SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (754940)11/25/2006 1:37:12 PM
From: steve dietrich  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
How about paying war cost as they are incurred by taxation? If it's not worth paying for, it's not worth doing. How do you think Americans would favor the mis-adventure if they were actually paying the bill in real time, instead of passing it on down the line?



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (754940)11/26/2006 10:06:42 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Re: "Go big..."

So... since our military reports that they do not currently have the wherewithal for significant, sustained force level increases... then you are supporting an EXPANSION in the size of our military (particularly of the Army and Marines...), and the funding for that, eh?

"now, my question to you is: What freedom(s) and/or right(s) would you be willing to give up in order to be safe from terrorists and terrorism?"

Which freedoms is it NECESSARY to 'give up'????????? (No pigs in a poke, please....)

(For, were it 'necessary' to 'give up freedoms' --- which I regard as a false choice, merely a rhetorical gambit --- then I would, naturally enough, need to access the benefit/loss ratio... as any sensible person would do, I expect.)

First, one would need to IDENTIFY what 'freedom' it was proposed to be 'given up' (given up temporarily, I certainly hope! Else I could never support same.)

Next, one would need to at least suggest what the expected GAIN would be for abandoning an American freedom.

Lastly: does the 'gain' seriously outweigh the 'loss'? ('Cause, if there is no big gain... then why give up what makes us great for nothing?)



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (754940)11/26/2006 10:12:07 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Withdrawal from Iraq now will be less painful than years from now

November 26, 2006
BY TED GALEN CARPENTER
suntimes.com


The U.S. mission in Iraq has now lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II. That should be an occasion for sober reflection. In less than four years -- from 1941 to 1945 -- the United States and its allies managed to defeat two of the most powerful militaries in the world. By contrast, today, we are still mired in an endless conflict in a single small country after the same amount of time.

Those who helped get America into the Iraq quagmire denounce any proposal for withdrawal as "cut and run." Now that we have passed the World War II milestone, we must demand that the hawks be specific about their strategy. Vacuous statements such as "we will stand down when the Iraqis can stand up" or "we must stay until the job is done" will not suffice.

Except when the survival of the nation is at stake, all military missions must be judged according to a cost-benefit calculation. Iraq has never come close to being a war for America's survival. It was an elective war -- a war of choice, and a bad choice at that. How much are Americans willing to pay in blood, treasure and toil to try to prevail in Iraq?

The costs have already been staggering. We have spent more than $340 billion, and the meter is running at more than $7 billion a month. The loss of life is even more horrific. Nearly 2,900 American troops have perished, and the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 of its citizens have died in the carnage.

And there is no end in sight. Not only did America's involvement in World War II last less than four years, it was obvious well before the end that the Axis powers would be utterly defeated. In Iraq, the security environment is worse today than it was when the U.S. occupation began in the spring of 2003. The Sunni-led insurgency against U.S. forces is now merely one component of an increasingly chaotic situation. The upsurge in sectarian violence is an even larger problem, and it has undeniably embroiled the country in a civil war.

The American people need to ask the Bush administration and its hawkish supporters at what point they will admit that the costs have become unbearable. How much longer are they willing to have our troops stay in Iraq? Two years? Five years? Ten years? How many more tax dollars are they willing to pour into Iraq? Another $100 billion? $300 billion? $1 trillion? And most crucial of all, how many more American lives are they willing to sacrifice? One thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand?

Proponents of the mission studiously avoid addressing such unpleasant questions. They act as though victory in Iraq can be achieved merely through the exercise of willpower. President Bush epitomized that attitude during his recent trip to East Asia, when he asserted that the United States would definitely win in Iraq -- unless we decided to quit before the job was done.

That is a dangerous delusion. Victory is by no means guaranteed, no matter what effort the United States makes. Iraq is a fractious place that may not prove even to be a viable country. America's credibility in the world will take a hit if we withdraw our forces and admit that the mission has failed. That should be a sobering lesson not to undertake impractical nation-building ventures in the first place. But a withdrawal now will be less painful than a withdrawal years from now, after we have incurred far greater losses in lives and money.

It is better to bite the bullet and start to pull our troops out today. Otherwise, we may still be having the same debate in 2013 -- when our involvement in Iraq will surpass the length of our war in Vietnam. That is a milestone no one should want to pass.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of seven books on international affairs and the co-author of Exiting Iraq.



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (754940)11/26/2006 10:13:34 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
U.S. Finds Iraq Insurgency Has Funds to Sustain Itself

November 26, 2006
By JOHN F. BURNS and KIRK SEMPLE
nytimes.com

BAGHDAD, Nov. 25 — The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, connivance by corrupt Islamic charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent, a classified United States government report has concluded.

The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials.

As much as $36 million a year comes from ransoms paid for hundreds of kidnap victims, the report says. It estimates that unnamed foreign governments — previously identified by American officials as including France and Italy — paid $30 million in ransom last year.

A copy of the seven-page report was made available to The Times by American officials who said the findings could improve understanding of the challenges the United States faces in Iraq.

The report offers little hope that much can be done, at least soon, to choke off insurgent revenues. For one thing, it acknowledges how little the American authorities in Iraq know — three and a half years after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein — about crucial aspects of insurgent operations. For another, it paints an almost despairing picture of the Iraqi government’s ability, or willingness, to take steps to tamp down the insurgency’s financing.

“If accurate,” the report says, its estimates indicate that these “sources of terrorist and insurgent finance within Iraq — independent of foreign sources — are currently sufficient to sustain the groups’ existence and operation.” To this, it adds what may be its most surprising conclusion: “In fact, if recent revenue and expense estimates are correct, terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq may have surplus funds with which to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq.”

Some terrorism experts outside the government who were given an outline of the report by The Times criticized it as imprecise and speculative. Completed in June, the report was compiled by an interagency working group investigating the financing of militant groups in Iraq.

A Bush administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the group’s existence. He said it was led by Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, and was made up of about a dozen people, drawn from the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Treasury Department and the United States Central Command.

The group’s estimate of the financing for the insurgency, even taking the higher figure of $200 million, underscores the David and Goliath nature of the war. American, Iraqi and other coalition forces are fighting an array of shadowy Sunni and Shiite groups that can draw on huge armories left over from Mr. Hussein’s days, and benefit from the willingness of many insurgents to fight with little or no pay. If the $200 million a year estimate is close to the mark, it amounts to less than what it costs the Pentagon, with an $8 billion monthly budget for Iraq, to sustain the American war effort here for a single day.

But other estimates suggest the sums involved could be far higher. The oil ministry in Baghdad, for example, estimated earlier this year that 10 percent to 30 percent of the $4 billion to $5 billion in fuel imported for public consumption in 2005 was smuggled back out of the country for resale. At that time, the finance minister estimated that close to half of all smuggling profits was going to insurgents. If true, that would be $200 million or more from fuel smuggling alone.

For Washington, the report’s most dismaying finding may be that the insurgency now survives off money generated from activities inside Iraq, and no longer depends on sums Mr. Hussein and his associates seized as his government collapsed. American officials said that as American troops entered Baghdad, Mr. Hussein’s oldest son, Qusay, took more than $1 billion in cash from the Central Bank of Iraq and stashed it in steel trunks aboard a flatbed truck. Large sums of cash were found in Mr. Hussein’s briefcase when he was captured in December 2003.

But the report says Mr. Hussein’s loyalists “are no longer a major source of funding for terrorist or insurgent groups in Iraq.” Part of the reason, the report says, is that an American-led international effort has frozen $3.6 billion in “former regime assets.” Another reason, it says, is that Mr. Hussein’s erstwhile loyalists, realizing that “it is increasingly obvious that a Baathist regime will not regain power in Iraq,” have turned increasingly to spending the money on their own living expenses. The trail to these assets “has grown cold,” the report adds.

The document says the pattern of insurgent financing changed after the first 18 months of the war, from the Hussein loyalists who financed it in 2003 to “foreign fighters and couriers” smuggling cash in bulk across Iraq’s porous borders in 2004, to the present reliance on a complex array of indigenous sources. “Currently, we assess that these groups garner most of their funding from petroleum-related criminal activity, kidnapping and other criminal pursuits within Iraq,” the report concludes.

One section of the report is dedicated to the role played by “sympathetic donors,” including Islamic charities and nongovernmental organizations. It says that “intelligence reporting” indicates that only 10 to 15 of the 4,000 nongovernmental groups support terrorist and insurgent groups, but that those few take advantage of lax Iraqi regulation to divert funds to insurgent and other armed groups and, in some cases, “to provide cover for insurgent recruitment and the transport of weapons and personnel.”

The possibility that Iraq-based terrorist groups could finance attacks outside Iraq appeared to echo Bush administration assertions that prevailing in the war here is essential to preventing Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven, as Afghanistan became under the Taliban. But that suggestion was one of several aspects of the report that drew criticism from Western terrorism and counterinsurgency experts working outside the government who were given the outline of the findings.

While noting that the report appeared to reflect a major effort by the administration to learn more about the murky world of insurgent financing in Iraq, the experts said the seven-page document appeared to be speculative, at least in its estimates of the funds available to the insurgent and terror groups. They noted the wide spread of the estimates, particularly the $70 million to $200 million figure for overall financing, the report’s failure to specify which groups the estimates covered and the absence of documentation of how authors had arrived at their estimates.

While such data may have been omitted to protect the group’s clandestine sources and methods — the document has a bold heading on the front page saying “secret” and a warning that it is not to be shared with foreign governments — several security and intelligence consultants said in telephone interviews that the vagueness of the estimates reflected how little American intelligence agencies knew about the opaque and complex world of Iraq’s militant groups.

“They’re just guessing,” said W. Patrick Lang, a former chief of Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency, who now runs a security and intelligence consultancy. “They really have no idea.” He added, “They’ve been very unsuccessful in penetrating these organizations.” He said he was equally skeptical about the report’s assertion that the insurgent and militant groups may have surpluses to finance terrorism outside Iraq. “That’s another guess,” he said.

“A judgment like that, coming from an N.S.C.-generated document,” he said, is not an analytical assessment as much as it is a political statement to support the administration’s contention that Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism. “It’s a statement put in there to support a policy judgment,” he said.

Several analysts said that, except for the possibility that Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia might be transferring money to Qaeda factions elsewhere, the assertion that insurgent money might be flowing out of the country was doubtful considering the single-minded regional focus of most of the militants operating here.

Dr. Magnus Ranstorp of the Swedish National Defense College, an author of extensive studies of the Iraqi insurgency, said he doubted Iraqi groups were ready to finance terrorism outside the country. “There’s very little evidence that they’re preparing to export terrorism from Iraq to the West,” he said. “I think it’s much too early for that.”

The document tracing the money flows acknowledges that investigators have had limited success in penetrating or choking off terrorist financing networks. The report says American efforts to follow the financing trails have been hamstrung by several factors. They include a weak Iraqi government and its nascent intelligence agencies; a lack of communication between American agencies, and between the Americans and the Iraqis; and the nature of the insurgent economy itself, primarily sustained by couriers carrying cash rather than more easily traceable means involving banks and the hawala money transfer networks traditional in the Middle East.

“Efforts to identify key financial facilitators, funding sources and transfer mechanisms are yielding some results, but we need to improve our understanding of how terrorist and insurgent cells interact, how their financial networks vary from province to province or city to city and how they use their funds,” the report says. It also says the United States must help the Iraqi government “to excise corrupt officials from its law enforcement and security services and its ministries” and “to prevent smuggled Iraqi oil from being sold within their borders.”

Another challenge for the United States, the report says, was to persuade foreign governments to “stop paying ransoms.” It gives no details, but American officials have said previously that France paid a multimillion-dollar ransom for the release in December 2004 of two French reporters held hostage by an insurgent group. Italy, these officials have said, paid ransoms on at least two occasions, in September 2004 for the release of two women, both aid workers, and in March 2005, a reported $5 million for the release of Giuliana Sgrena, a journalist for the Rome newspaper Il Manifesto.

Several American security consultants, all former members of government intelligence agencies that deal with terrorism, said in interviews that the ineffectiveness of efforts to impede the revenues to the insurgents was reflected in the continuing, if not growing, strength of Iraq’s militants. “You have to look at what the insurgency is doing,” Mr. Lang said. “Are they hampered by a lack of funds? I see no evidence that they are.”

Jeffrey White, a defense fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also a former Middle East analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency, agreed. “We’ve had some tactical successes where we’ve picked off a financier or whatever, but we haven’t been able to unravel a major component of the system,” he said. “I’ve never seen any indication that they’re strapped for cash, never seen any indication that they were short on weapons.”

He said the insurgency had demonstrated tremendous regenerative properties. “The networks fix themselves, they heal themselves,” he said. He pointed to the success of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia in withstanding the loss of hundreds of combatants and dozens of major leaders. “They keep coming back,” he said, “and I think the same thing has happened to the financial system.”

Reporting was contributed by Mark Mazzetti from Washington and James Glanz from Baghdad.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (754940)11/26/2006 12:13:41 PM
From: steve dietrich  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I saw an editorial cartoon today. It showed four foot ball players in a huddle above each one was a caption, one said "Go Long", another said "Go Short, Fake Long", another said "Declare Game Over, We Won, and head back to the locker room". Made me think of GZ.