Tragically Mis-informed Military
A recent Zogby poll reports that 72% of U.S. troops in Iraq think that the conflict should end within this calendar year. Of those, 29% favor immediate withdrawn, 22% said within six months, and 21% said by the end of the year.
These results have been fairly widely reported, but what has not been as widely reported are a few of the sadder statistics:
85% of the troops polled believe that the mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks".
77% also believe that a main reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."
That's sickening. A link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been pretty much disproven, no one seriously thinks Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, and the al Qaeda presence in Iraq has largely arrived to help the insurgency against us, that is to say, arrived in Iraq since Hussein was removed from power.
Our military is over there fighting, and they've been lied to about why they're doing it.
In the words of Charlie Brown... my stomach hurts.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 3/01/2006 11:12:00 PM
5 Comments:
That's sickening. A link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been pretty much disproven, no one seriously thinks Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, and the al Qaeda presence in Iraq has largely arrived to help the insurgency against us, that is to say, arrived in Iraq since Hussein was removed from power. That statement is copied from your blog. You probably don't think much of the WEEKLY STANDARD, but they do good reporting. The link below goes to a report that they got hold of way back when..thought you might find it interesting.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Friday, March 03, 2006 6:49:00 PM
Even Clinton's defense secretary believed a strong relationship existed as can be read from the WASHINGTON TIME'S article...
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
Friday, March 03, 2006 6:54:00 PM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953
Just one more link, this time to the WSJ.
Friday, March 03, 2006 7:04:00 PM
OK, taking them one at a time...
The Weekly Standard piece... I'm not sure what to think of it. I know there have been a number of "facts" attributed to "high ranking Iraqis" that come down to a fellow nicknamed "Curveball" who has subsequently been proven to be a lying sack of dung, saying whatever he believes will be expedient to get him money, access, or whatever he's looking for at the time. I'd be interested in reading this report directly...
Regarding the Washington Times article, my point wasn't about whether it was reasonable AT ONE POINT to believe Saddam had any link to al Qaeda. But these days, almost no one still believes that. Even the Administration has backed off from their claims, even going so far (in Cheney's case) as to deny ever having said there was any link.
The problem is that the survey of troops didn't happen when they first went over, it happened last month, and they STILL believe, overwhelmingly, that they are fighting in the name of a cause which no one seriously suggests is true any more.
(By the way, Saddam and Osama reportedly HATED each other. Bin Laden is a muslim extremist, Hussein was a largely secular leader. Bin Laden's organization hates the U.S., but their strongest passionate hatred is for Muslims who have strayed from the path. Which means they could never hate us as much as they hated Saddam. There's simply no way they'd work together, according to everything I've read.
The third link you give is merely an opinion piece. It really doesn't provide a whole lot of substance. The author is welcome to her opinion. I don't share it. She'll have to provide some more details and less flowery rhetoric to convince me.
Liam.
Friday, March 03, 2006 8:55:00 PM
For interest, here is an article which refutes the Weekly Standard article.
The Pentagon and the Dept of Defense both soundly denounced the article you linked to as false, misleading, relying on shaky evidence and just plain wrong.
Plus, the memo that the Standard's article was based upon was written by Douglas Feith, who was appointed by Donald Rumsfeld for more or less the express purpose of providing evidence for the various links and such that the Administration was claiming. In my view, this wasn't so much an intelligence arm of the government as it was a propaganda wing.
You have to consider the source, and the source is not particularly credible. The Weekly Standard article might as well boil down to "The Administration is right about the links between Hussein and al Qaeda, because the Administration says so."
Liam.
Friday, March 03, 2006 9:01:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home