Hannah Allam and Adam Baron:
WASHINGTON — The rise in prominence of Nasir al Wuhayshi, the Yemeni head of al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, underscores the transformation of al Qaida from a relatively small group led by one charismatic man into a diffuse global organization with many branches that pursue local objectives but follow a single ideology, according to counterterrorism analysts and officials.
The change has undermined the Obama administration’s boast that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have “decimated” what’s been called core al Qaida, according to veteran al Qaida watchers. Instead, the organization, no longer dependent on the leadership of a single personality, is growing, with authority now spread among leaders not just in Yemen but also in Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Egypt’s Sinai. The branches that operate in those regions aren’t affiliates, the experts say, they’re al Qaida.
The experts are still uncertain how the various leaders of al Qaida interact with one another, and there are signs that Ayman al Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor who was named to lead al Qaida after U.S. special forces shot and killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, still holds special influence.
But experts say it’s no longer accurate to talk about a core al Qaida that’s in charge of groups operating in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Iraq and Syria.
“The great fiction al Qaida perpetrated on the West is that a centralized, hierarchical group controlled things from a cave in Afghanistan. That might’ve been true five years ago, but it’s certainly not true now,” said Christopher Swift, an adjunct professor of national security studies at Georgetown University who advises U.S. officials on counterterrorism strategy.
A blog post by the Long War Journal, a publication associated with Washington’s Foundation for Defense of Democracies, declared this week that “it is quite obvious that the very narrow definition used by so many is flat wrong.”
The role of Zawahiri is still in question; an intercepted directive from Zawahiri to Wuhayshi to launch an attack is thought to have been the trigger for the U.S. decision to close diplomatic posts in 16 countries this week. But whatever his role, analysts say, it’s important for U.S. officials to grasp that the core is no longer essential for the survival of al Qaida – by now more a movement than a group.
Why would obama keep saying that al Qaida is shrinking if it is really growing? What if he really wants it to grow, but he doesn’t want us to know that? Looking at the situation from that angle, what is going on in his administration makes a whole lot more sense to me. A simple question I have started asking myself is, “Who’s side is he on?” Originally, he didn’t wear the American flag pin. Why?
Would you wear a flag pin of Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, etc., to public events? Not if you are loyal to YOUR country of the USA. You show your loyalty to your country or causes you believe in by wearing a symbol of that loyalty. A wedding ring shows loyalty to a partner. obama’s ring isn’t really a wedding ring. He wore it while he was in college. Why didn’t he want to replace it with a REAL wedding ring to show Michelle he will be loyal to her?
Why hasn’t obama told us about the ring? He has to know that there are stories going around about it. Things that obama wants to hide, he doesn’t talk about. To me, him not talking about it means there is something about it he doesn’t want us to know. What? Why hasn’t the propaganda media covered the story? If there is nothing to the accusations, they would be telling it to the world.
Read the articles and decide for yourself.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/10/does-obamas-mystery-ring-really-have-there-is-no-god-except-allah-inscribed-in-arabic/
Al Qaeda is growing and evolving to survive.
Our very own strategies have forced some of these changes.
For instance, remember the ”deck of cards?”
We did more than just kill a leader or two, we looked for and killed or captured dozens of top lieutenants.
So, what did al Qaeda do?
It stopped creating top lieutenants.
Now it has ”cells.”
There might be a leader of the cell and he might have a mentor, but, if that entire cell goes, so what?
Others are ready to replace them.
When cells were in close touch with a certain leader, he and they might be at more risk of being targets.
So, cells are NOT in close touch.
How do cells get their orders?
Well, they are more like suggestions than orders.
Often times they are in the pages of Inspire magazine.
Other times they come from a Friday prayer at a Mosque.
That’s why we saw pressure cooker bombs.
That’s also why we saw riots over a set of cartoons.
That’s why we are seeing acid thrown at Christian girls in Muslim lands.
These are not centralized orders, but suggestions.
The groups are still ”the base.” (al Qaeda)
My hope is that they become so enamored with their own little part of being all hard-line Islamist that they fractionate and hate other parts of ”the base.”
Islam seems to create more factions all the time.
Makes sense.
Islam is from Satan the Deceiver, the Devil.
His works include fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, ….
The post from the McClatchy writers references the Long War Journal.
This war against Islamic expansionism will make the Hundred Years War look like a walk in the park…..or we will lose.
Obama said a scary thing the other day.
He was talking about the situation in the ME and he made it sound like we should do all we can to prevent Muslims from becoming angry at us, so as to have peace…..in other words it sounded like Obama was suggesting we should become Dhimmis, protected peoples of a lower status than Muslims. Second-class people who are debased and pay a special tax to be allowed to live.
What was true 5 years ago is no longer true now, because a highly effective Obama administration policy has effectively eliminated not only the guy who was once in a cave in Afghanistan, but nearly all of the formerly centralized Qaeda leadership structure as well.
Deal with it.
Obama wasn’t even correct about U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have “decimated” what’s been called core al Qaida.
Look up “Nasir al Wuhayshi,” the Yemeni head of al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
By what standard is Wuhayshi today not a core member of al Qaeda?
Is the reason simply that he lives in Yemen, and not Afghanistan or Pakistan?
Obama is wrong on every count.
Mata posted the link to the referenced Long War Journal article on another thread which is below. It provides an excellent assessment of how AQ has morphed which has given some the false impression that they are hurting because of recent losses. Anyone implying that they are on the ropes obviously have no clue as to how wars evolve. Each side adapts its tactics to the others’ which is obviously what is happening here. It’s never ending cycle that will end only when one side is defeated. AQ is nowhere near being defeated. Anyone implying so is living in a dream world and a dangerous one at that. If anything, they have increased their gains in the ME over the last few years. For instance, when was the last the time they were able to plan something that would cause all of these embassy closures? Hardly the sign of a severely weakened organization.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/08/is_al_qaeda_defeated.php
That was a great analysis, AV. But in all fairness, the LWJ article they were talking about was a more recent article, confirming Eli Lake’s article at the Daily Beast. What they said was that the AQ intercept communications were, *in part*, responsible for the embassy closures. (Original blog post with similar name can be read here with the quote used above about “narrow definition”.)
They also note that it’s not really a “conference call”, and that the intel was mined by more complex methods. But they declined to state how they were obtained at US officials requests. They respect the “need to know” aspect, and don’t care to reveal how the US may be tapping into communications that AQ may be unaware of.
INRE morphing tactics and strategy… well, it only takes one or two loons to do significant damage. Ft. Hood and the Boston Marathon are poignant reminders of that fact. Last year’s Sept 11th protests all over the ME at US embassies, regardless of their reason, should put diplomats on their toes as to the continued inherent dangers to US facilities abroad.
@Greg: Obviously those people who were eliminated were replaced by someone. I wouldn’t be running around giving any victory lap speeches. BTW, plenty of AQ leadership was eliminated prior to Obama. The suggestions that the Obama administration is the only one that made dents in AQ (in reality its our military and intel that did the dirty work the last 12 years) defies history and shows this a partisan issue to you as opposed to one of National Security. AQ will be alive and well when Obama leaves office just as they were when Bush left office and probably just as they will be when Obama’s successor leaves office.
@MataHarley: @MataHarley: Okay. When I hit the “read more” they were making some similar points in that article that were made in the link you posted about how AQ is morphing so to speak leading me to believe that was the LWJ article they were referencing
No biggie, AV. Generally, with LWJ, you can’t go wrong no matter what article. :0)
@another vet, #7:
Al Qaeda is not what it was before. What is being slyly implied is that what has been accomplished against al Qaeda during the past 5 years is irrelevant, and has in no way been to the benefit of the United States or our allies. I don’t believe that for a moment.
Nor will I categorize the assertion as being nothing more than a differing interpretation. It’s a deliberate distortion of the truth being promoted to further a political end.
Recognizing that the central command structure of al Qaeda has been severely damaged is not the same thing as announcing victory over al Qaeda or a final victory in the war on terror. No one has made such an announcement. Those who suggest someone has are just setting up straw men so they can pretend to do battle with them.
@Greg: If you think AQ is weaker now than what they were before just because of body counts, you haven’t been paying attention to what has been transpiring for the last year plus. You seem to equate body counts with operational capability. That didn’t work out too good in VN did it? Go back over the last six or seven years and look at all the estimates of how many “core” AQ members there were and then compare it to the number of “core” AQ members that the government claimed we killed and see which number is greater. AQ should have ceased to exist a long time ago perhaps even before Obama took office.
If you think body counts are the sole indicator of victory, then I suggest that what needs to be done is that we eliminate not only AQ but the people who support them as well as any potential future AQ members. In order to accomplish that end, we best put aside the drones and break out the B-2’s and equip them with their nuclear payloads and start taking out some major Muslim population centers . Then perhaps body counts will make a significant difference.
You aren’t exactly innocent yourself slyly implying that Obama is the one solely responsible for whatever successes have come against AQ making you just as guilty as those who you accuse of doing the opposite. Whenever someone points out AQ is not down and still a threat you immediately go into partisan attack mode for someone questioning the Obama narrative. We have been told quite repeatedly that AQ is decimated (not the 10% definition either), on the run, and near defeat. That implies far more success than what has been achieved (and there have numerous successes on both Bush’s and Obama’s watch) and may serve to increase the effectiveness of the propaganda they will get from having all of these embassies shut down. It may in effect make them appear stronger than what they are because it has been implied that they were on the ropes. It will be interesting to see if they do in effect increase their numbers and support because of this. Let’s hope not.
I was afraid that the euphoria of the OBL kill would come back and haunt us and it did. Rather than chest thumping for political gain and being cocky, we should have acknowledged it as but one success of many, put it behind us, put our heads down, and pushed on. Look at the Cold War. Truman drew the line in the sand with Communism. It took all the way until Reagan to end it. Every POTUS in between contributed. Comparing that to our current situation, Bush drew the line in the sand with terrorism and it will probably take multiple Presidents to finish it. Every POTUS in between will deserve credit for contributing.
@another vet:
I was listening to a security analyst the other day and he said something I was not aware of; he said that in the treasure trove of material that was captured from ObL’s Pakistan compound, that ObL was at odds with AQ groups. The groups wanted to hit the west in small, incremental attacks (like the Boston bombing and Fort Hood) but that ObL wanted nothing but more big bang events like 9-11.
It is funny how Greggie will go to bat for Obama, as he did when he pointed out that the other day a drone killed six. But the news reports say that they were “suspected” AQ operatives and when the bodies were examined they were charred beyond recognition. So who did we get? Another 16 year old kid that was an American citizen?
AQ is NOT on the “run” as The Won has claimed. Instead, it is regrouping, re organizing and changing tactics. And most think that ObL was the ultimate head of AQ. He was simply the bag man who retired to Pakistan. You know we will be making headway when we take out al Zawahiri, who was actually the brains behind the bag man.
When al Qaeda began all it’s bombers were volunteers, men who bought into the narrative of a unified Islam under a caliph.
But even during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars we saw a morphing away from that pure believer.
A retarded young boy of 13 was used to carry a bomb to a long line at a polling station on an election day…..he was remotely detonated.
Women were emotionally blackmailed into becoming human bombs….they were married, then raped, then given two choices: blow up for allah or be ”honor killed.” Of course the women had no idea that was the plan from before their ”wedding” day.
We also heard about kidnap victims being ”freed” after a ransom was paid, but being ordered to follow a certain route home. When they reached a checkpoint their car, filled in the trunk with a bomb, was remotely detonated.
And of course we’ve heard of all of the ”lone wolves,” who read Inspire magazine or listen to Friday sermons by charismatics and simply do something to kill infidels.
Al Qaeda has never stood still as an operational organization.
Look at how quickly they quit using traceable means of communications.
There’s nothing stagnant about al Qaeda except Obama’s view that they had a ”core.”
@retire05: As Mata and I discussed on another thread, both sides will continue to alternate their tactics, now referred to as TTP’s (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) in order to adapt to the battlefield. We do it, they do it. It’s an ongoing cycle and is not unique to the current war (and we are at war). In addition, each side will change its organizational structure to better deal with the “mission”. We do it, they do it. The military refers to it as the need to “task organize” for the mission. In a nutshell, it involves restructuring of the organization to better accomplish the mission. To think that we do it and AQ doesn’t shows a lack of knowledge as to how military organizations, or in the case of AQ, adapt to the battlefield. Until someone understands those concepts, they have no clue as to what the hell is going on with the “battlefield” and need to find another topic to share their “expertise”.
When GWB was president the main stream media would tell us for every terrorist the US killed 100 more would be created. That all we were doing was increasing the recruitment of terrorists.
With Obama it’s a different story from the media. Even though our nobel peace prize president has used drone strikes more than GWB ever did.
Once again our media picks the angle the wish to portray by who they prefer.
Same with the economy, Mully.
Hence the unintended hilarity of headlines that include the word, ”Unexpectedly.”
There is always such a feigned surprise when media hears about yet another Obama drone attack.
I’m starting to wonder if Obama wouldn’t rather kill potential testifiers from these battlefields because he has something to hide that they could tell.
It is a weird level of selective bloodthirstiness on his part, is it not?
@retire05, #11:
The “collateral damage” resulting from the invasion and occupation of Iraq included over 124,000 confirmed civilian deaths. It resulted in the deaths of 4, 488 U.S. military personal and left thousands with non-fatal brain injuries. (It’s estimated that between 10 and 20 percent of all Iraq and Afghanistan vets suffered traumatic brain injury.) It has cost U.S. taxpayers over $814 billion to date, with projected costs running into the trillions.
I think Obama’s approach might be working out better for everyone but al Qaeda.
People who point out that it hasn’t eliminated the problem would do well to remember that the previous approach didn’t eliminate the problem either. There’s no road that clearly leads to a decisive victory at any time in the near future.
The organization structure is decentralized not centralized as in the IC. The proliferation of recruits and agents is rapid.Coercion goes only so far.
opei and the IC have never read history nor the recent history of the IC since 1947.
One can only imagine how quickly the US will become a third world country.
@Greg:
Never mind that many that were killed were a) terrorist insurgents or b) killed by other Iraqis or other Muslims who belonged to AQ. That is just one tiny little fact that you left wingers never want to mention.
Every war has had an effect on every soldier we have ever sent to fight them. Do you think that our soldiers came home from WWII unscathed? Take a look at photos from the beaches of Iwo or Normandy and tell me that wouldn’t bother you in some way, Greggie. TBI is nothing new, and at least our soldiers now have the advantage of modern medicine. Not so with the WWII boys.
Now, you want to throw out the number that “resulted in the deaths of 4, 488 U.S. military personal” but why didn’t you mention that 72% of the American military personnel that lost their lives in Afghanistan, did so under Obama? Or is that the good war that Obama seems to be not able to manage?
Really? Iraq is a mess. It is much more unstable than it was when he took control of the Oval Office. Obviously Obama thinks that he is playing some kind of Nintendo war games and all he needs to do is bomb people using drones. How’s that working out, Greggie?
Yeah, Greggie; Obama’s doing a hellofa job, isn’t he?
@retire05:
You have to remember, the leaders of the Democrats compared those of us who served there to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam’s goons. To the best of my knowledge, not a single Democrat in Congress opened his/her mouth to denounce it. I’ve yet to see one who posts here denounce it either. That means either they don’t have the courage to do so or they concur. But hey, they “support” the troops and our Veterans.
I guess Genghis Khan is passe these days, eh? :0) Oh well. The name changes, but the sentiment and ‘tude remain the same.
@retire05, #19:
Yeah, tell me all about it.
That’s because we stopped providing Iraq with a free national police force funded by U.S. taxpayers. How long would you have been willing to do that? Five more years? Ten? And in how many other countries?
@another vet:
I also remember that they only thing the left has is hyperbole and lies. If they were forced, by some means, to be truthful, they would have nothing to say. Odd isn’t it, how the left has screamed about the Republicans “war on women” yet it seems that they are not willing to, as a national party, demand the resignation of that creep in California or even demand that Anthony Weiner step down from his campaign. But why should they? The left idolizes a man who raped a woman when he was governor.
@Greg:
Yeah, tell me all about it.
Iraq is a mess. It is much more unstable than it was when he took control of the Oval Office. Obviously Obama thinks that he is playing some kind of Nintendo war games and all he needs to do is bomb people using drones. How’s that working out, Greggie?
Frankly, I think we should have gone into Iraq and made it a vast wasteland, just as FDR/Truman tried to do with both Germany and Japan. And how long did we “occupy” Japan, Greggie, after the hostilities ended? But you see, the hostilities in Iraq have not ceased, as you can see by the dead there just during Ramadan. If Obama has such a great plan for Iraq, why is that nation getting worse now under his guiding hand?
And why are Coptic Christians in that bastion of success, Egypt, being slaughtered while Obama does nothing and even sends the two Marx brothers, John and Lindsey, to Egypt demanding that Egyptians put the Muslim Brotherhood slugs back into power?
Face it, buddy, your guy is a joke. He’s a disaster as POTUS, has completely FUBARed the Middle East, has cooked the books on the unemployment rates to make things look better, has appointed to positions of power the most radical people this nation has ever seen and then spends our money without conscience, even transporting the Presidential dog on a separate flight.
The end of the Obama presidency cannot come fast enough. But he still has 3 1/2 years to destroy this nation that he seems to hate so much. And you have your work cut out for you trying to defend what cannot be defended. I hope you are being paid well for all your efforts.
@retire05, #24:
As I said before, it’s working out much better: A lot fewer innocent people are dying; a lot fewer of our own military personnel are being lost; and al Qaeda cadre never know when they’re going to be blown off the map.
I can’t imagine what you think would have been accomplished if Iraq had been reduced to a vast wasteland. I was under the impression that republicans had explained the whole thing as some sort of effort to liberate the Iraqi people from a dictatorial regime. Bush himself denied making a connection between Saddam and 9/11. The Weapons of Mass Destruction never turned up. I don’t know what rationale for Iraq was left besides liberation, and you’re apparently throwing that one out as well.
I hope not to see another republican in the White House until they’ve purged their party of extremists and lunatics. They’ve got a long way to go before they’ll reach that point.
@MOS 8541: #18
They are reading the info, but they are studying how countries were DEFEATED, and trying to apply them to defeating the USA. How long will it be before the average American sees what is happening in America has happened to other countries who are now ruled by others? I hope it isn’t AFTER this happens.
@retire05: #24
It depends who’s side you are on whether things are getting worse or better.
@Greg: #25
A lot of republicans and independents feel the same way. I also feel the same way about a democrat president. It’s time to put someone in who isn’t a republican or a democrat. Maybe someone who actually cares about the USA.
@Greg:
AQ has expanded into Libya, Egypt, and Syria to name a few. They have re-established themselves in Iraq. They were planning an operation large enough to force the closure of 22 of our embassies as well as other countries taking similar measures. You are still confusing body counts with success as opposed to degradation of operational capabilities. AQ has EXPANDED its influence in that part of the world. You can deny it all you want but that doesn’t change reality. That doesn’t come about because they are weaker. As the links here show, AQ has changed their TTP’s and task organized themselves to meet the demands of their new mission/goals. As of right now, they have in fact achieved some success. Until we change our strategy to counter their latest adopted strategy, they will continue to make gains. If you think this war is going to be won solely through the use of drone strikes, you are sadly mistaken. As has been pointed out, this is not a video game.
As for casualty figures, surely you’re not trying to say we’ve been losing less American lives in Afghanistan on Obama’s watch. Casualty figures in Iraq were already very low BEFORE Obama took office having dropped off significantly in the latter part of 2008. Per the SOFA that was in place BEFORE Obama took office, he withdrew our troops in 2010 and chose not to leave a residual force there which could have been used to help keep AQ out. This will be a test for Iraq to see how well they’ll be able to secure themselves.
http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByYear.aspx
@Greg:
Unfortunately, as usual, you’re wrong. Are there fewer American troops dying in Iraq? Yeah. Are there fewer Iraqis dying in Iraq? Yeah, but the number is rising. Almost 700 [innocent] Iraqis lost their lives just during Ramadan this year. The highest number since 2007. But facts like that you just ignore.
What was accomplished by leveling Berlin and other German towns? What was accomplished by leveling Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are you saying that FDR and Truman, both Democrats, were wrong in not trying to win the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese?
Salmon Pac.
Oh, we found them. But if something is ignored by the lame stream press, it doesn’t exist. You see, there was no sign located that said “WMDs – this way ———–>” But talk to Army Sappers and they will tell you what they found and they wonder why what they found in Iraq was ignored by the American press.
Remember all those tons of yellow cake that was found in Iraq and shipped to Canada (oh, you didn’t read about that? No surprise)? Do you think that Saddam was stock piling all that yellow cake for medicinal purposes? Oddly enough, even Saddam’s highest generals though he had WMDs that were operational.
Once again, you buy into what ever it is that your handlers tell you to believe.
When you “liberate” a nation, as we did in Europe, a intelligent leader doesn’t say “OK, well, they’re liberated and so we can now pull every last one of our troops out and be done with it.” But that is what we did because Obama couldn’t lead a bunch a pre-schoolers to the bathroom.
Tell us, Greggie, how much are you paid by OFA to continue to defend the indefensible?
There is considerable official reports and data that counters your assertion that Saddam did not have, or wanted to have, a WMD program. In fact, Saddam ran a “dual use” program which would allow him to restart the WMD program immediately if allowed to do so. But until then, he was thwarting the rules and sanctions by collecting missiles and other proscribed items via private trade and black market purchases. Hence the reason it was handy to have grateful Islamists in training camps near his borders. They make for convenient middlemen.
The UNMOVIC May 2004 quarterly report proves that Saddam had, and was disposing of proscribed Samoud missiles via a Netherlands junk yard in the run up to the March 2003 OIF invasion. Some excerpts:
The reason for going in to Iraq was always, and remains, that Saddam had been thwarting the sanctions and keeping a shadow WMD program, acquiring proscribed materials via black market, and was an avowed enemy of US representing a clear and present danger by his aid and abetting terrorists training camps on his soil. The US policy for Iraq had been regime change since the Clinton administration, and was the basis for the AUMF following the Sept 11th attacks.
Iraq is on the course it would be on, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. Whether the POTUS was Obama, Romney or even a hypothetical Bush starting a second term, they were not going to agree to SOFA rules that included a US security force. They wanted to assume security and control of their own country, and that’s all just fine. At some point, you have to take the training wheels off the bike, and let the kids bounce off the pavement in the learning curve. Leaving troops there 2-3 years more would just postpone the influx of violence a few years more. This was predicted, and expected. Has nothing to do with US partisan politics.
It was always the Islamist plan to wait for the US military forces to retreat, then cause havoc within Iraq in the attempt to again intimidate the population, attempting to seize control. I do not, however, believe they will succeed. Rather Iraq will learn to live their daily lives with violence from the Islamists in their midst, much like Pakistan must do and has been doing for decades. On the other side, Israel lives the same way… with violence always just a heartbeat away in their daily lives.
Iraq is not a failure, nor doomed to be a failure. Nor is their current situation the making of the US policy, but is the result of their own choice to step up to the plate and secure themselves. We were there for seven years for security as they put their government structure in place, and trained new forces. We did not abandon them, staying until they felt ready to do it on their own.
I do not think the Islamists will break the will of the Iraqis, nor will they throw out their national progress since liberated. Just like violence in Chicago, Pakistan and Israel is the norm, violence in Iraq will be the norm. They are learning to adapt to being a Muslim style democratic nation, and all the violence from fundamentalists that comes with that freedom.
I wish them good luck, and hope they can improve their security and intel forces, plus rebuild their education and economy swiftly and smoothly. If they decide they need help with security, they’ll ask. In the meantime, letting them handle their own, without US intervention, is exactly what should be done.
Afghanistan? They’ll never be ready. Not the same resource rich, and education level Muslim country. They have no infrastructure, and the tribal mentality doesn’t want any. They see no need for a central government who provides them nothing, and they are not educated enough to know what national infrastructure and trade/business can do for their daily lives. They are a particularly difficult situation.
BTW, the US occupied Japan until fall of 1952 following WWII, oddly enough about the same time we stayed in Iraq. Germany’s occupation post WWII was different, divided into several Allied occupation zones and returning territory to Poland and the Soviet Union. The US had military governors in Germany until 1949, and high commissioners in the occupied zone until 1952. FDR and Truman kept the US in those countries for some time, remarkably similar to Iraq, post war. And of course we still have military bases in both countries to this day.
@retire05, #30:
Maybe you should spend an hour or two looking at photographs of the survivors. What you see will be part of the answer to your question.
We deliberately incinerated men, women, and children. Reasons can be given. Moral justifications can be presented, based on the cost in lives of an invasion and other hypothetical moral arithmetic. Yet the fact remains: We deliberately incinerated target cities populated by thousands of innocent men, women, and children, who we though of as our enemies. Twice.
My theory on this and similar outrages is simple: Human beings are prone to mass insanity, and we’re capable of rationalizing what we have done afterward, no matter how terrible. Americans are no different than anybody else in that respect.
Some of us are much closer to crazy than others.
@MataHarley, #31:
I don’t doubt that Saddam Hussein had ambitions. He had a long history of them. What I doubt is that there was much of a threat of them being realized, at the point when it was decided that a preemptive military invasion was in order. I’m convinced that getting rid of Saddam was already on the Bush administration’s to do list. 9/11 provided a needed excuse.
Nor do I believe enough thought was given to what would happen once the Hussein regime was toppled, or how much the entire proposition would ultimately cost. I clearly remember some ridiculously short time frames and low cost estimates during the run up to the invasion.
Getting rid of Saddam was on the Congressional and Clinton admin list since the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, Greg. If the timeline were different, and Bill Clinton were elected for a second term in 2000, no one can say with any certainty that he wouldn’t have done the same. The threat of Saddam, and acknowledgement of that threat, was reflected in the AUMF’s multiple “whereas” points (of which only a few referenced WMDs), and the bipartisan vote passing that AUMF. The whining about that vote, and backtracking, didn’t start until the next POTUS election. Ain’t that convenient?
@Greg:
Hmmm….
And as I’m sure you’re aware from my undebunked post on the topic, Bush is right: Claiming that Saddam had a direct link to the events of 9/11 never became part of the administration’s case for OIF.
But in the same breath that he’s said “no link between Saddam and 9/11”, he didn’t back off the claim that there were connections/contacts/links between Saddam and al Qaeda:
That’s not a contradictory statement. Yet…
For some reason, those on your side of the aisle can’t seem to wrap their minds around that one.
Cheney as well in 2009:
And for all that critics like to cite and distort from his MtP interviews, and the conspiracists who want to believe the Administration had it in for Iraq since day one and just needed 9/11 as an excuse, what did Cheney say in the direct aftermath to 9/11?
@retire05:
To be fair, that stuff was already known about, identified, tagged, guarded, and locked away in sealed containers with UN inspection labels on them since the 1st Gulf War. They weren’t any kind of recent discovery nor a secret prior to the 2003 OIF.
@Greg:
Just a bit of historical tidbit that might be little-known:
I seem to remember posting photos of the leaflets, but that seems to have disappeared.
@Greg: #33
If we wouldn’t have dropped the two bombs, how many possible millions more would have been killed before the war ended, and who would have won? Both cities were military targets, manufacturing war goods.
To me there are three steps to winning a war:
(1) Send troops.
(2) Destroy the enemy.
(3) Go home.
It used to be that way.
@Greg: #34
I wish that just by me saying something that it made it so. That seems to be the liberal belief: I said it is so, so it is so.