News Bolton says NIE is flawed.

  • Thread starter turbo
  • Start date

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
WMD, agreed.
Ties to AQ? No. The ties may have been not responsibly checked, exaggerated even, nonetheless Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq while Saddam was still in power. The connection between AQ and the regime is disputed, but clearly not demonstrated false.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf", starting pg 334
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1089901831124_85311031/?hub=World" [Broken] (before Iraq war)
http://http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.9-11commission.gov%2Freport%2F911Report.pdf&ei=9vZeR_PQEI-6zQShyvg2&usg=AFQjCNHGlh1FX-h5OMtRGzOky5zJfmQnbQ&sig2=m8ERVaAxSYu7-G2DdIV1ew" [Broken] (only listed as Iraq/AQ connection - please no strawmen about the actual 911 attack)
And this is not a big deal?

The administration claimed it was true when it clearly was not demonstrably true. That is the crux of the argument.
I agree it is a big deal, but one can not make that point or hold the govt. accountable by making false assertions. The claim from post #12 was simply "...Ties to Al Queda. All false". That is unsupportable as clearly shown by the cites.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
0
0
You forgot to mention that they were deep in the Kurdish zone...
If Halabja is deep in the Kurdish zone, the so is Kirkuk. The city lies in territory that US-PUK combined forces had to take back from Ansar al Islam and Iraqi Army in the last days of March 2003.

...and that the Kurds had established a high degree of autonomy under US enforcement of the "no fly" zones.
Both Kirkuk, Halabja--in fact, most of Sulaymaniyah--lie south of the Northern no-fly zone.

Saddam was not tolerant of religious fundamentalism and under his rule, Iraq was the most secular of the Arab states.
The most secular? What about Egypt or Syria, neither of which happens to have one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam located within its borders? Hussein was not above appealing to Islamism when it suited him. He did it in 1980, he did it in 1991 and he did it repeated between his ejection from Kuwait straight through to Iraqi Freedom. The man did have a tribal and religious constituency in Anbar, Saladin, and Ninevah too look after.

I agree it is a big deal, but one can not make that point or hold the govt. accountable by making false assertions. The claim from post #12 was simply "...Ties to Al Queda. All false". That is unsupportable as clearly shown by the cites.
Regardless of the breadth and depth of Hussein's relationship with al Qaeda prior to the invasion, the 2006-7 flare up in sectarian violence after the Samarra attack makes one thing clear: alliances between radical Sunni Islamists and Baathists in the insurgency is deadly enough without state power behind it. Anyone whose seen Sunni factions operate in Saladin and Anbar can testify to that.
 
Last edited:

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
Timing is everything. During the US invasion, Ansar al-Islam controlled a small area in northern Iraq on the Iranian border. Do you contend that Hussein was in a position to wipe them out at that time? I think not. It's not like they set up shop in Baghdad when he still had control. Hussein kept a tight rein on religious fundamentalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
 
0
0
Timing is everything. During the US invasion, Ansar al-Islam controlled a small area in northern Iraq on the Iranian border. Do you contend that Hussein was in a position to wipe them out at that time? I think not. It's not like they set up shop in Baghdad when he still had control.
Hussein most certainly was in a position to deal with Halabja. He had a whole year to deal with them, and even Republican Guard in the area at his disposal (those units didn't "leave" until they got their asses handed to them on 29 March 2003). Instead, Hussein was quite content to watch Ansar al-Islam terrorize Halabja and then launch attacks into PUK controlled territory.

Hussein kept a tight rein on religious fundamentalists.
Did he? So that 1991 Shia uprising was nothing? Come on. The man's rein on radical Islamists extended insofar as he kept his constituents in al-Anbar and Ninevah happy. When his plan to resist the invasion collapsed in March 2003, the Baathists had to turn to especially the Anbar Islamic nationalists to carry on the fight. He brutalized Shiis and even Sunnis when the need arose, but the fact remains that even Baathist Iraq was unable to suppress the strong influence of al Dawa, SCIRI and Sadr in Najaf and Karbala, Sufi Sunnah in Saladin, or Salafism in Ninevah and Anbar. Like many other dictators before him, Hussein survived as much by making and breaking alliances with pressure groups as he did by suppressing them.

Had the Baathists succeeded in organizing their resistance movement before the fall of Baghdad, their component of the insurgency might not have largely collapsed within a year and been absorbed by the emerging Sunni sheikhs to the west. Instead, the Coalition did what no one expected, got to Baghdad in three weeks and destroyed any semblance of organization in the Fedayeen Saddam. It took half a year for Awda to reemerge from the shadows of the precursors of the Mujahadin Supreme Council and Islamic Army and even then it was a pale shadow of its intended self. After all, it had already loss Uday Hussein and by the time it announced Saddam was in prison.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
... Like many other dictators before him, Hussein survived as much by making and breaking alliances with pressure groups as he did by suppressing them.
Exactly.
Hussein's support of the Palestinian http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml" is another example; if those same Palestinians had tried to run a popular movement inside Iraq that in anything posed a challenge the Bathist rule then Hussein would have no doubt squashed them too.

-------------
Happy Holidays All
 
Last edited by a moderator:
0
0
Exactly.
Hussein's support of the Palestinian http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml" is another example; if those same Palestinians had tried to run a popular movement inside Iraq that in anything posed a challenge the Bathist rule then Hussein would have no doubt squashed them too.

-------------
Happy Holidays All
It's surprisingly easy to overestimate the man, especially now that he's dead and Iraq these days is so full of life in many of the worst possible ways. But consider this. After the 1991 uprisings, Hussein failed to quell the Kurdish rebellion and essentially lost most of the territory north of Kirkuk. In the South, he never managed to stamp out Shia imams no matter how hard he tried--the man did his level best to wipe out the Sadrs and still the son managed to raise the second largest private army in Iraq within months of Baghdad's fall. Also, the 1991 uprising itself is spectacular in its scope both in geography and daring. Honestly, it's remarkable Hussein did as well as he did in 1991. Baathist rule over Iraq was concentric, with Baghdad fully under Hussein's control and the outlying governorates held in check by frequent kleptomania and occasional brutality. It was also nothing compared to Hafez al Assad's hold on Syria.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Bolton says NIE is flawed.

  • Posted
2 3
Replies
62
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Posted
2
Replies
39
Views
7K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top