Rat Lines Into Iraq

[deadbeater]

Er, Merc, you kind of proved my point.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Er, Merc, you kind of proved my point.

Don't worry, he'll figure it out eventually.

The US has a problem in defining 'government involvement'. It can be difficult to prove when governments are involved.

Cases in point.

The US did not support IRA terrorists. Terrorists did receive funding from private US citizens. If any of those citizens were wealthy or influential enough, they may have had ties to the government.

The US has supplied weapons and financial aid to insurgent groups, notably in Afghanistan in the 1980's

Like many other anti-communist movements at that time, the rebels quickly garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.
Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:
We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.[18]

Of course, if we apply the reasoning behind our branding the Iranian Guard 'terrorists' to our actions in Afghanistan, where does that leave us with the CIA in Afghanistan?

And let's not forget our covert support to the Contras. The point is that every accusation we throw at Iran can be tied to our past actions. If we've cleaned up our act, then fine, but if we do anything like it again in the future, our criticism will bite us in the ass.

We've lost a lot of the moral high ground in the past few years, and we are entering a very competitive future in international politics and finance. Cold War thinking can draw us into the same traps that bankrupted the Soviets and are bleeding us in Afghanistan and Iraq. If there is no turnaround, we may find ourselves like the Soviets, a very large second-world country. At least the Soviets have large oil reserves left.

In the 80's the Soviets were sucked into the 'Afghan trap', which gave them 9 years of war and a huge loss of money and prestige.

We're fighting a two-front war that may end up costing trillions of dollars, with no defined purpose or even a concrete definition of 'victory'. We are committing resources at a time of internal financial upheaval and depending on countries that at best are our rivals to prop up our economy.

My biggest worry is that in 10 years our only strategic leverage will be our nuclear arsenal. At that point UG and Merc may get to live out their Dr. Strangelove fantasies.

[deadbeater]

It could be more problematic when it is proven that elements in Saudi Arabia, especially those having enmity towards the House of Saud, are proven to support al-Qaeda.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

It could be more problematic when it is proven that elements in Saudi Arabia, especially those having enmity towards the House of Saud, are proven to support al-Qaeda.

I would not be entirely surprised by that.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

My biggest worry is that in 10 years our only strategic leverage will be our nuclear arsenal. At that point UG and Merc may get to live out their Dr. Strangelove fantasies.

It would be your fantasy that something like that would actually happen. I would not support it. But maybe if they dropped one on your family or someone close to you, you might look at things a little differently.

I never said that we have not done similar things in supporting insurgencies. All I said was that you need to choose a side to support. I see you may have already done so.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All I said was that you need to choose a side to support. I see you may have already done so.

In a world of black vs white; left vs right; good vs evil; 'conservative vs liberal'; ‘them vs us’ - everything is simplified into sides. That works where extremists forget reality while disparaging the intelligencia and bourgeois. If the world exists in ‘black and white’, then what really exists are only ‘moderates vs extremists’. A real world is chock full of perspectives. richlevy asks about those perspectives. One who cannot appreciate the scope in his questions would only be thinking in ‘them vs us’.

An earlier post asked a damning question. Answer is rather telling:

I certainly never said that I didn't expect Iran to get involved. If I had my way we would have done a better job of closing up the border and rat lines and hammer those who were caught inside Iraq before they moved more than 25 meters.

More ‘black vs white' thinking. Ask important strategic questions. Did you ask, “What are Iranians thinking?” Answer to those question and the explanation for Iranian actions is based in Iranian security. A country surrounded for generations by potential enemies on every border. Iranians, for example, loved that America was attacking the Taliban - to eliminate a threat. Iranians even offered military, reconstruction, military information, and supply assistance to all Taliban opposition. That offer included the US. However, an American government of extremists (black vs white thinkers) could only see every offer as an enemy seeking advantage.

Having ignored Iran's perspective; having seen everything in 'black vs white', then one would also see Iran conspiring in Iraq. Also as foolish is an idea that Americans could have closed the border. Close the border using military action? Completely mythical. Just another example of 'good vs evil' simplistic thinking. Those who learn of a world chock full of perspectives knew that border could not be closed militarily. The Iraq Study Group answered that question – had no problem identifying and answering strategically. An answer ignored by George Jr wacko extremists who only saw everything in terms of ‘good vs evil’.

Strategic decisions are way above my pay grade.

So why are you replying? richlevy and deadbeater are discussing strategic concepts. Deadbeater's question requires one to grasp a world of perspectives such as "but what do they see?", "what are they being told?", "what are their objectives and interests?", “what are their needs?”, and “what are their fears?”.

“Need to choose a side” ignores what those sides really are: wacko extremists or informed moderates. “Mission Accomplished” is a trophy of wacko extremism – in a world where everyone is expected to choose sides. “If you don’t agree with me, then you must be a commie sympathizer” was also called blacklisting in a world explained only in “spy v. spy”.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.... bla, bla, bla, bla.

What did you say? I must have missed something.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.... bla, bla, bla, bla.
What did you say? I must have missed something.

Yeah. It is called reality which cannot be comprehended in a 'black vs white' or 'conservative vs liberal' world of extremism. Deadbeater and richlevy did not post using sound bytes. Soundbytes cannot explain the real world.

All I said was that you need to choose a side to support.

... which is wacko extremist rhetoric. Extremists see enemies hiding everywhere. More 'them vs us' rhetoric to rally extremists. Moderates instead chose ... 'to learn the many perspectives'.

TheMercenary only saw what he could grasp. It required thinking strategically.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.... bla, bla, bla, bla.

No insult. Just another statement about those who need to see everything in terms of 'spy v spy' and 'good vs evil'. Who need to be told by Rush Limbaugh, et al what to think. 'Good vs evil' does not exist when a human is not an extremist; when the human grasps the real world. All apparently to too complex from The Mercenary only hears 'bla bla bla' and then insists everyone must choose sides.

Fortunately, no wacko extremist candidate exists for president. No wonder Rush Limbaugh orders extremists to hate McCain. Frustration apparent in TheMercenary's latest posts where he confesses he cannot think strategically; its above his pay grade. No insult. What TheMercenary posted is how he thinks. Everything is either 'good or evil'; we must all choose sides. Next we must blame the aborigines for their plight. More 'them vs us' rhetoric.

[deadbeater]

Us moderates are getting squeezed from both sides. I believe it is now time for strong, radical moderation.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But maybe if they dropped one on your family or someone close to you, you might look at things a little differently.

No, because then I would be dead.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All I said was that you need to choose a side to support. I see you may have already done so.

I also think the "you're with us or against us" argument has been pretty much completely discredited. Feel free to choose up sides as much as you want, we still don't have to play your game.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

No, because then I would be dead.

I also think the "you're with us or against us" argument has been pretty much completely discredited. Feel free to choose up sides as much as you want, we still don't have to play your game.

No problem. I don't consider it a game.