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


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (248128)11/11/2007 8:42:22 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Does this mean that you'll stop ridiculing me for saying that the Sunni insurgency is over?

Nope. It is way too early to say this. Don't you remember all the "tipping points" you've announced in the past? This may or may not be the "real" tipping point, but honestly, I doubt it. Unless the taste of civil war that both Sunnis and Shia have gotten over the past couple of years was indeed enough to frighten them into real negotiations. It's possible. I'm not prescient enough to say whether it's probable or not.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Your credibility would be enhanced by just presenting your POV as your POV rather than as oracular. You may not feel like your pronouncements are like that, but that is how they come across. On the other hand, you are also far better than most of the BushBackers on this thread, who can be so completely absurd that I don't even bother to read them anymore. They are hopeless.

Oh man, I can just imagine how much support you would have given to a Bush-led American invasion of nuclear-armed Pakistan! Al Qaeda is married into Waziristan (literally); nobody has good answers, certainly not Musharref, who has made a good living off us by pretending to deal with them.

Look, I agree part of this here--"nobody has good answers" to this. The geography of the land and the indigenous culture is heaven-sent for a movement like Al Qaeda. But sending our military into Iraq was definitely not part of the answer to the problem. I know, I know, we've been through this before, and, frankly, I don't want to rehash it. I will say this though--Musharref has in many ways an even more difficult problem that we have. He is there. His life is on the line. There is plenty of support for Al Qaeda in Pakistan, including in the ISI and in the military. At least, as far as I can gather. I'm not pretending to be an expert on it, I've only read some articles and one book (the one by Steve Coll, I forget its title offhand). Your assumption though than an invasion of Pakistan would be an answer is wrong. No invasion a la Iraq could have worked. I still maintain that the Al Qaeda problem is one that should have been addressed by intelligence, policing and special forces, not by a full scale invasion. Well, it may be that putting 100,000 American soldiers plus another 100,000 soldiers from other countries in Afghanistan back in '02-03 would have done some good.

But I have too much to do to speculate any further on that now. I'll just repeat what has already been said 00s possible 000s of times on this and other threads, that the focus from the beginning should have been on Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq. That isn't to say that Iraq should have been ignored, but we shouldn't have invaded. It was a stupid mistake. All JMHO, of course.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (248128)11/11/2007 8:51:10 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Curveball, Swing and A Miss

By George F. Will
Sunday, November 11, 2007; B07

In late 2002, two strong-willed CIA officers, identified only as Beth and Margaret, were at daggers drawn. They had diametrically opposing views about the veracity of an Iraqi defector's reports concerning Saddam Hussein's biological weapons programs, especially the notorious but never-seen mobile weapons labs.

"Look," said Beth defiantly, "we can validate a lot of what this guy says."

Margaret, angry and incredulous: "Where did you validate it?"

Beth: "On the Internet."

Margaret: "Exactly, it's on the Internet. That's where he got it, too!"

Margaret was right in that episode, recounted in the new book "Curveball" by Bob Drogin of the Los Angeles Times. Curveball was the code name of the Iraqi defector in Germany on whose reports the Bush administration relied heavily in its argument that Hussein's weapons of mass destruction justified a preventive war.

In 1999, Curveball defected to Germany, which has a significant portion of the Iraqi diaspora. Seeking the good life -- a prestigious job, a Mercedes -- he jumped to the head of the line of asylum-seekers and got the attention of Germany's intelligence agency with the word "Biowaffen," or germ weapons. He claimed to have been deeply involved in Hussein's sophisticated and deadly science, particularly those notorious mobile labs. Notorious and, we now know, nonexistent.

German intelligence officials refused to allow U.S. officials to interview Curveball, partly because intelligence agencies are like this and partly because they thought Germany had been unfairly blamed by the United States for not detecting the Hamburg cell from which three of the four Sept. 11 pilots came. Yet even before then, by March 2001, the Germans were expressing doubts about him; by April 2002, the British were, too.

So were some U.S. officials, such as Margaret. But others became invested in Curveball's credibility, and soon they could not back down without risking personal mortification and institutional disgrace -- both of which came, of course, after the invasion. Then some of Curveball's Iraqi acquaintances were located and identified him as a "congenital liar" who was not a scientist but a taxi driver. But before the invasion, he supplied an important rationale for launching it: He was the most important source for Colin Powell's 80-minute address to the U.N. Security Council detailing Iraq's WMD programs, the address that solidified American support for war.

"We have," said Powell, "firsthand descriptions" of "biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails." Powell took the word of people who took Curveball's word. Such as Beth, who had conceded that Curveball was odd, but weren't most defectors? Curveball's reports were "too detailed to be a fabrication" and too complicated and technical for Margaret to judge. "Well," Margaret replied, "you can kiss my ass in Macy's window." And the war came.

Drogin's account of the search for weapons of mass destruction after Baghdad fell would be hilarious were the facts not scandalous and the implications not tragic. That missile spotted by analysts of satellite imagery? It was a rotating steel drum for drying corn. The missile photographed from the air? Chickens in Iraq are raised in long, low half-cylinder coops. Some weapons searchers finally had T-shirts printed with the U.N. symbol and the words "Ballistic Chicken Farm Inspection Team." In the middle of the night in Baghdad, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was calling from Washington with precise geographic coordinates to guide searchers to Iraq's hidden WMDs. The supposed hiding place was in Lebanon.

Drogin's book refutes its subtitle, which is: "Spies, Lies and the Con Man Who Caused a War." Curveball did not cause the war; rather, he greased the slide to war by nourishing the certitudes of people whose confidence made them blind to his implausibility.

Drogin probably overstates his indictment of U.S. officials when he says that the CIA, having failed to "connect the dots" before Sept. 11, 2001, "made up the dots" regarding Iraq's WMDs. In the next paragraph his assessment is less sinister -- but more alarming. More alarming because his formulation suggests that the problem was human nature, and there is always a lot of that in government. Calling Curveball a fabricator, Drogin writes, "implied that U.S. intelligence had fallen for a clever hoax. The truth was more disturbing. The defector didn't con the spies so much as they conned themselves."

Drogin's book arrives, serendipitously, as some Washington voices, many of them familiar, are reprising a familiar theme -- Iran's nuclear program is near a fruition that justifies preventive military action. Whether or not these voices should be heeded, Drogin's book explains one reason they will not be.