"Few signs of foreign fighters in Iraq"
Here: http://nytimes.com/2003/11/19/intern...st/19IRAQ.html
Yes, it's in the vile ulra-leftist anit-Bush hit rag the NYT, but the article is quoting the commander of the division that patrols Iraq's western borders, so unless you're willing to argue that the Times is making up interviews with high ranking US military personnel, Let's Not Go There.
So the white house has been doing a lot of talk lately about the thousands of "foreign fighters" that are flowing into Iraq, in order to make the connection in the public mind between Iraq and the larger War on Terror. Bush has repeatedly spoken of "fighting terrorism in Iraq so we don't have to fight it here", and of how Iraq is the new "front line" in the WoT.
This appears to be the same technique used elsewhere in the build-up and subsequent justification for the invasion: assert, sans evidence, some notion that links Iraq to world-wide terrorism; then continue to assert it over and over and over again without ever presenting any substantiating information, until it becomes a kind of meme: the original assertion is just sort of there in the public discourse, and somehow the debate becomes about whether or not you're willing to stand tall and fight terror or cut and run like the cur you are, instead of whether the original assertions had any merit.
So I thought I'd start the ball rolling on this one early on, since we have the hindsight to see how the Bush white house works.
Frankly, I would have thought they be a little leary of the whole "shakey to nonexistent" evidence thing, but apparently not.
Quote:
"I want to underscore that most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not foreign forces," said the officer, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.
His view was echoed by Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, which controls northern Iraq and parts of its borders with Syria, Turkey and Iran.
"I want to underscore that most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not foreign forces," said the officer, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.
His view was echoed by Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, which controls northern Iraq and parts of its borders with Syria, Turkey and Iran.
Yes, it's in the vile ulra-leftist anit-Bush hit rag the NYT, but the article is quoting the commander of the division that patrols Iraq's western borders, so unless you're willing to argue that the Times is making up interviews with high ranking US military personnel, Let's Not Go There.
So the white house has been doing a lot of talk lately about the thousands of "foreign fighters" that are flowing into Iraq, in order to make the connection in the public mind between Iraq and the larger War on Terror. Bush has repeatedly spoken of "fighting terrorism in Iraq so we don't have to fight it here", and of how Iraq is the new "front line" in the WoT.
This appears to be the same technique used elsewhere in the build-up and subsequent justification for the invasion: assert, sans evidence, some notion that links Iraq to world-wide terrorism; then continue to assert it over and over and over again without ever presenting any substantiating information, until it becomes a kind of meme: the original assertion is just sort of there in the public discourse, and somehow the debate becomes about whether or not you're willing to stand tall and fight terror or cut and run like the cur you are, instead of whether the original assertions had any merit.
So I thought I'd start the ball rolling on this one early on, since we have the hindsight to see how the Bush white house works.
Frankly, I would have thought they be a little leary of the whole "shakey to nonexistent" evidence thing, but apparently not.
Comments
Originally posted by addabox
Here: http://nytimes.com/2003/11/19/intern...st/19IRAQ.html
Yes, it's in the vile ulra-leftist anit-Bush hit rag the NYT, but the article is quoting the commander of the division that patrols Iraq's western borders, so unless you're willing to argue that the Times is making up interviews with high ranking US military personnel, Let's Not Go There.
So the white house has been doing a lot of talk lately about the thousands of "foreign fighters" that are flowing into Iraq, in order to make the connection in the public mind between Iraq and the larger War on Terror. Bush has repeatedly spoken of "fighting terrorism in Iraq so we don't have to fight it here", and of how Iraq is the new "front line" in the WoT.
This appears to be the same technique used elsewhere in the build-up and subsequent justification for the invasion: assert, sans evidence, some notion that links Iraq to world-wide terrorism; then continue to assert it over and over and over again without ever presenting any substantiating information, until it becomes a kind of meme: the original assertion is just sort of there in the public discourse, and somehow the debate becomes about whether or not you're willing to stand tall and fight terror or cut and run like the cur you are, instead of whether the original assertions had any merit.
So I thought I'd start the ball rolling on this one early on, since we have the hindsight to see how the Bush white house works.
Frankly, I would have thought they be a little leary of the whole "shakey to nonexistent" evidence thing, but apparently not.
Really ?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97074,00.html
FALLUJAH, Iraq (Sept 12, 2003) ? About 80 foreign fighters who were captured in the northeast region of Iraq within the past 24 hours were in the U.S.-led coalition's custody Thursday and being interrogated about why they were in Iraq, senior defense officials told Fox News.
The fighters were nabbed between the city of Mosul (and the Syrian border. The operation, only a day old and set to conclude shortly, was conducted by elements of the 101st Airborne Division and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment).
Officials said the foreign fighters come from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and Syria.
Perhaps here is why:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...1547-iraq.html
"While the military stepped up its campaign to put down anti-U.S. guerrillas, it also claimed progress on another front ? preventing foreign fighters from entering Iraq from neighboring nations to carry out attacks on American forces.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, said the number of U.S. soldiers in Anbar province, bordering Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, has been tripled in the past two months to 20,000. That, he said, has curbed infiltrations.
"We are not fighting foreign fighters coming across the border in significant numbers," Swannack said. "We are fighting mostly ... locals" loyal to Saddam Hussein's ousted regime. "
And that's the rest of the story. Good day!
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Really ?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97074,00.html
FALLUJAH, Iraq (Sept 12, 2003) ? About 80 foreign fighters who were captured in the northeast region of Iraq within the past 24 hours were in the U.S.-led coalition's custody Thursday and being interrogated about why they were in Iraq, senior defense officials told Fox News.
The fighters were nabbed between the city of Mosul (and the Syrian border. The operation, only a day old and set to conclude shortly, was conducted by elements of the 101st Airborne Division and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment).
Officials said the foreign fighters come from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and Syria.
Perhaps here is why:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...1547-iraq.html
"While the military stepped up its campaign to put down anti-U.S. guerrillas, it also claimed progress on another front ? preventing foreign fighters from entering Iraq from neighboring nations to carry out attacks on American forces.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, said the number of U.S. soldiers in Anbar province, bordering Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, has been tripled in the past two months to 20,000. That, he said, has curbed infiltrations.
"We are not fighting foreign fighters coming across the border in significant numbers," Swannack said. "We are fighting mostly ... locals" loyal to Saddam Hussein's ousted regime. "
And that's the rest of the story. Good day!
Hello?
Your citation backs up the notion that there are few foreign fighters in Iraq, coupled with the notion (without any contextual information) that beefed up troop presence on the border is preventing incursions.
So whither Bush's thousands of terrorists pouring into Iraq?
Originally posted by addabox
Hello?
Your citation backs up the notion that there are few foreign fighters in Iraq, coupled with the notion (without any contextual information) that beefed up troop presence on the border is preventing incursions.
So whither Bush's thousands of terrorists pouring into Iraq?
I was merely pointing out you censored the context of the story...that perhaps the General said there are no foriegn fighters crossing over ===> NOW, but you left out that he ascribes it to his efforts.
So were there foriegn fighters ? Seems so, another story I read said the U.S. is holding 250 of them. Are there thousands ? That may be too much, after all the DOD estimates there is 5000 insurgents total.
However, the nature of the enemy has been murky for some time, numerious articles have alluded to the kind of insurgents, without hard numbers. (I always like to say, if they blow themselves up, its foriegners, if not, its locals).
I would'nt get so whigged out about it - lots of liberals are saying OF COURSE Al Qaeda's now involved (a foriegn force) BECAUSE of the U.S....Bush said thousands? I believe you but would you mind providing a link?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I was merely pointing out you censored the context of the story...that perhaps the General said there are no foriegn fighters crossing over ===> NOW, but you left out that he ascribes it to his efforts.
So were there foriegn fighters ? Seems so, another story I read said the U.S. is holding 250 of them. Are there thousands ? That may be too much, after all the DOD estimates there is 5000 insurgents total.
However, the nature of the enemy has been murky for some time, numerious articles have alluded to the kind of insurgents, without hard numbers. (I always like to say, if they blow themselves up, its foriegners, if not, its locals).
I would'nt get so whigged out about it - lots of liberals are saying OF COURSE Al Qaeda's now involved (a foriegn force) BECAUSE of the U.S....Bush said thousands? I believe you but would you mind providing a link?
Go back and read the link:
During a briefing on Monday for a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, he said that since May, his men had captured perhaps 20 foreign fighters trying to slip into the country from those three countries.
During a period in which border patrols have been intensified and new technology is being used, that number suggests only modest foreign incursions into Iraq, in contrast to estimates by the Bush administration.
In Washington late last month, officials estimated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at 1,000 to 3,000, and the White House has been suggesting that foreign fighters are continuing to enter the country and are behind many of the attacks, linking the war in Iraq to the global campaign against terror.
Not really "censoring" the context.
I think this is important because an American presence battling an Iraqi insurgency is a different beast than making a stand against "global terrorism" with Iraq as the battle field.
I'm also getting quite fed up with the Bush administtration's habit of making politically expedient proclamations without any intel to back it up. You say yourself that the situation is murky, so why does the president keep harping on "foreign fighters" as major component of the forces allied against the US?
Just at a wild guess, I'd have to say because it makes a story more congruent with the master narrative of the WoT: that Iraq was a major player within a linked system that leads back to 9/11.
So where's the proof of these international bad-guys? The commander -in-chief's officers on the ground don't seem to think it's true.
Don't we deserve a reasonably accurate portrayal of what we're fighting, if we're expected to send our sons and daughters to die for the cause? Or does it just not matter anymore, do we just expect the president to say whatever serves the world view he is trying so strenuously to portray, and the come to believe that the ends justify the rhetoric?
If they managed to capture 80 foreign fighters in one day, how many do you suppose are there still at large? What percentage of the criminal population does your local police manage to capture in one day? (And they know the city). So how many criminals are out there that the police never has or ever will manage to capture compared to those captured. What would you guesstimate is the ratio? I would say those criminals captured don't even amount to 10 percent compared to the criminal population at large. And if we are talking about Iraq I would make that ratio at least 1:100.
Let's remember that what our military or politicians consider 'foreign fighters' isn't exactly accurate. They screwed up plenty with the number of 'Taliban' they carried over to Cuba. I understand them erring on the side of caution, but the number they report is the number of people they grabbed, not the number of foreign fighters they grabbed. They can't come out as say 'We captured 80 people, 3 of which we know are terriorists, 17 of which we think are terrorists, and 60 of which were nearby.'