Afgahnistan?

[Henry V]

My quotes are bolded...So it should be pretty easy to find a link to this poll. Perhap you'll have better luck than me in finding it a reference to it.

Here is the link to the 2003 poll which did get some media attention because 31% of troops thought the war in Iraq had little or no value at the time (e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct15.html).

Yes, isn't google great, found it on the first result page. http://www.stripes.com/morale/dayonestats.html

11. How worthwhile do you think fighting this war was for America?
542 very worthwhile 28%
359 probably worthwhile 19%
395 worthwhile 20%
390 little value 20%
211 not worthwhile at all 11%

12. How clearly defined is your mission?
400 very clear 21%
282 mostly clear 15%
523 clear 27%
348 mostly not clear 18%
326 not clear at all 17%

13. How do you rate your unit's morale?
53 very high 3%
252 high 13%
653 average 34%
540 low 28%
412 very low 21%

14. How closely is what you're doing now related to your training?
170 identical 9%
391 very close 20%
560 close 29%
396 not close 20%
379 nothing to do with training 20%

15. How much training did you receive for your current mission?
260 more than enough 13%
665 enough 34%
386 some 20%
225 very little 12%
379 learning as I go 20%

[Hew]

Thanks for trying to be helpful Henry, but we're looking for the S&S poll showing "where our troops also opposed our actions in Iraq," not the poll that shows the exact opposite. I always appreciate your input, though.

[Henry V]

No problem Hew. Always glad to be helpful. It's my nature.

Since, like me, you are concerned with sources of information and facts, could you provide some evidence for your theories on how the Iraq war has made us safer. You know, some defense department reports or a comment from Petreaus or Gates. I did a search and all I could find was the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq worsened the U.S. position. and a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which said that Al Qaeda had reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and was preparing for a major US strike and the assessment indicated that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas.
In the interest of providing good information, please provide some credible references to back your theory which is considerably different from these assessments.

Also, since you brought it up, how about some evidence that nation building was a significant part of the pre-war rhetoric from the Bush administration. I must just be selectively remembering "greeted as liberators" and all the other spin (including testimony to congress) from Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Wolfowitz that the war would be quick and inexpensive and once released from the evil rule of Saddam that freedom would kick in and democracy would flourish. Maybe all the troubles were caused by that small group of "deadenders" ?

I particularly liked your assessment:

They poured money, manpower and resources into Iraq and made it the centerpiece of their jihad. And their results? They were slaughtered on the battlefield, they alienated an entire Islamic country against them, they proved to the world that they could be beaten, and they pissed a bunch of money down a tube while doing it. If the goal in the WOT is to kill jihadists, disrupt their command and control, diminish their ability to wage terror and reduce their ability to win hearts and minds then I'd say Iraq was a monumental success in the WOT.

If you use your imagination, it seems possible that with a few key modifications this is just the type of rhetoric that could still be heard on Al Jazeera or on one of Osama's videos. Of course, such rhetoric from a terrorist's perspective would just be spin and propaganda to support their point of view.

[Hew]

[quote=Henry V;480252]
Since, like me, you are concerned with sources of information and facts, could you provide some evidence for your theories on how the Iraq war has made us safer. You know, some defense department reports or a comment from Petreaus or Gates. I did a search and all I could find was the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq worsened the U.S. position. and a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which said that Al Qaeda had reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and was preparing for a major US strike and the assessment indicated that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas.
In the interest of providing good information, please provide some credible references to back your theory which is considerably different from these assessments.
Oh, the irony...Henry pimping National Intelligence Estimates to try to prove a point. Surely you are aware that the NIEs prior to the invasion of Iraq contended that Iraq had a flourishing WMD program and it was the NIEs that provided much of the impetus and justification to go to war, right? Given your fondness and faith in NIEs, then I must assume that you believe Bush began the war with the good faith belief that Iraq had WMDs. To believe otherwise would make you a bald-faced hypocrite. You might want to go tear the "Bush Lied - People Died" bumper sticker off the back of your Prius.

But enough with your glaring hypocrisy regarding National Intelligence Estimates. Let's move on to your main contention...me needing to prove that we're safer now. For starters, I re-read the 11 points I wrote of what we accomplished in Iraq. Not one of them made the claim that we're safer now. So you're asking me for proof of something I never said. But I'll play along with your interesting, yet disingenuous, rhetorical style and make an argument for our being safer as a result of Iraq.

For starters, here's a partial Jihadist score card against America or American interests prior to Iraq:
- Marine barracks Lebanon
- bombing of the disco in Germany frequented by US servicemen
- Lockerbie/Pan Am
- Khobar Tower
- 2 American Embassies in Africa
- World Trade Center Bombing
- USS Cole
- 911

And here's the Jihadist score card against America or American interests after invasion of Iraq (outside of actual, you know...war zones):
-
-
-

More importantly than the immediate effects is the longterm benefits of a democratic and free Iraq smack in the middle of that shathole known as the Middle East. Those benefits will be reaped by future generations of Americans.

[road kill]

[QUOTE=Hew;480287]

Since, like me, you are concerned with sources of information and facts, could you provide some evidence for your theories on how the Iraq war has made us safer. You know, some defense department reports or a comment from Petreaus or Gates. I did a search and all I could find was the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq worsened the U.S. position. and a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which said that Al Qaeda had reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and was preparing for a major US strike and the assessment indicated that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas.
In the interest of providing good information, please provide some credible references to back your theory which is considerably different from these assessments.
Oh, the irony...Henry pimping National Intelligence Estimates to try to prove a point. Surely you are aware that the NIEs prior to the invasion of Iraq contended that Iraq had a flourishing WMD program and it was the NIEs that provided much of the impetus and justification to go to war, right? Given your fondness and faith in NIEs, then I must assume that you believe Bush began the war with the good faith belief that Iraq had WMDs. To believe otherwise would make you a bald-faced hypocrite. You might want to go tear the "Bush Lied - People Died" bumper sticker off the back of your Prius.

But enough with your glaring hypocrisy regarding National Intelligence Estimates. Let's move on to your main contention...me needing to prove that we're safer now. For starters, I re-read the 11 points I wrote of what we accomplished in Iraq. Not one of them made the claim that we're safer now. So you're asking me for proof of something I never said. But I'll play along with your interesting, yet disingenuous, rhetorical style and make an argument for our being safer as a result of Iraq.

For starters, here's a partial Jihadist score card against America or American interests prior to Iraq:
- Marine barracks Lebanon
- bombing of the disco in Germany frequented by US servicemen
- Lockerbie/Pan Am
- Khobar Tower
- 2 American Embassies in Africa
- World Trade Center Bombing
- USS Cole
- 911

And here's the Jihadist score card against America or American interests after invasion of Iraq (outside of actual, you know...war zones):
-
-
-

More importantly than the immediate effects is the longterm benefits of a democratic and free Iraq smack in the middle of that shathole known as the Middle East. Those benefits will be reaped by future generations of Americans.

YEAH, BUT............

[dnf777]

And here's the Jihadist score card against America or American interests after invasion of Iraq (outside of actual, you know...war zones):[/B]

You wouldn't want to count casualties IN the war zone, of course, those 4000 apparently don't count???

BTW, where's Bin Laden?

[road kill]

You wouldn't want to count casualties IN the war zone, of course, those 4000 apparently don't count???

BTW, where's Bin Laden?

Ask Yardley, he knows everything!!

[Hew]

You wouldn't want to count casualties IN the war zone, of course, those 4000 apparently don't count???

You and Henry seemingly have that angle already covered with your rhetoric that denigrates what those 4,000 fought and died for.

[dnf777]

You and Henry seemingly have that angle already covered with your rhetoric that denigrates what those 4,000 fought and died for.

Making sure you have "just cause" before sending troops in harm's way is denigrating????????

You're playing with words here. Those are brothers-in-arms, and I do NOT denigrate their efforts. I will criticize 7-timers of deferrments and flightless fly-boys who do not hold their trust and responsibities sacred, then even joke about the false justifications for sending them to war. "anybody see those WMDs? They've got to be here somewhere??" At the press roast. THAT is denigrating to the troops who fought, and still are fighting.

[Henry V]

Hew, instead of posting something that directly refutes or provides credible evidence to build an argument against the merit of the two NIE reports you divert the topic, call me a hypocrite, and then come at the question from a different angle. I appreciate the strategy.

In case you did not notice, this discussion is not about the 2002 NIE report and I have never said I agree or disagree with it. If you want to substantively discuss the merits of that report, go for it and start a new thread.

Also, just to be clear, you maintain that I would be a hypocrite if I were to substantively agree with one NIE report more than another, right? Do you hold yourself to the same standard for determining hypocrisy? If so, then you too must either agree or disagree with all three of these reports? Which is it?

You originally posted:

If the goal in the WOT is to kill jihadists, disrupt their command and control, diminish their ability to wage terror and reduce their ability to win hearts and minds then I'd say Iraq was a monumental success in the WOT.

and then followed up with

For starters, I re-read the 11 points I wrote of what we accomplished in Iraq. Not one of them made the claim that we’re safer now

Based on the first statement, I made a generalization that somehow making US citizens safer was part of the WOT being a "success". My bad. Since you now point out that you did not write or apparently intend to make the claim that we are safer because of the war in Iraq, let's move on to the question at hand. As I stated in my last post:

In the interest of providing good information, please provide some credible references to back your theory which is considerably different from these assessments.

As you point out, in your original email you listed many items of what was accomplished in Iraq and then provide a scorecard as proof that we are safer.

poured money, manpower and resources into Iraq
made it the centerpiece of their jihad.
They were slaughtered on the battlefield,
they alienated an entire Islamic country against them,
they proved to the world that they could be beaten,
they pissed a bunch of money down a tube while doing it.
If the goal in the WOT is to kill jihadists,
disrupt their command and control,
diminish their ability to wage terror and
reduce their ability to win hearts and minds…...

I look at the list and your scorecard and suggest that most, if not all of these items were accomplished or could have been accomplished without the war in Iraq. I am sure you disagree.
I also would reiterate that Al Qaeda could take most of the points on your list, tweak them, and use them as their own recruiting tool.

You clearly see Iraq as a centerpiece in the WOT. I do not. In my view it was primarily a diversion from the WOT. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Finally, you wrote:

More importantly than the immediate effects is the longterm benefits of a democratic and free Iraq smack in the middle of that shathole known as the Middle East. Those benefits will be reaped by future generations of Americans.

In the past eight years there is little or no evidence that the war in Iraq has reaped any Middle East benefits. I doubt that 20 years from now we will say that the war in Iraq was a pivotal event that resulted in middle east peace.