Four Stories This Week Prove that the War On Terror Is a Farce

George Washington's picture

Four stories from the last week confirm what many have been saying for years: the war on terror is a bust.

Military Brass Say Imperial Wars of Aggression are Hurting America

I've said for years that the war on terror is weakening America.

I've pointed out that experts say that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

As I noted last year:

The very hawkish and pro-war Rand Corporation - released a study in 2008 called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida".


The report confirms that the war on terror is actually weakening national security. As a press release about the study states:

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."

Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative". And Newsweek has now admitted that the war on terror is wholly unnecessary.




As American reporter Gareth Porter writes in Asia Times:

weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense
secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of
not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning
the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the
Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under
secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published
account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's account further indicates
that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by
military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the
country's top military leaders.

Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling
for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's
al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a
series of states


Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars
being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list
of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz
wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya [yes, Libya],
Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].


this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark
list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."


Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military
aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to
terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to
isolate and weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy"
their military capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass
destruction (WMD)...

Rumsfeld's paper was
given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US
military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the
Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal called
explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of
ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order
to try to catch bin Laden.

Instead, the
Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had
supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.


A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for being a superpower".


And our top military and intelligence leaders - as well as Nobel prize winning economists - say that war is destroying our economy. The amount we're spending is insane.

For example, I've previously noted that the rational for a large-scale war in Afghanistan doesn't make sense:


The U.S. admits there are only a small handful of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As ABC notes:

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year...

week, two senior members of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff - Captain
Wayne Porter of the U.S. Navy and Colonel Mark Mykleby of the Marine
Corps - agreed that America is on the wrong track. As Fareed Zakaria summarized their report yesterday:



the United States has embraced an entirely wrong set of priorities,
particularly with regard to its federal budget. We have overreacted to
Islamic extremism. We have pursued military solutions instead of
political ones.


We are underinvesting
in the real sources of national power - our youth, our infrastructure
and our economy. The United States sees the world through the lens of
threats, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness
and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the
modern world... Above all we must invest in our children. Only by
educating them properly will we ensure our ability to compete in the


It's likely that the essay had some official
sanction, which means that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or
perhaps even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had seen it and did not
stop its publication.



Washington needs to make sure
that the United States does not fall into the imperial trap of every
other superpower in history, spending greater and greater time and
money and energy stabilizing disorderly parts of the world on the
periphery, while at the core its own industrial and economic might is


We have to recognize that fixing America's fiscal
problems - paring back the budget busters like entitlements and also
defense spending - making the economy competitive, dealing with
immigration and outlining a serious plan for energy use are the best
strategies to stay a superpower, not going around killing a few tribal
leaders in the remote valleys and hills of Afghanistan.

Iraq: A War for ... Oil?

As I've repeatedly noted, Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.

Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted "crap" in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. (The government apparently planned the Afghanistan war before 9/11 as well. See this and this).

The Independent confirmed last week:

to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government
ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before
Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents



The minutes of a series of
meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds
with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and
Western governments at the time.




Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on
31 October

2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be
difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way
if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US
government throughout the crisis."


The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.


The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about
opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq
is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious
that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."


After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's
Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell
and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake
of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice
of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."


Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic
interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq
was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".


BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing
contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would
make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP
told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a
share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.


Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over
five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at
least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and
BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in
the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil
industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion
barrels of oil ...

The Independent also notes that one of
the main movers and shakers for the Iraq oil shenanigans has been mucky
around in Libya as well:


Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that
cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she
severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic
Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters

Imprisoning Innocents at Gitmo

As I noted in 2009:

of the main excuses used to justify torture is that the people being
tortured were bloodthirsty terrorists, who would do far worse to us if
we didn't stop them.


Is that true?


Judge for yourself:

  • The number two man at the State Department under Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, says that many of those being held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent, and that top Bush administration officials knew that they were innocent. Moreover, he said:

    philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent.
    Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the
    battle area, he must know something of importance (this general
    philosophy, in an even cruder form, prevailed in Iraq as well, helping
    to produce the nightmare at Abu Ghraib). All that was necessary was to extract everything possible from him and others like him,
    assemble it all in a computer program, and then look for
    cross-connections and serendipitous incidentals--in short, to have
    sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of
    individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots
    could be identified.

  • Thus, as many people as possible had to be kept in detention for as long as possible to allow this philosophy of intelligence gathering to work. The detainees' innocence was inconsequential. After all, they were ignorant peasants for the most part and mostly Muslim to boot."

    (see this and this). Indeed, Wilkerson signed a declaration
    under penalty of perjury stating that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld
    covered up the fact that hundreds of innocent men were sent to
    Guantanamo because they feared that releasing them would harm the push
    for the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror.



This has been confirmed by the recent release of U.S. military files. As the Guardian reported yesterday:

US military dossiers, obtained by the New York Times and the Guardian,
reveal how ... many prisoners were flown to the Guantánamo cages and
held captive for years on the flimsiest grounds, or on the basis of
lurid confessions extracted by maltreatment.


The files depict a
system often focused less on containing dangerous terrorists or enemy
fighters, than on extracting intelligence. Among inmates who proved
harmless were an 89-year-old Afghan villager, suffering from senile dementia, and a 14-year-old boy who had been an innocent kidnap victim.

who was affiliated with Pakistan's national intelligence service, or
that had been held as a prisoner in a Taliban jail, or that wore a
certain type of watch, was considered a terrorist:

authorities listed the main Pakistani intelligence service, the
Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), as a terrorist
organisation alongside groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and
Iranian intelligence.


Interrogators were told to regard links to any of these as an indication of terrorist or insurgent activity.




number of British nationals and residents were held for years even
though US authorities knew they were not Taliban or al-Qaida members.
One Briton ... was rendered to Guantánamo simply because he had been
held in a Taliban prison and was thought to have knowledge of their
interrogation techniques.




Another 17-page
file, titled "GTMO matrix of threat indicators for enemy combatants",
advises interrogators to look out for signs of terrorist activity
ranging from links to a number of mosques around the world, including
two in London, to ownership of a particular model of Casio watch.


"The Casio was known to be given to the students at al-Qaida bombmaking training courses in Afghanistan," it states.

were held because they led religious services or drove cabs in certain
geographic regions, or because they were Al Jazeera reporters:

man was transferred to the facility "because he was a mullah, who led
prayers at Manu mosque in Kandahar province, Afghanistan … which placed
him in a position to have special knowledge of the Taliban".




prisoner was shipped to the base "because of his general knowledge of
activities in the areas of Khowst and Kabul based as a result of his
frequent travels through the region as a taxi driver".


The files
also reveal that an al-Jazeera journalist was held at Guantánamo for six
years, partly in order to be interrogated about the Arabic news


His dossier states that one of the reasons was "to
provide information on … the al-Jazeera news network's training
programme, telecommunications equipment, and newsgathering operations in
Chechnya, Kosovo and Afghanistan, including the network's acquisition
of a video of UBL [Osama bin Laden] and a subsequent interview with

Al Qaeda Assassin and ... Green Beret?

The Guardian points out today that U.S. military reports indicate that an Al Qaeda assassin worked for the Britain's MI6 intelligence agency.

You decide whether this connotes hanky panky or incompetence by Western intelligence services.

As I've previously noted, a former Pakistani president alleged that another prominent Al Qaeda terrorist also worked for MI6.

I've also noted:

  • One of al-Qaeda’s top trainers in terrorism and how to hijack airplanes, who was a very close associate of Bin Laden, was an American citizen who was an operative for the FBI, the CIA, and the Army, and a green beret (see this article from the San Francisco Chronicle and this article
    from the Globe and Mail). Indeed, while he was acting as an FBI
    informant, he smuggled Bin Laden in and out of Afghanistan, helped plan
    the attacks on US embassies in Africa, and apparently played a pivotal
    role in planning 9/11.

According to a 1995 Boston Globe report, his entry into the country was made possible by “clandestine CIA sponsorship.” According to West Point's Combatting Terrorism Center, the terrorist was:

Given a visa waiver under
a “little known visa waiver program that allows the CIA and other
security agencies to bring valuable agents into the country, bypassing
the usual immigration formalities.” While perhaps “little known,” this
authority was granted to the Director of National Intelligence by the
Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and codified in 50 U.S.C. §403h,
which states that if “the admission of a particular alien into the
United States for permanent residence is in the interest of national
security or essential to the furtherance of the national intelligence
mission, such alien and his immediate family shall be admitted to the
United States for permanent residence without regard to their
inadmissibility under the immigration or any other laws and

Even assuming that such shenanigans are due to sheer incompetence only
reaffirms that the war on terror has been one of the biggest farces in

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PAUL LEO FASO's picture

To understand the depth of this covert attempt to destroy America, it is necessary to understand  all of the players who had a hand in this treasonous deception.

Pour yourself a big stiff drink and sit down and follow the money all the way from before 9/11, during 9/11 and up to today with the Federal Reserve Banks' press conference.

The first link below is key to the plan and must be discerned.

The second is my answer to this attack on America.


Note: additional information on link one can be found with a search of E.P. HEIDNER+COLLATERAL DAMAGE 9/11 and the additional link to the full document;

acrabbe's picture

that is a great article to describe in detail to the layman that they have been bamboozled by the fear mongers in charge. However, the fact that all of these connected tentacles like Rand Corp and Newsweek are admitting to the farcical nature of the war on terror can only  mean a few different things. ONE, we are close to some sort of surreal REAL truth commission on all of the treasonous events surrounding 9/11. TWO, we are close to some sort of follow-on false flag operation that will surely erase the near-past from the memory of the media and sheep, much like 9/11 erased the public's memory of Rumsfeld's "3 Trillion dollar theft" press conference on 9/10/2001. Three, we are close to an escalation in current war operations in the face of increasing public outcry against the ridiculous war spending. The obvious reason for this is that the war is keeping our economy humming at the margin. Think about it. Why is the US military guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan? So the black bag boys can keep shipping that shyte all over the world and funding themselves and giving the medicated people their "circuses". Thats one small example. The incremental revenues from all of the unconstitutional and disaster-focused activities around the globe (rebuilding Iraq, rebuilding Haiti, rebuilding New Orleans, all these small compared to the financial manipulations occuring within asset flows) keep money circulating around the globe AT THE MARGIN. The keynesian experiment is failing before our very eyes. We literally need to CREATE events in order to justify the INSANE level of monetary stimulus necessary to sustain a perpetual increase in total system credit. The minute total system credit begins to decline, the system implodes.

The war on Terror is a complete joke, but some real astute and educated people will never realize that. In fact, alot of people here are still blinded by their partisan-colored glasses. Guys who are all about hoarding physical silver, food and ammunition believe they are so forward-thinking, but cannot bear to admit that 9/11 wasn't committed by some saudis with boxcutters who managed to singlehandedly, seamlessly and with (mortal kombat themse music here) FLAWLESS EXECUTION, penetrate the most advanced air defense system on the planet.

The world is still run like an empire. There is no real or meaningful difference between democrats and republicans. Corporations own government. Corporations as a whole are owned and controlled by a small group of people. Take for instance the illusion of the "richest people in the world". Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, Buffet, Mittal, etc.... really?????? Just because we can count their wealth because it is in publicly traded stocks???? What happened to the Dukes, Kings, Counts and Robber-Barons of old who plundered, pillaged, taxed and conquered their way to massive riches? They are still here. Private Trusts, Private Charities, Private Endowments, Private Funds, Undisclosed Offshore Formations. Simple really. It's just too kooky for most people to wrap their head around.

It's pretty straightforward. To simplify it almost to the point of distortion you can look at it like a fight. Who has the biggest balls? No, who is the most ruthless. You cn kick my ass, but I brought a knife. You bring level 5 body armor and a .50 cal? I don't show up, go to your house and take your family hostage. You have no weaknesses? I poison you, or I feign surrender and wait for the chance to mortally wound you, even if I am gravely injured. These people have been doing this for generations. It's chess not checkers. Most of you are still playing checkers by trying to deny what's being thrust directly in front of your face. This Obama birth certificate thing is an example. Yeah OF COURSE the guy is a fucking fraud. Just like every other President! Except because he's black a segment of the population is actually taking issue with it. That will just be used against them in a Hegelian fashion and they will have helped strengthen whatever Dialectic they were trying to topple. Chess not checkers. Buying physical silver is a chess move in my book. But voting, going to town halls, etc etc. That's all checkers. Rant off.

Seriously. Orwell 1984 is only the beginning. I seriously doubt we are headed for a nuclear war. That would mean they had lost control and were annihilating their feifdom with weapons they've had for over 6 decades... they are already using weapons more sophisticated by several orders of magnitude. Scalar, psychological, holographic, nano, etc etc... conspiracy theory is stigmatized for a reason. To keep all the sheep THINKING between the lines because when you "run the world", obviously, most of what you are doing is OPERATING outside the lines.


MichaelNY's picture

Write to your Congressman?  Zakaria is such a NWO whore.

CustomersMan's picture


   Reasons For War On Terror also Include This: And By The Way,

    Neocons Plotted This Mess, And It Was NOT For Our Benefit

Congress Banned This Video: Iraq For Sale (video Link)

Filmmaker Robert Greenwald was invited to testify before Congress about his research in Iraq.  He brought a short film.  Republicans would not allow it to be shown, seeking to protect Haliburton and KBR.  We borrow 43 cents of every federal dollar for this.

Just another day in the U.S. Banana Republic.  Carry on.

Widowmaker's picture

The war on terror is a complete fabrication. The intent was anything but what was sold.

It's design is to divide (weaken) the US to implement the policing apparatus in everything the domestic citizen does.  THAT IS IT!


(now back to discussing Obama's birth papers)

naiverealist's picture

Comments by John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" concerning our presence in Libya:

While many of the rationalizations describe resources, especially oil, as the reasons why we should be in that country, there are also an increasing number of dissenting voices. For the most part, these revolve around Libya’s financial relationship with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and multinational corporations.

According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars.

The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS, and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets or who appear to be moving away from the international banking system that favors the corporatocracy. Saddam Hussein had advocated policies similar to those expressed by Qaddafi shortly before the US sent troops into Iraq.

SilverFiend's picture

Looks like Obama picked up right where Bush left off.  Syria,  Libya,  etc.  I agree with GW on this.  Bring all the troops home and put them on our borders where they belong.

Widowmaker's picture

Killing US citizens = record bonuses on fag street.

Run the regression yourself and see.

Rick64's picture

Here is Rumsfeld explaining it, this should convince any unbelievers.

George Washington's picture

Well, sure ...

But you have to take into account the unknown scones ... we must invade France to dethrone and debone the unknown scones!

aerial view's picture

nice work GW. What is simply amazing is that the entire Middle East and most of the world knows what these wars are really about EXCEPT for the American shleeple (mindless sheep which remain asleep).

newbee's picture

Great post GW yet again.  Some folks think your info is too extreme and hyperbolic.  Maybe, maybe not.  If nothing else your info is a direct challenge to the status quo assuming we're a just and reasonable nation being led by just and reasonable people. 

Without these kinds of challenges presenting evidence and views, we really do become just a bunch of mindless sheep being led to whatever ends TPTB want to take us.  Screw that.  Well done, and yet another great example of information presented here on ZH I'd struggle to see elsewhere. 

The only free information exchange I see these days is blogs like ZH.  The media is a one sided agenda driven propaganda whore no more pure than what's spewed out by some third world communist state.

bankruptcylawyer's picture

the mexican zetas just punked the mexican army in a huge city wide battle right on our border. 

it was not even covered in the MSM , youre talking a pretty serious battle right on our borders!


giocatoli's picture

These arrogant fools can't manage a foreign policy or intelligence agency without falling into Kafkaesque bumbling, and yet there are people in the world who see a giant global economic conspiracy theory to enslave the planet?  I prefer the Occam's razor approach to analyzing global events: the people in power may be intelligent in their own little boxes, but they become so blinded by arrogance and power that little by little they fall into what looks more and more like farcical idiocy...

Go Galt. Please.'s picture

What's Kafkaesque is that the world conspiracy is run by arrogant bumbling idiots. Occam's razor ultimately shows that there is no razor; every perspective has (some) validity.

Seer's picture

Idiocy?  Hardly.  They want you to believe this, as it gives the "let's vote in a more competent batch" the mechanism for succession of TPTB's power.

Just look around and see who is profiting.  Should be clear that they are by no means failures.  They've got all our money and all our power.  Idiots?  No...

War is about conquest of resources, ALWAYS.  Such activity is always hidden behind some other facade.

dugorama's picture

generally what you say is true.  However, the evidence against George the lesser is fairly compelling... he is the only man to ever sell a baseball team at a loss, the only producer in the west texas permian basin to lose money in the 80s, etc etc.  I'm afraid "idiot" may really apply to him.

Widowmaker's picture

The only idiots were those like me that voted for that fuck head.

You illustrate one thing for certain, Bush family of fucks has nothing to lose.

vast-dom's picture

scary duplicitous shit.

and yet it's not like we didn't know this. at least now we get even more corroborating facts. It's clear that war crimes were committed and continue to be committed. it all makes perfect sense really.

string's picture

They misspelled 'of'.


tony bonn's picture

god bless you george, you speak pure truth and euphoniously.....

the war on terror is an artificial, contrived stage show to convince americans to abandon their freedoms and submit to draconian nonsense prescribed by the patriot act....

lies were told about the lies to justify the massive expansion of the military-industrial-bankster complex....

with the nation teetering on financial collapse, we can all say that we saw nero fiddle while rome burned....the bush-obama cacaphony of lies is total filth....

Bob Sacamano's picture

With this post info, you would think your President would have no problem getting Gitmo closed (an important platform in his campaign).   He is really weak. 

vast-dom's picture

not weak. simply part of the system.

all predicated on mendacity and profits.

trav7777's picture

well it's known now that Underwear Bomber was permitted aboard due to the National Security waiver as well.  Mfer didn't even have a passport or a visa

FeralSerf's picture

There were airport security irradiators to sell and there were sheep to radiate.  What else does one need to know?  It's all a very ugly fraud on the American people.  The real perps need to be tried for treason and waterboarded to death (it's not torture so it's OK).

Follow the money.

tamboo's picture

can i interest you in a war against little green men?


That's right. He repeated this continuously. He would say that starting where I entered the industry with the supposed Russian threat, but never actually existed ­ the Russians were made to be the enemy. Then there would be terrorists, Third World country threats. there would be an asteroid threat. They might even say to us to try to influence the public into believing that there are many reasons for why we should put weapons in space. There might be a reason to protect our assets in space.

But, the real one that he was always holding off on and would say again with tears filling his eyes every time he said this to me repeatedly was that the last card they are holding is the 'alien card,' the extraterrestrial card and none of them are hostile. In any way he could say those words, the intonation was always on, 'None of them are hostile. It's all a lie.' So, in other words, all the enemies that have been presented to us along the way ­ it's a lie with always the intention of seizing the high ground to keep the truth from us.

RocketmanBob's picture

Well GW we've been over a lot of this territory before, so I won't rehash it really.

But regarding your latest "evidence" that Iraq was about oil based on evidence of post-regime change discussions in 2002?

Recall that by that point there had been more than 17 post Desert Storm resolutions warning, condemning, and sanctoning Iraq for a variety of offenses including massacring their own people.

Most everyone in the intelligence community realized that there would ultimately be a regime change, whether at the hands of outside forces or internal rebellion folowing Saddam's death was the only question.

So in light of these realities it's not unreasonable, really, to be "gaming" post regime change scenarios. At least within the realm of my experience and in my humble opinion.

Regardless of whether I agree or disagree, your post is thought provoking as always

My regards

Sabibaby's picture

Uuhhhh..... what do you think the first war was about?

You by that BS about Saddam invading Kuwait? What do you think the US would do to Canada if they start "sipping" our oil reserves by horizontal drilling under the border?

falak pema's picture

I don't buy HIS BS. But I don't BUY the US BS either : That he was a good guy when he attacked Iran and that he became a bad guy when he invaded Kuwait! Same guy, same despot. So USA is an accessory to despotism when it suits it's purpose. Without concern for Morality or human rights. That's my point. That's also the salient point that GW is trying to make in his analysis and that other guy, Rocket, challenged.

falak pema's picture

You forget that all through the Iran - Iraq war, good old Saddam was the best buddy of Saudi surrogates as of the US intelligence community; who were smarting like scalded cats for having "lost Iran" so humiliatingly. (Rumsfeld in Iraq to sell anthrax). There were no calls for war crime actions against Iraqi forces either in Iran where they used chemical weapons provided by....or similar actions against Iraqi Kurds... who rebelled during this period against Baghdad's power. So set your clock back further and you'll see that US policy, as well as UN decisions,  are as soul-less and totally greed-full as Machiavelli's treatise predicated for the ages to come.

Stuck on Zero's picture

When you have a gun in your hand everyone looks like a terrorist.

RockyRacoon's picture

I like it.  Whoever junked you is a cretin.

Come out, come out, whoever you are! 


Clycntct's picture

"The amount we're spending is insane"

The amount we're DEBTing is insane.

dugorama's picture

one equals the other.  If we cut our DoD in half we'd cut our budget deficit in half and we'd still spend more on our military than anyone else by a large large margin.  We might have to cut our wars fought simultaneously down to single digits, however.

falak pema's picture

Well a 90% miss rate is not bad for US army security. It would be a matter of concern if it fell to 99.9%. Then they would be in dangerous territory, along with third world despots like Q-daffy. But 90% means that one out of ten may be a dangerous man, i.e; not just an innocent bystander, but a true patriot. Those guys are trouble when you invade a country!

It's worth all the effort to run a shit hole like AG just for that potential 10% factor. Max Factor that for future generations! Then you can print the legend of US liberation forces and not the truth like for Liberty Valance!

MrBoompi's picture

So I'm being told war and other military action is really just all about money and power? And all sorts of lies and propaganda will be used to justify those actions?

(Do you think I was just born yesterday?)

ZackAttack's picture

Pretty much any time you see "The War on," you can substitute "The Jobs Subsidy based on." Try it with:

- Terror

- Drugs

- Poverty

Strangely, the enemy in question never seems to be defeated, no matter how much money and how many lives go down the swirly.

dark pools of soros's picture

they are job/wealth creators - so yes they been successful

carbon's picture

wow Perfect ! Again and again,

the best damn site,

there is.

Rastadamus's picture

That's why ZH gets twenty dollars every three months from me!

The Alarmist's picture

Gee, your concluding sentence seems a bit anti-climactic when juxtaposed agaiinst the laundry list of reasons above it.

We kept Gitmo open for dissidents like you, so please don't disappoint us.

oddjob's picture

But the 'war on drugs' was such a raging success.

RockyRacoon's picture

As has the "war on poverty"!

Thank you Lyndon Johnson.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Wait, which terrorists are we talking about?  What about the financial terrorists at the Fed, Wall Street, and Washington D.C.?  Seems like this is the real front for the war on "terror".

Holodomor2012's picture

Same tribe.  Same terrorists.

falak pema's picture

Rumsfeld : now there's a name that makes my mouth water. How many ways to eat a Rumsfeld steak...Fuddruckers style...Mcdonald's double whammy, sizzling hot with chilli and beans...with garlic sauce, covered with Ben and Jerry ice...served with oyster sauce and cream of iraqi chives...peppered with anthrax colored sauce au poivre...