Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (148236)	10/19/2004 10:01:49 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

I understand Tommy Franks had an op-ed in the NYT today....did you see it? JLA

To: Brumar89 who wrote (148236)	10/19/2004 10:14:30 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR War of Words By TOMMY FRANKS Published: October 19, 2004 resident Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history. On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality. First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp. Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels. Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts. As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. We are committed to winning this war on all fronts, and we are making impressive gains. Afghanistan has held the first free elections in its history. Iraq is led by a free government made up of its own citizens. By the end of this year, NATO and American forces will have trained 125,000 Iraqis to enforce the law, fight insurgents and secure the borders. This is in addition to the great humanitarian progress already achieved in Iraq. Many hurdles remain, of course. But the gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work. Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not. Tommy Franks, a retired general and former commander in chief of the Central Command, is the author of "American Soldier." He is a member of Veterans for Bush.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (148236)	10/19/2004 11:30:53 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Defence think-tank says Iraq is increasing global nuclear threat By Peter Spiegel in London Published: October 20 2004 03:00 \| Last updated: October 20 2004 03:00 The threat of nuclear pro-liferation by North Korea and Iran has increased over the past year and will probably get worse because of continued US difficulties in Iraq, a leading defence think-tank reported yesterday. The London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies found in its annual assessment of global security threats that the US's ever-deeper involvement in Iraq had emboldened Iran and North Korea to withstand western pressure to give up their nuclear ambitions. In its annual Military Balance report, the institute said that while future policy towards both countries was dependent on the outcome of next month's US presidential election, any incoming president would face few options to rein in their ambitions. "Motivations in Pyongyang and Tehran run deep, and the US and its allies may not have sufficient instruments of enticement or coercion to achieve disarmament," said John Chipman, IISS director. "In both cases, the threat of effective sanctions is difficult to realise and military options are unappealing." The report was similarly pessimistic about US and allied prospects in resolving the problems in Iraq. Christopher Langton, the study's main editor, said the US still had too few troops in Iraq to stabilise the country. He added that the future improvement was reliant on developing effective Iraqi forces, a process he believed had gone more slowly than expected. The study said the risk of terrorism against the west and western assets in the Middle East appeared to have increased since the Iraq invasion, particularly over the short term, as it had enabled al-Qaeda-linked organisations to increase recruitment. It estimated that as many as 1,000 foreign extremists were in Iraq, and that al-Qaeda maintained a "rump leadership" that oversaw as many as 18,000 potential terrorists. "Al-Qaeda middlemen can still provide planning and logistical advice, materiel and financing to smaller affiliated groups," Mr Chipman said. "The leadership still appears able to roughly influence the wider network's strategic direction." The conflict appears to have had the most effect on Iran, the report found, noting that shortly after the US-led invasion, Tehran agreed to suspend its uranium-enrichment programme and accept international inspectors - a stance it has since reversed. * Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister, warned that Iran's development of nuclear capacity risked an arms race in the Middle East that would be "nothing short of a nightmare", writes Frederick Studemann. Speaking at the London School of Economics yesterday, he said the coming weeks before the November meeting of the International Atomic Energy Authority would be crucial in seeking to persuade the Iranian government to "freeze all relevant activities" that might lead to nuclear arms. Mr Fischer is involved in three-nation diplomacy with the UK and France designed to put pressure on Iran. He said the three would seek to co-ordinate with the US and Russia and draw up a deal to allow nuclear development in Iran that would stop short of nuclear weapons. news.ft.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (148236)	10/19/2004 11:54:58 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

U.S. General: Iraq Still Short on Police Posted on Tue, Oct. 19, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi capital is still far short of the numbers of Iraqi policemen needed to secure it and the force won't be up to strength in time for national elections in January, the U.S. general in charge of security in Baghdad said Tuesday. The blunt assessment of police deficiencies contradicts upbeat assessments that the Iraqi force would be able to protect Iraqi voters by the scheduled election, or even earlier. Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, said Baghdad needs 25,000 police. Of those, 7,000 would patrol Sadr City, the Shiite slum home to more than a third of the capital's 6 million residents, he said. Right now, the city counts 15,000 police - most of whom have had just eight weeks of training. miami.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (148236)	10/20/2004 12:01:02 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War By MICHAEL R. GORDON Published: October 19, 2004 Karen Ballard Gen. Tommy R. Franks met with his commanders in a former palace of Saddam Hussein on his first war visit to Baghdad on April 16, 2003, eight days after his forces had pushed into the Iraqi capital. Tommy R. Franks climbed out of a C-130 plane at the Baghdad airport on April 16, 2003, and pumped his fist into the air. American troops had pushed into the capital of liberated Iraq little more than a week before, and it was the war commander's first visit to the city. Much of the Sunni Triangle was only sparsely patrolled, and Baghdad was still reeling from a spasm of looting. Apache attack helicopters prowled the skies as General Franks headed to the Abu Ghraib North Palace, a retreat for Saddam Hussein that now served as the military's headquarters. Huddling in a drawing room with his top commanders, General Franks told them it was time to make plans to leave. Combat forces should be prepared to start pulling out within 60 days if all went as expected, he said. By September, the more than 140,000 troops in Iraq could be down to little more than a division, about 30,000 troops. To help bring stability and allow the Americans to exit, President Bush had reviewed a plan the day before seeking four foreign divisions - including Arab and NATO troops - to take on peacekeeping duties. As the Baghdad meeting drew to a close, the president in a teleconference congratulated the commanders on a job well done. Afterward, they posed for photos and puffed on victory cigars. Within a few months, though, the Bush administration's optimistic assumptions had been upended. Many of the foreign troops never came. The Iraqi institutions expected to help run the country collapsed. The adversary that was supposed to have been shocked and awed into submission was reorganizing beyond the reach of overstretched American troops. In the debate over the war and its aftermath, the Bush administration has portrayed the insurgency that is still roiling Iraq today as an unfortunate, and unavoidable, accident of history, an enemy that emerged only after melting away during the rapid American advance toward Baghdad. The sole mistake Mr. Bush has acknowledged in the war is in not foreseeing what he termed that "catastrophic success." But many military officers and civilian officials who served in Iraq in the spring and summer of 2003 say the administration's miscalculations cost the United States valuable momentum - and enabled an insurgency that was in its early phases to intensify and spread. "I think that there were Baathist Sunnis who planned to resist no matter what happened and at all cost, but we missed opportunities, and that drove more of them into the resistance," Jay Garner, the first civilian administrator of Iraq and a retired Army lieutenant general, said in an interview, referring to the Baath Party of Mr. Hussein and to his Sunni Muslim supporters. "Things were stirred up far more than they should have been. We did not seal the borders because we did not have enough troops to do that, and that brought in terrorists." A senior officer who served in Iraq but did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of his position said: "The real question is, did there have to be an insurgency? Did we help create the insurgency by missing the window of opportunity in the period right after Saddam was removed from power?" Looking back at that crucial time, those officers, administration officials and others provided an intimate and detailed account of how the postwar situation went awry. Civilian administrators of the Iraqi occupation raised concerns about plans to reduce American forces; intelligence agencies left American forces unprepared for the furious battles they encountered in Iraq's southern cities and did not emphasize the risks of a postwar insurgency. And senior American generals and civilians were at odds over plans to build a new Iraqi army, which was needed to impose order. continued nytimes.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (148236)	10/20/2004 12:08:24 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Number of US Wounded in Iraq Tops 8,000 2 hours, 11 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State WASHINGTON - The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq (news - web sites) since military operations began in March 2003 has topped the 8,000 mark, according to figures released by the Pentagon (news - web sites) on Tuesday. The total of 8,016 is more than double what it was six months ago when the insurgency suddenly accelerated. On April 5 the number wounded in action stood at 2,988; by April 26 it had grown to 3,864. The U.S. military death toll almost doubled in that same period, standing at 1,102 as of Tuesday, by the Pentagon's count. On April 2 it stood at 598. The wounded toll has grown by several hundred a month since April. It surpassed the 5,000 mark in early June and crossed the 7,000 mark in early September. news.yahoo.com