Brzezinski described the problems with this very well at the NASSP conference:
You really ought to stop quoting "Brzezinski", if you wish to stress a point with any authority. That guy is a complete imbecile. And it's mainly because of him and his support for these Islamacists that we find ourself in the situation we're in now. You deride the US for supporting Bin Laden. Well, here is the main culprit deserving of this derision!
It's exactly the opposite. And if you did even the most elementary thinking about the subject let alone have access to intelligence information, you would know that. Saddam used intelligence deception very successfully, and the fact that the US is now having to pump unforeseen billions into that project testifies to that successful deception.
Oh yeah. I forgot about the huge complex under baghdad producing nuclear weapons. Sorry.
You really ought to stop quoting "Brzezinski", if you wish to stress a point with any authority. That guy is a complete imbecile. And it's mainly because of him and his support for these Islamacists that we find ourself in the situation we're in now. You deride the US for supporting Bin Laden. Well, here is the main culprit deserving of this derision!
Hey, you be careful, kid. If you have a problem with the quote, argue that. Everyone knows who Bzezinski is, dumbass. We weren't all born in the eighties.
Or are you just a little guy looking for something to vent your hormones?
Hey, you be careful, kid. If you have a problem with the quote, argue that. Everyone knows who Bzezinski is, dumbass. We weren't all born in the eighties.
Or are you just a little guy looking for something to vent your hormones?
Let me correct that typo for you there: Everyone knows who Bzezinski is = dumbass.
Let me correct that typo for you there: Everyone knows who Bzezinski is = dumbass.
Hmmm. Wolfowitz didn't take Wohlstetter's worst-case scenario model and transfer to the contemporary landscape? And I suppose Shulsky never actually wrote his paper on Strauss and intelligence.
Please enlighten me as to what part of the following is incorrect:
Quote:
The second condition, troubling condition, which contributes in my view to the crisis of credibility and to the state of isolation in which the United States finds itself today is due in part because that skewed view of the world is intensified by a fear that periodically verges on panic that is in itself blind. By this I mean the absence of a clearly, sharply defined perception of what is transpiring abroad regarding particularly such critically important security issues as the existence or the spread or the availability or the readiness in alien hands of weapons of mass destruction.
We have actually experienced in recent months a dramatic demonstration of an unprecedented intelligence failure, perhaps the most significant intelligence failure in the history of the United States. That failure was contributed to and was compensated for by extremist demagogy which emphasizes the worst case scenarios which stimulates fear, which induces a very simple dichotomic view of world reality.
Hmmm. Wolfowitz didn't take Wohlstetter's worst-case scenario model and transfer to the contemporary landscape? And I suppose Shulsky never actually wrote his paper on Strauss and intelligence.
Please enlighten me as to what part of the following is incorrect:
I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, Wolfowitz took a page from Kissinger, in recognizing that Iraq is the first domino to the problems in the ME. You trying to dress this up in some academic speculation regards the practical application of this or that theory, just goes to show how far you overextended your argument, and how ethereal and desperate it has become.
Actually, apparently you missed that wolfowitz and kissinger are polar opposites. You know, the whole neoconservative/realist thing? I mean, it's only the most discussed subject in american foreign policy.
I'll see if I can track it down for you guys, but I have to go do some stuff around the house for a little while. The woman is rushing around in a bit of a huff, you know?
Actually, apparently you missed that wolfowitz and kissinger are polar opposites. You know, the whole neoconservative/realist thing? I mean, it's only the most discussed subject in american foreign policy.
Actually, apparently you have a reading comprehension problem..
Let me put it to you again: "As far as I can tell, Wolfowitz took a page from Kissinger, in recognizing that Iraq is the first domino to the problems in the ME." Now, if you disagree with this statement, i.e., that Kissinger did not express this sentiment, and that Wolfovitz did not act on it, then please indicate how it is incorrect.
It's actually pretty simple. Wohlstetter's central thesis was that we need to have a zero margin of error in a nuclear world. This meant you had to deal with every situation according to the worst-case scenario. Wolfowitz argued that this should be applied to proliferation and, more shockingly, power.
The other major influence was Shulsky's (and all of the other straussians, including wolfowitz) interpretation of Strauss with regard to intelligence, essentially adopting a hyper-paranoid view of intel where you assume that basically everything is complete deception and the only way to get any info is to read between the lines.
The biggest problem with how these views were adopted was the extreme to which they were (are) followed. Iraq was an open book, and that was obvious. Certain individuals in the US government were too blinded by these ideological beliefs to realize that.*
Brzezinski described the problems with this very well at the NASSP conference:
*This is not to say that there was no deception, since clearly there was. But the primary thrust was in the opposite direction with Saddam working to make it appear Iraq was better armed than it was.
A few thoughts. After pursuing the net on Shulsky and Wohlsetter, and some of my books, I get some rather interesting and disparate views ? not so much as to the facts, as to the characterizations of their ideas, as well as the real influence of their mentors. None of my thoughts are intended to contradict your thesis, but to give a little more depth and speculation.
Leo Strauss, as I recall in my brief academic exposure to him, was along with Eric Voegelin (another conservative), one of the most important classical philosophers of his day. His ?claim to fame? among conservatives has been his studies of natural rights history, Machiavelli, Aristotle, and his criticism of the ?new political science? ? and I should that ?his disciples are legion and include a wide range of scholars? (such as Jaffa, another conservative historian).
Most conservatives have concentrated on Strauss?s antipathy to ?scientific? or positivist political science and its failure to acknowledge normative values (and the delusion of social science positivists to think their discipline is value free). This is, as I recall, in keeping with the conservative critique of the 50s; i.e., that ?modern? social planners (liberals) presumed they could know a truth and shape it to ?the good? society.
The one article I have read of his (required in a course) was ?The Relevance of Social Science?. I enjoyed its concluding paragraph so much, that I kept a copy around.
I have to quote it: ?Only a great fool would call the new Political Science diabolic: it has no attributes peculiar to fallen angles. It is not even Machiavellian, for Machiavelli?s teachings were graceful, subtle, and colorful. Nor is it Neroian. Nevertheless, one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know it fiddles, and it does not know Rome burns?.
I?ve also noted that Shulsky, a Strauss scholar, has written numerous papers alone and jointly dealing with nuclear theory and Soviet disinformation (as well as a speculative piece on Strauss and Intel):
1)\tWithout having read Shulsky, and comparing him to other Rand and Brookings analysts, its not possible for me to render an opinion as to the ?hyper paranoia? of his views, or the practical influence of Strauss?s thinking.
2)\tI don?t know enough about Wohlsetter?s ideas and what his followers have made of them on a personal level.
However, I also note that it would be difficult to have been an academic poly sci conservative, of any stripe, and not been exposed to Strauss (anymore than a academic liberal could avoid Rawls). But a couple of questions come to mind:
1)\tAre Wohlsetter and Strauss especially influential in shaping the decision makers ideas in regards to Iraq?
2)\tAren?t there numerous, even hundreds, of analysts in Washington? galaxy of think tanks, dozens of State and Defense Department Agencies, NSC, etc. that are influenced by very diverse foreign policy backgrounds? (Heck I read a wide range of stuff prior to this thread from college, without ever tripping across their names in foreign policy and international relations theory).
3)\tNeoconservatism is not so much an ideology, as an intellectual perspective. Of course it is well known as the diverse group of individuals (most of the first generation were Jewish and New Yorkers) who became disillusioned with Communism and/or socialism, as well as liberal social engineering. By default they developed into intellectual conservatives (neo conservatives, although many claimed they were something else). Their wide-ranging knowledge of Marxism, Soviet politics, internationalist ideology, and propaganda made them especially hostile to totalitarian movements (as well as very effective opponents). I imagine most of them never heard of Shulsky, and only a few insiders would have appreciated Wohlsetter's thinking.
Aren?t there, then, plenty of influences in conservatism, and in its makeup, to suggest that the foreign policy of Bush is shaped by a wider variety of forces? And outside of conservatism, aren?t there a wide range of others (e.g. Rice or the State Department employees, etc.) also engaged at different levels?
In the thirty or so years I?ve followed these kinds of debates, I?ve been exposed to scores of theorists and thinkers and, frankly, most of us on the right haven?t needed or noticed these fellows in developing our own agreement with the administration ? and I think that is true of most conservatives.
However, I have a very open mind and would still like to hear more.
Hey, you be careful, kid. If you have a problem with the quote, argue that. Everyone knows who Bzezinski is, dumbass. We weren't all born in the eighties.
Or are you just a little guy looking for something to vent your hormones?
See this is where you lose. Why belittle him or try to marginalize him in that way? You seem that you can't even help it.
In recent weeks, a number of Bush administration officials have renewed efforts to build a rhetorical linkage between Ansar al-Islam, an Al Qaeda-backed terrorist group operating in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein. Despite the slim evidence of any operational connection between the two, these officials have continued to use strategically ambiguous language to imply a connection.
Prior to the war, Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled areas in the northeastern Iraq, a region that had been outside of Saddam's control since the Gulf War in 1991. At the time, administration officials suggested the group was directly connected to the Iraqi dictator. In his February speech to the United Nations, for instance, Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested that there was contact between Saddam and the group, and cited it as a potential link between the Iraqi dictator and Al Qaeda.
However, evidence found at a Ansar al-Islam training camp in March indicates that the group had ties to Al Qaeda, but it did not demonstrate a connection to Saddam. At this point, the strongest evidence to date for a linkage was presented by General Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 24 that "We do know that Iraqi intelligence service had people involved back and forth" with the group. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz also claimed there were unspecified "links" between Saddam and the group in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 9, stating that both Saddam and Ansar al-Islam "went to very great lengths to bury and hide the links that they had with one another. So you have to recognize, we'll probably see only the tip of the iceberg, but we certainly see links."
In short, the evidence is muddled, but there is little proof of a direct connection between Saddam and the group, particularly prior to the war. Rather than acknowledging this, members of the Bush administration have repeatedly attempted to link Ansar al-Islam with the deposed dictator (and thereby help justify the war) by claiming that the group operated in Iraq prior to the war, while pointedly neglecting to mention that the area in which it operated was not under Saddam's control.
First you assume that this guy has some special insight, and secondly that I care what he thinks.
Oh yeah, and you then have to dismiss and ignore the fact that al-qaeda and a whole basket full of terrorist groups are helping and working side by side with Saddam and his people.
Yeah... Osama and Saddam are hanging out in Tikrit... making roadside bombs together... one big happy family. You have proof right? The Evildoers family picnic photo right?
The best guesses are... that foreign terrorists have flowed into Iraq AFTER the ground war. And are operating on their own.
That Baathists are fighting... on their own.
And disgruntled Iraqis take pot shots when they get the chance.
If they do organize and actually cooperate... it's going to get a whole hell of alot worse.
A level headed person could easily come to the conclusion that these groups have something to gain or something in common. Why would al-qaeda care about Saddam or what happens of they are so opposed to each other.
Now I could easily go along with it is just blind hatred for America that is driving it, but they could do more damage elswhere and not have to be up against a superior military force. These people, at least the people in charge sending them, have to know that.
What it proved to me is that all of these terrorists are all just opportunistic killers and are getting harder to distinguish them apart. That is what saddam was and that is what they are. For people to try to separate them is like separating wet from water.
As far as proof, what proof have you that they aren't working together?
I sense that you sympathize with those murderers a bit. Maybe I am reading you wrong.
As far as proof, what proof have you that they aren't working together?
By all accounts I've read, OBL and SH don't get along. Remember: OBL is a Islamic fundamentalist; SH is really a secularist who pays lip-service to Islam to keep the masses in line.
At any rate, you've just asked us to prove a negative, just as the US asked Iraq to prove a negative (i.e. "Prove to us that you don't have WMD!")
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Brzezinski described the problems with this very well at the NASSP conference:
You really ought to stop quoting "Brzezinski", if you wish to stress a point with any authority. That guy is a complete imbecile. And it's mainly because of him and his support for these Islamacists that we find ourself in the situation we're in now. You deride the US for supporting Bin Laden. Well, here is the main culprit deserving of this derision!
Originally posted by aapl
WRONG!
It's exactly the opposite. And if you did even the most elementary thinking about the subject let alone have access to intelligence information, you would know that. Saddam used intelligence deception very successfully, and the fact that the US is now having to pump unforeseen billions into that project testifies to that successful deception.
Oh yeah. I forgot about the huge complex under baghdad producing nuclear weapons. Sorry.
Originally posted by giant
Oh yeah. I forgot about the huge complex under baghdad producing nuclear weapons. Sorry.
No. You forgot the complete decrepit state of the Iraqi oil industry.
Originally posted by aapl
You really ought to stop quoting "Brzezinski", if you wish to stress a point with any authority. That guy is a complete imbecile. And it's mainly because of him and his support for these Islamacists that we find ourself in the situation we're in now. You deride the US for supporting Bin Laden. Well, here is the main culprit deserving of this derision!
Hey, you be careful, kid. If you have a problem with the quote, argue that. Everyone knows who Bzezinski is, dumbass. We weren't all born in the eighties.
Or are you just a little guy looking for something to vent your hormones?
Originally posted by giant
Hey, you be careful, kid. If you have a problem with the quote, argue that. Everyone knows who Bzezinski is, dumbass. We weren't all born in the eighties.
Or are you just a little guy looking for something to vent your hormones?
Let me correct that typo for you there: Everyone knows who Bzezinski is = dumbass.
Originally posted by aapl
Let me correct that typo for you there: Everyone knows who Bzezinski is = dumbass.
Hmmm. Wolfowitz didn't take Wohlstetter's worst-case scenario model and transfer to the contemporary landscape? And I suppose Shulsky never actually wrote his paper on Strauss and intelligence.
Please enlighten me as to what part of the following is incorrect:
The second condition, troubling condition, which contributes in my view to the crisis of credibility and to the state of isolation in which the United States finds itself today is due in part because that skewed view of the world is intensified by a fear that periodically verges on panic that is in itself blind. By this I mean the absence of a clearly, sharply defined perception of what is transpiring abroad regarding particularly such critically important security issues as the existence or the spread or the availability or the readiness in alien hands of weapons of mass destruction.
We have actually experienced in recent months a dramatic demonstration of an unprecedented intelligence failure, perhaps the most significant intelligence failure in the history of the United States. That failure was contributed to and was compensated for by extremist demagogy which emphasizes the worst case scenarios which stimulates fear, which induces a very simple dichotomic view of world reality.
Even in normal operation 95% of intelligence sources used by the CIA are Open Source.
where is the source for this stat?
Originally posted by giant
Hmmm. Wolfowitz didn't take Wohlstetter's worst-case scenario model and transfer to the contemporary landscape? And I suppose Shulsky never actually wrote his paper on Strauss and intelligence.
Please enlighten me as to what part of the following is incorrect:
I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, Wolfowitz took a page from Kissinger, in recognizing that Iraq is the first domino to the problems in the ME. You trying to dress this up in some academic speculation regards the practical application of this or that theory, just goes to show how far you overextended your argument, and how ethereal and desperate it has become.
Originally posted by alcimedes
where is the source for this stat?
It's an open one
Originally posted by aapl
Wolfowitz took a page from Kissinger
Actually, apparently you missed that wolfowitz and kissinger are polar opposites. You know, the whole neoconservative/realist thing? I mean, it's only the most discussed subject in american foreign policy.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It's an open one
I'll see if I can track it down for you guys, but I have to go do some stuff around the house for a little while. The woman is rushing around in a bit of a huff, you know?
Originally posted by giant
Actually, apparently you missed that wolfowitz and kissinger are polar opposites. You know, the whole neoconservative/realist thing? I mean, it's only the most discussed subject in american foreign policy.
Actually, apparently you have a reading comprehension problem..
Let me put it to you again: "As far as I can tell, Wolfowitz took a page from Kissinger, in recognizing that Iraq is the first domino to the problems in the ME." Now, if you disagree with this statement, i.e., that Kissinger did not express this sentiment, and that Wolfovitz did not act on it, then please indicate how it is incorrect.
Originally posted by giant
It's actually pretty simple. Wohlstetter's central thesis was that we need to have a zero margin of error in a nuclear world. This meant you had to deal with every situation according to the worst-case scenario. Wolfowitz argued that this should be applied to proliferation and, more shockingly, power.
The other major influence was Shulsky's (and all of the other straussians, including wolfowitz) interpretation of Strauss with regard to intelligence, essentially adopting a hyper-paranoid view of intel where you assume that basically everything is complete deception and the only way to get any info is to read between the lines.
The biggest problem with how these views were adopted was the extreme to which they were (are) followed. Iraq was an open book, and that was obvious. Certain individuals in the US government were too blinded by these ideological beliefs to realize that.*
Brzezinski described the problems with this very well at the NASSP conference:
*This is not to say that there was no deception, since clearly there was. But the primary thrust was in the opposite direction with Saddam working to make it appear Iraq was better armed than it was.
A few thoughts. After pursuing the net on Shulsky and Wohlsetter, and some of my books, I get some rather interesting and disparate views ? not so much as to the facts, as to the characterizations of their ideas, as well as the real influence of their mentors. None of my thoughts are intended to contradict your thesis, but to give a little more depth and speculation.
Leo Strauss, as I recall in my brief academic exposure to him, was along with Eric Voegelin (another conservative), one of the most important classical philosophers of his day. His ?claim to fame? among conservatives has been his studies of natural rights history, Machiavelli, Aristotle, and his criticism of the ?new political science? ? and I should that ?his disciples are legion and include a wide range of scholars? (such as Jaffa, another conservative historian).
Most conservatives have concentrated on Strauss?s antipathy to ?scientific? or positivist political science and its failure to acknowledge normative values (and the delusion of social science positivists to think their discipline is value free). This is, as I recall, in keeping with the conservative critique of the 50s; i.e., that ?modern? social planners (liberals) presumed they could know a truth and shape it to ?the good? society.
The one article I have read of his (required in a course) was ?The Relevance of Social Science?. I enjoyed its concluding paragraph so much, that I kept a copy around.
I have to quote it: ?Only a great fool would call the new Political Science diabolic: it has no attributes peculiar to fallen angles. It is not even Machiavellian, for Machiavelli?s teachings were graceful, subtle, and colorful. Nor is it Neroian. Nevertheless, one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know it fiddles, and it does not know Rome burns?.
I?ve also noted that Shulsky, a Strauss scholar, has written numerous papers alone and jointly dealing with nuclear theory and Soviet disinformation (as well as a speculative piece on Strauss and Intel):
1)\tWithout having read Shulsky, and comparing him to other Rand and Brookings analysts, its not possible for me to render an opinion as to the ?hyper paranoia? of his views, or the practical influence of Strauss?s thinking.
2)\tI don?t know enough about Wohlsetter?s ideas and what his followers have made of them on a personal level.
However, I also note that it would be difficult to have been an academic poly sci conservative, of any stripe, and not been exposed to Strauss (anymore than a academic liberal could avoid Rawls). But a couple of questions come to mind:
1)\tAre Wohlsetter and Strauss especially influential in shaping the decision makers ideas in regards to Iraq?
2)\tAren?t there numerous, even hundreds, of analysts in Washington? galaxy of think tanks, dozens of State and Defense Department Agencies, NSC, etc. that are influenced by very diverse foreign policy backgrounds? (Heck I read a wide range of stuff prior to this thread from college, without ever tripping across their names in foreign policy and international relations theory).
3)\tNeoconservatism is not so much an ideology, as an intellectual perspective. Of course it is well known as the diverse group of individuals (most of the first generation were Jewish and New Yorkers) who became disillusioned with Communism and/or socialism, as well as liberal social engineering. By default they developed into intellectual conservatives (neo conservatives, although many claimed they were something else). Their wide-ranging knowledge of Marxism, Soviet politics, internationalist ideology, and propaganda made them especially hostile to totalitarian movements (as well as very effective opponents). I imagine most of them never heard of Shulsky, and only a few insiders would have appreciated Wohlsetter's thinking.
Aren?t there, then, plenty of influences in conservatism, and in its makeup, to suggest that the foreign policy of Bush is shaped by a wider variety of forces? And outside of conservatism, aren?t there a wide range of others (e.g. Rice or the State Department employees, etc.) also engaged at different levels?
In the thirty or so years I?ve followed these kinds of debates, I?ve been exposed to scores of theorists and thinkers and, frankly, most of us on the right haven?t needed or noticed these fellows in developing our own agreement with the administration ? and I think that is true of most conservatives.
However, I have a very open mind and would still like to hear more.
Originally posted by giant
Hey, you be careful, kid. If you have a problem with the quote, argue that. Everyone knows who Bzezinski is, dumbass. We weren't all born in the eighties.
Or are you just a little guy looking for something to vent your hormones?
See this is where you lose. Why belittle him or try to marginalize him in that way? You seem that you can't even help it.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031107.html
Strategic ambiguity about Ansar al-Islam
By Bryan Keefer
November 7, 2003
In recent weeks, a number of Bush administration officials have renewed efforts to build a rhetorical linkage between Ansar al-Islam, an Al Qaeda-backed terrorist group operating in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein. Despite the slim evidence of any operational connection between the two, these officials have continued to use strategically ambiguous language to imply a connection.
Prior to the war, Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled areas in the northeastern Iraq, a region that had been outside of Saddam's control since the Gulf War in 1991. At the time, administration officials suggested the group was directly connected to the Iraqi dictator. In his February speech to the United Nations, for instance, Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested that there was contact between Saddam and the group, and cited it as a potential link between the Iraqi dictator and Al Qaeda.
However, evidence found at a Ansar al-Islam training camp in March indicates that the group had ties to Al Qaeda, but it did not demonstrate a connection to Saddam. At this point, the strongest evidence to date for a linkage was presented by General Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 24 that "We do know that Iraqi intelligence service had people involved back and forth" with the group. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz also claimed there were unspecified "links" between Saddam and the group in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 9, stating that both Saddam and Ansar al-Islam "went to very great lengths to bury and hide the links that they had with one another. So you have to recognize, we'll probably see only the tip of the iceberg, but we certainly see links."
In short, the evidence is muddled, but there is little proof of a direct connection between Saddam and the group, particularly prior to the war. Rather than acknowledging this, members of the Bush administration have repeatedly attempted to link Ansar al-Islam with the deposed dictator (and thereby help justify the war) by claiming that the group operated in Iraq prior to the war, while pointedly neglecting to mention that the area in which it operated was not under Saddam's control.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Links to Al Qaeda... yeah right!
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031107.html
First you assume that this guy has some special insight, and secondly that I care what he thinks.
Oh yeah, and you then have to dismiss and ignore the fact that al-qaeda and a whole basket full of terrorist groups are helping and working side by side with Saddam and his people.
And I don't.
Yeah... Osama and Saddam are hanging out in Tikrit... making roadside bombs together... one big happy family. You have proof right? The Evildoers family picnic photo right?
The best guesses are... that foreign terrorists have flowed into Iraq AFTER the ground war. And are operating on their own.
That Baathists are fighting... on their own.
And disgruntled Iraqis take pot shots when they get the chance.
If they do organize and actually cooperate... it's going to get a whole hell of alot worse.
Now I could easily go along with it is just blind hatred for America that is driving it, but they could do more damage elswhere and not have to be up against a superior military force. These people, at least the people in charge sending them, have to know that.
What it proved to me is that all of these terrorists are all just opportunistic killers and are getting harder to distinguish them apart. That is what saddam was and that is what they are. For people to try to separate them is like separating wet from water.
As far as proof, what proof have you that they aren't working together?
I sense that you sympathize with those murderers a bit. Maybe I am reading you wrong.
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as proof, what proof have you that they aren't working together?
By all accounts I've read, OBL and SH don't get along. Remember: OBL is a Islamic fundamentalist; SH is really a secularist who pays lip-service to Islam to keep the masses in line.
At any rate, you've just asked us to prove a negative, just as the US asked Iraq to prove a negative (i.e. "Prove to us that you don't have WMD!")
Cheers
Scott
"They're all evil" Isn't an argument. You're just assuming all these connections... when there's no proof.
Islamic extremism. Baathist Nationalism. Angry Iraqi Opportunism. All motivations for fighting American trrops. And not necessarily connected.
Winning the peace is a complex problem... compounded by the administration's oversimplification of it.