haha
And it was a good thing : Iraq/Saddam deserved what he got .
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ef-discusses-development-of-is-a-1065131.htmlSPIEGEL ONLINE: The US invaded Iraq even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
Flynn: First we went to Afghanistan, where al-Qaida was based. Then we went into Iraq. Instead of asking ourselves why the phenomenon of terror occurred, we were looking for locations. This is a major lesson we must learn in order not to make the same mistakes again.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: TheIslamic State wouldn't be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad. Do you regret ...
Flynn: ... yes, absolutely ...
SPIEGEL ONLINE: ... the Iraq war?
Flynn: It was huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision.
Well it is fortuitous that I chose to read Spiegel Online this morning then isnt it as it would appear Micheal Flynn does not agree with you and describes the invasion of Iraq as "A huge error".
Ironic that it has taken Americans 12 years to figure out what the world told them 12 years ago.
Ex-US Intelligence Chief on Islamic State's Rise: 'We Were Too Dumb'
Interview Conducted By Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark
Without the Iraq war, Islamic State wouldn't exist today, former US special forces chief Mike Flynn openly admits. In an interview, he explains IS' rise to become a professional force and how the Americans allowed its future leader to slip out of their hands.
Michael Flynn, 56, served in the United States Army for more than 30 years, most recently as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he was the nation's highest-ranking military intelligence officer. Previously, he served as assistant director of national intelligence inside the Obama administration. From 2004 to 2007, he was stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, where, as commander of the US special forces, he hunted top al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the predecessors to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who today heads the Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. After Flynn's team located Zarqawi's whereabouts, the US killed the terrorist in an air strike in June 2006.
In an interview, Flynn explains the rise of the Islamic State and how the blinding emotions of 9/11 led the United States in the wrong direction strategically.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ef-discusses-development-of-is-a-1065131.html
It should have been possible to eliminate Saddam only (by the intervention of the CIA) and to replace him by someone as ruthless as Saddam
Ironic that it has taken Americans 12 years to figure out what the world told them 12 years ago.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ef-discusses-development-of-is-a-1065131.html
The best thing anyone can do against ISIS is to attack their economy. capture their oil fields, destroy their drug plants, stop them from getting hold of ancient artifacts, rescue the people they kidnap without paying ransoms. This strategy even if it doesn't kill ISIS will greatly weaken them to the point they can no longer function as an independent nation (which at this point it pretty much is). It worked against the Confederates and Plains Indians in the 1800s, it also nearly worked and outright worked in both world wars less than a century later.
What's ironic is that you take this article and pick out quotes which suit your opinion of America as an opportunity to validate your own.
I don't think it took Americans 12 years to "figure out" what "the world" told them at all. Members of our military have the freedom to speak publicly about their opinions and lessons learned; that says a lot about our country.
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Winston Churchill
The best thing anyone can do against ISIS is to attack their economy. capture their oil fields, destroy their drug plants, stop them from getting hold of ancient artifacts, rescue the people they kidnap without paying ransoms. This strategy even if it doesn't kill ISIS will greatly weaken them to the point they can no longer function as an independent nation (which at this point it pretty much is). It worked against the Confederates and Plains Indians in the 1800s, it also nearly worked and outright worked in both world wars less than a century later.
I didn't pick and choose any quotes from the article I just posted the opening sentence as a teaser because the whole article was 12000 characters and a post can only be 10000 characters and linked the whole article rather than butcher it.
On the whole I agree with pretty much everything in the story.
Oh and the obligatory counter quote...
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Winston Churchill
How witty......
When I lose something, I always find it in the last place I look. I'm guessing that you never lose anything....but then that's my first guess, so I'm probably wrong.
After all, I am an American.
But in doing this you are almost recognising them as a nation which is dangerous in itself.
I think our mistake is that we are still trying to "understand" them and are treating them with caution when the simple fact is that they are little more than a cult of death, they are either killing or dying and I would prefer it be the later.
We are just back to this circular argument again so for the last time I will reiterate my position/opinion on this issue.
ISIS are nothing more than a cult of death, we do not need to understand them as there can be no negotiation with them (as they want it all) as such there can be no co-existence with them.
The answer (in my opinion):
My preference is to turn the job of dealing with ISIS in Syria over to the Russians and Iranians to deal with however they see fit (basically it means at least temporarily Assad stays) but it must also include a full military campaign to remove their control of territory aka land sea and air combat.
This means throwing the Syrian rebels under the bus but so what, in the rebels we are not backing the side that will give us a peaceful conclusion as if they win they will happily slaughter Assads followers and each other we are only picking the survivors.
The West will have to do the same in Iraq which means committing ground forces to support the Kurds and whatever forces Iraq calls its army that are actually willing to fight, the cost of this to Iraq and Turkey should be our support of an independent Kurdistan as the Kurds have proven themselves over and over to be reliable allies and good fighters that are not hell bent on conquest.
The current air campaign is doomed to failure unless it is supported by a meaningful ground action.
This will not end ISIS as a terrorist organisation but it will greatly reduce their recruiting power and financial capacity.
Done.
We are just back to this circular argument again so for the last time I will reiterate my position/opinion on this issue.
ISIS are nothing more than a cult of death, we do not need to understand them as there can be no negotiation with them (as they want it all) as such there can be no co-existence with them.
The answer (in my opinion):
My preference is to turn the job of dealing with ISIS in Syria over to the Russians and Iranians to deal with however they see fit (basically it means at least temporarily Assad stays) but it must also include a full military campaign to remove their control of territory aka land sea and air combat.
This means throwing the Syrian rebels under the bus but so what, in the rebels we are not backing the side that will give us a peaceful conclusion as if they win they will happily slaughter Assads followers and each other we are only picking the survivors.
The West will have to do the same in Iraq which means committing ground forces to support the Kurds and whatever forces Iraq calls its army that are actually willing to fight, the cost of this to Iraq and Turkey should be our support of an independent Kurdistan as the Kurds have proven themselves over and over to be reliable allies and good fighters that are not hell bent on conquest.
The current air campaign is doomed to failure unless it is supported by a meaningful ground action.
This will not end ISIS as a terrorist organisation but it will greatly reduce their recruiting power and financial capacity.
Done.
I agree.
Except for the understanding part...we do need to understand what compels people to be attracted to the narrative they sell. We need to understand how someone goes from being a normal person to a rebel massacring people. If we refuse to understand it, then we can't invalidate that narrative until it is too late for those being radicalized.
Getting an enemy to surrender of their own will is much preferable to simply killing them.
I agree.
Except for the understanding part...we do need to understand what compels people to be attracted to the narrative they sell. We need to understand how someone goes from being a normal person to a rebel massacring people. If we refuse to understand it, then we can't invalidate that narrative until it is too late for those being radicalized.
Getting an enemy to surrender of their own will is much preferable to simply killing them.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.