked planes. The White House describes Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism and says the building of democracy there will confound militant aims and help to propel the entire Middle East region toward democracy. Benjamin and Simon's criticism of the Bush administration in Iraq follows a path similar to those of other critics, including former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. "We may be attacked by terrorists who receive their training in Iraq, or attacked by terrorists who were inspired, organized and trained by people who were in Iraq," said Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University. "(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially." (CONTINUED) http://tinyurl.com/8bpod

11-03-2005, 12:43 PM	#16
bendog Marginally Continent David Bowens, he'd be an upgrade Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 19,935 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bowens	What concerns me is IraN (NOT IRAQ, a typo) and less so NK, and both show what seems to me the basic flaw in dubya's attempts at foreign policy ... and both go back to wolfowitz. Our invasion of Iraq so pissed off the arab street that the reformers who used to consistently win at the polls, and thus limited to a degree what autocratic/anti-west policies the mullahs could pull off, got tossed out on their ears. Most Iranians, even the young adn potentially west friendly, want a nuke bomb. Most Iranians want their country to have prestige, but with bushii's emphasis on Uninlateral military confrontation, their response is Unilateral military confrontation. Wolfowitz got fired from the Reagan admin for his desire to confront China militarily and eschew diplomatic relations with them. BushI never even hired the guy. Enter dubya and the tough words about we won't deal with Kim. Then, we found out that Japan, Taiwan and esp S.Korea told us to take a hike on that crap. Then we found that China was the best avenue we had. And Wolfowitz got a promotion to the World Bank. Bushii had an inkling that promoting individ liberty and the right of nations to take their own destiny into their own control were our biggest weapons against fundy islam. Unfortunately he just didn't have the stones/seasoning to avoid being the bullying little cowboy he became, and it's too late for him to regain the US's lost prestige now. Maybe the next admin can do better. Last edited by bendog; 11-03-2005 at 01:55 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-01-2005, 10:13 AM	#2
Hotrod Self Appointed Expert aka Dortoh Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 25,136 Adopt-a-Bronco: Miss I	"the two former Clinton administration officials say" I stopped reading when I got to this point.

11-01-2005, 10:21 AM	#3
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,581 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	Glad I wasn't the only one...a truly unbiased analysis

11-01-2005, 10:32 AM	#4
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	I guess I can't blame Bush supporters for wanting to forget about what's really happening in Iraq. ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Death Toll in Iraq for Oct. Up to 93 By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 1,10:12 AM ET BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. Army soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in central Iraq, the military said Tuesday, raising to at least 93 the number of American service members who died in October, the fourth-deadliest month for the troops in the Iraq war. The soldier, whose name was not released, was killed Monday when a bomb exploded near his foot patrol in Haswah, 31 miles south of Baghdad, the military said. The soldier was the seventh American service member killed Monday in three separate attacks. All were victims of homemade bombs, which the military refers to as "improvised explosive devices," or IEDs. The deaths raised to at least 2,026 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The U.S. military death toll for October is now at least 93, the highest monthly total since January, when 106 American service members died — more than 30 of them in a helicopter crash that was ruled an accident. Only during two other months since the war began has the U.S. military seen a higher toll: in November 2004, when 137 Americans died, and in April 2004, when 135 died. Four roadside bombs exploded Tuesday — three in Baghdad and one south of the capital — killing two Iraqis and wounding four others, and drive-by shootings killed two police officers and an Iraqi physician, officials said. In Kirkuk, 180 miles north of Baghdad, a suicide attacker detonated explosives hidden beneath his clothes while lunging at a police patrol stuck in traffic, wounding the city's police commander and his driver, police said. In Kuwait, a U.S. military investigating officer recommended a court-martial for a National Guard soldier charged with killing two of his superiors in Iraq this summer and raised the possibility of a death sentence. Col. Patrick Reinert said he found "reasonable cause" to believe that Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez of Troy, N.Y., used an anti-personnel mine and three grenades to kill a captain and a lieutenant in a "personal vendetta." It was believed to be first case of an American soldier in Iraq accused of killing his superiors. Martinez's defense counsel had argued there was no real evidence against their client. Military commanders have warned that Sunni insurgents will step up their attacks before the Dec. 15 election, when Iraqis will choose their first full-term parliament since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. To guard against such attacks, the military has raised the number of American troops in Iraq to 157,000 — among the highest levels of the Iraq conflict. On Tuesday, the U.S. command issued a report showing its efforts to combat the threat from IEDs, which have emerged as the deadliest weapon in the insurgent arsenal. The report, summarizing combat operations around Baghdad during a five-day period, said U.S. forces had found several powerful roadside bombs hidden in two vehicles Saturday. "We're getting more intelligence that's allowing us to stop more of these things, find more of them. So we're learning from them and the enemy is learning from us, and it's going to be that way for as long as there is an insurgency," said Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita. On Friday, soldiers caught three suspected insurgents planting a bomb on the side of a street and defused it. On Thursday, soldiers chased three Iraqi men into a nearby home after a bombing and found bomb-making materials, the military said. Also on Friday, an IED killed Col. William W. Wood, 44, of Panama City, Fla., an infantry battalion commander. He was promoted posthumously, making him the highest-ranking soldier killed in action in the Iraq conflict, according to the Pentagon. Bombs have also taken a heavy toll on Iraqis. On Monday, a powerful roadside bomb exploded among civilians in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city and the major metropolis of the Shiite-dominated south, which has witnessed less violence than Sunni areas. Police said 20 were killed and 71 wounded. The attack occurred along a busy street packed with shops and restaurants as people were enjoying an evening out after the daily fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. To mark Eid al-Fitr, the holiday that concludes Ramadan, 500 detainees were released Tuesday from Abu Ghraib, the notorious U.S.-run prison on the outskirts of Baghdad. Meanwhile, an Internet message posted Tuesday in the name of al-Qaida in Iraq said two kidnapped Moroccans were to stand trial in an Islamic court. On Oct. 25, the group claimed to have abducted the two, identified by the Moroccan government as Abdelkrim el Mouhafidi and Abderrahim Boualam, employees of its Baghdad embassy who were kidnapped while driving back from Jordan. The authenticity of the statement could not be verified, but it was posted on an Islamic Web site known for publishing the group's material. Al-Qaida in Iraq has claimed responsibility for executing numerous hostages, including diplomats from Egypt and Algeria. http://tinyurl.com/bwabh

11-02-2005, 03:49 AM	#8
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694

11-02-2005, 07:06 AM	#9
Hotrod Self Appointed Expert aka Dortoh Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 25,136 Adopt-a-Bronco: Miss I	Ya like you would take a long objective look at an article written by a couple of Bush admin peeps saying "War in Iraq going better then hoped"

11-02-2005, 07:18 AM	#10
bendog Marginally Continent David Bowens, he'd be an upgrade Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 19,935 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bowens	You can argue it both ways, I suppose. In a way, Iraq seems to be getting better, with at least some sunnis wanting to vote for a new parliment, but then on the other hand, both spain and brits were attacked because of Iraq, and brits didn't even involve al queda, just po'd muslims, and I read on yahoo news yesterday some iraqies saying anyone with skills had left the country to avoid the terrorists. Now it seems inevitable that we'll have troops there trying to prop up their govt through the next admin. Wouldn't everyone be able to agree that the "war on terror" is best waged by pointing out that fundy islam is not about allowing people to make choices for themselves and increasing peoples standard of living and health? Imo, bushii had that partly in mind in invading Iraq.

11-02-2005, 08:50 AM	#13
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,581 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	Experts Say US is Winning War on Terror U.S. terrorism experts Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is winning. Point made?

11-03-2005, 01:43 PM	#18
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,693 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	Actually the stage for the current geopolitical climate was started from the overthrow of the Shah, and intensified through the late70's-80's. So In reality Clinton, like the rest of us - paid no attention to radical islam. Can he be blamed. Could be/should be? I guess it's up to whether you want to argue semantics. I could say that putting saddam in power, or overthrowing the shah could make better arguments for today's issues..... But to argue over who is to blame doesn't solve the problem, it distracts us from the solution. Fact: We won't win the war on terror with the current model of engagement. We should switch it to an economical based form of warfar and try to find a way to reduce our dependancy on oil. We use oil like a herion addict. If we were to find a way to augment and induce a little change in how we Americans live our life, we can strengthen our future.