Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 397 Comments
{erhaps Iraq did not have WMD. The Niger connection turned out to be incorect, however, as I recall there was other evidence to support this possibility besides the documents in question. There is also the possbility that Iraq's WMD was moved to Syria. In any event while if I were the one making the decision, I probably would not have invaded Iraq, I can understand and empathise with those who concluded that we needed to based on the intellegence that we had at the time.
I'm not suggesting intellegence was not "cherry picked." Decision makers were likely VERY CINCERNED and may have over reacted. Also, some in the US government did not and do not like the former Iraqi government. As such, they were likely predisposed to believe the very worst about that government and those people. By the same token there were and are many elements of Iraq's former government who did not and do not like America very much either. As such, they would have been predisposed to believe the very worst abut us as well.
Bottom line is we had faulty intellegence. If we accept the premise that Bush and the so called neo cons knew Iraq did not have WMD and lied about it, then this means the CIA and other US intellegence agencies allowed themselves to be polticized for personal gain. Perhaps their is a dose of incompetence here for not detecting the manipulation of intellegence by said people.
The other possibility is that US Intellegence and members of the Bush Administration as well as the so called necons acted in good faith and really did believe Iraq had WMD. I think this is by far the most likely possibility.
Regardless which premise is correct the CIA and other US Intellegence Services desparately need to be reformed. Perhaps they need to be dismantled and we need to start over from scratch. A good place to start would be to try and get good HUMMIT in place. While US Intellegence is rebuilt, we would need to rely on the Intellegence of other countries. Our best bet would be Israel's.
"I agree with you about good Israeli intel but they are not going to share them with you." Generally you would be correc, however, if they feel they can trust someone they will be more likely to share. Due to the often duplicitous nature of the American government toward them they seem to becoming more reluctant to share intel with our government. Had we have utilized Israeli intellegence more in the run up to the Iraq war we could have avoided many of the challenges we have had there. In fact, we probably would not have invaded.
Until a serious effort is made to reform US Intellegence I would not put much trust in what they report. They made a mistake on Iraq's WMD and they seem to be making the exact opposite mistake with regards to Iran!! There underestimating the threat!! Perhaps most troubling of all is in the wake of the errors made regarding Iraq WMD no one has been publically held to account and no effort, at least publically, has been made to reform US Intellegence Services.
If for whatever reason they can't get Iraq right, I don't see how they can be trusted with an analysis of the potential threats posed by Russia and China. Supposing they allowed their work to be polticized on Iraq, they would likely allow themselves to be politicized on Russian and Chinese analysis as well.
If Russia and China are 10+ years away from being competitive with America, as Manning suspects, then BIG changes will need to be made today to ensure we have the capability to meet the challenge in 2019 or so. If I'm correct, and we have much less time, these big changes will have to be made but they will have to be made much sooner. The current leadership in both Democrat and Republican circles have little interest in the kind of change that would be needed nor does the media. As such, if US Intellegence Services allowed themselves to be politicized once, in the case of Iraq, they may do so again. In other words, they may be "lying" about Russia, China, and Iran. As stated before, I don't think there was a deliberate attempt to mislead, but either way I don't trust trust them until they are radically reformed.
The type of reform that will be needed will require strong leadership. I pray and hope we can get the kind of leadership that is needed before it is to late.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 18.05.2009 @ 00:26
What I meant to write was: either the WMD was moved to another location or Iraq did not have the WMD. I apologize for the faulty writing.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 17.05.2009 @ 23:13
"Do you really believe we went in there because we were worried about WMD?" Yes I do. Unfortunately our intellegence turned out to be wrong. Either the WMD was moved to another location. Some sources have said Lebanon's Bekka Valley as a possible location or Iraq did not have the WMD. Clearly the intellegence was wrong. Given the errors in intellegence gathering and analysis by the CIA and the US Government, it is hard to put much faith in any thing they put out.
I agree that defectors can and do have their own agendas which may or may not be compatible with ours. The reason I find these credible is past reliability.
As for Chalabi, I think it was highly unlikely that he was the only source. I have come accross many things that he did not seem to be associated with. Again, our intellegece gathering and analysis was flawed. Also, I don't think our Coalition partners would have put themselves at risk based upon only one source. Bottom line, Chalabi should not have been trusted.
As for Israeli sources, these are generally the most accurate. The very survival of Israel depends on superb intel.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 17.05.2009 @ 23:09
What I meant by permanent interests is that today's friend can be tomorrow's enemy. I agree these interests are perfectly normal. Where do I get my intel from. I get much of it from non conventional sources, such as Russian defectors, Iranian defectors, Israeli sources, and those who are famillar with them. There track records of predicting world events, while not perfect, is very impressive. As for Iranian Naval activities, as I recall this came from Time Magaizine. Admitedly the article was from some time ago so it could be outdated. There is no doubt that Iran has upgraded its military capabilities since the early 2000s.
I may be a bit paranoid, however, I think I'm a realist. I would percieve you as being a bit of a Pollyanna. I think being a Pollyanna is a much more dangerous than being overly cautious. I'm not suggesting we invade anyone. What I am suggesting is that major enemies need to be taken more seriously and we need to be more vigilant than we currently are.
Secret services can gather valuable information on an enemy or potential enemy. This can help direct the military where the targets are in the event of a war and good intellegence can clue leaders in on what needs to be done to counter the actions of enemies or potential enemies.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 23:37
NEBER should have been NEVER.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 21:23
I have a great deal of faith in Americans and our creative ability. Unfortunately some are naive regarding the nature of our enemies and potential enemies. In order to properly harness this creative ability, Americans need to be aware of the problems and potential problems. In this area, the media and the Government have done a major disservice to the American people.
I did not say Iran would be the odds on favorite in a war with the United States but they could win. Part of how this might be done is to use elements of their special forces that are probably already here. Iran has a very capable Navy. It is very active in the Persian Gulf. Also, thanks to significant help from the Russians, Iran has a very capable Air Force.
The goal would not be to "annihilate the earth." In a military conflict with America the key would be to strike decisively before the US can respond. Actually this is a good idea no matter who the enemy is. Given the poor nature of our intellegence services, being aware of the impending attack in time to respond is somewhat problematic.
As for Gernamy and Japan, it has been said that nation states do not have permanent allies. They only have permanent interests. Right now a military attack from Germany or Japan seems unlikely, however, it could change. The nations of the EU including Germany have tended to view the United States as their major strategic competitor. It is important for military planners to plan for all contingencies and to NEBER underestimate an adversary or potential adversary.
As for Iran's manufacturing capability, they have been working to be self sufficient in much of their military hardware. They have made impressive strides in recent years.
I don't see either Britain or France being able to take out Iran in a conventional war. Based on the best I can tell, they simply don't have the will or the military forces to get this done. Also, I would suspect that Iranian special forces specifically the Revolutionary Guard are probably already operating in Britain and France, as they likely are in the United States. Britain or France may be able to use their nuclear arsenals to defeat Iran but then they would probably face reprisals from Russia and China. In any event, no offense to Britons or French I just don't think it is likely that either of them or both of them acting together can defeat Iran in a war. At least not without significant help from America or another major world power. Perhaps they could though.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 21:20
Actually I'm from America. Just to give you a little back ground on me I likely would have chosen a career in the military but my eye sight is not good enough.
"There is no lead that either China or Russia have build up for sure." Actually I don't think this is true. Much of what we buy is made in China. China has an impressive manufacturing capability. We have allowed our manufacturing capability to erode to a very large degree. Russia has a larger arsenal of nuclear weapons than the United States does and the arsenal as well as the means to deliver it have been upgraded in recent years. We have not upgraded ours in quite a few years and we have allowed it to degrade to the point that even some Russian military planners have noticed.
I'm not saying our nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it would not necessarily be effective should we need it just that we have allowed it to degrade. This may make things much harder than they need to be. In addition, there seems to be no plans to upgrade the nuclear arsenal that exist right now.
Russia and China have upgraded their conventional forces in recent years. We have largely stood pat. At least we have not upgraded at the pace that our enemies and potential enemies have. Manning believes we have a 10+ year window. He could be right, however, I think that was probably true in about 2000. Given the fact that for the first decade of the twenty first century we have largely stood pat, at least we have not been improving our military at the rate that Russia and China and other potential enemies have been furthermore our capabilities have been eroded a great deal from the strain of continuing operations around the world in the Global War on Terror and our enemies and potential enemies have upgraded their militaries in this time I think the 10+ year horizon may be overly optimistic. Assuming we are still ahead I think the window may be at most one to two years before they catch up.
Remaining competitive becomes even more problematic when considering the fact that it takes some time to redirect resources from other areas into the development of military technologies. This is especially problematic when one considers how slowly the American government typically moves.
Finally assuming the American government and the American people decide that we want to be competitive with the likes of Russia and China due to the struggling economy and the massive national debt it may not be possible for us to remain competitive with them. I'm not necessarily saying we definitely can't compete with them but this is something that we may need to consider and act accordingly.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 19:17
Nuclear energy is an excellent option. They use this in Western Europe. It works well for them. I think it would work here. As I understand it, the waste will need to be stored underground. The Europeans have figured out how to do it safely. I think we can to. Solar and wind may work in some cases but as I understand it they do not work as well as traditional sources like oil and natural gas.
Who has spent large sums of money on alternative sources of energy? The taxpayers have. Had the same funds been spent on extracting oil and natural gas from sources that are known to exist and in building more refineries we would be in a better position than we are now.
"Sure America can remain a (or the) world power. Why not?" America is still a major world power. Its days as the world power are likely over, if in fact it ever was the world power. It cannot remain a major power for much longer unless BIG changes are made. It has done little to upgrade its military capabilities in recent years and from the stress of continued military operations around the world have severly degraded the capabilities that it once had. Also, America has allowed the nucelar deterrent to erode significantly in recent years. In contrast, Russia, China, and a number of enemies and potential enemies have upgraded their conventional forces and their nuclear arsenals in recent years.
In order to remain competitive, America will need to substantially upgrade its heavy war fighting capablity and its nuclear arsenal. This should begin post haste. It will cost a large amount of money. Unfortunately with the massive national debt the funds may not be available to undertake the kind of expenditures that will be necessary to achieve the heavy war fighting capabilities and the nuclear deterrent that we need to remain a major world power.
There may be other options. Due to the massive national debt America has and the huge lead Russia and China have opened up on America in terms of research, development, and manufacturing it is going to be difficult for Aemrica to compete in a direct confrontation with Russia or China in the coming years. It may already be difficult for America to be competitive. We may be able to negate some of the advantages that Russia and China have and will likely have in the future if we will improve our intellegence gathering capabilities.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 17:52
Another question to ask, is "can America remain a major world power?" With the massive natinal debt any attempts to do so may be futile any way.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 14:30
What I meant to convey is large sums of money seem to have already been spent on alternative energy sources with very minimal results. U'm reluctant to spend any more money on this when we already have proven technologies. I don't think I made that very clear.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 14:29
