The War on Terra
I found this article yesterday, and couldn’t help but respond here. The assertion that the war is in perfect order with God and man just is too tempting to cross-examine.
First, just because war is constitutional (I don’t think anyone disagrees there) doesn’t mean that this particular conflict was handled in the correct manner. First, isn’t Article I Section 8 discussing Congress’ power? In the current war, it is the executive branch that is making the assertions. Show me a congressional declaration of war to assuage this concern. I don’t think anyone can really say it was handled correctly. No one is saying that governments can’t declare war. What people *are* saying, is that this wasn’t done right.
I also find it interesting that the “justification” for this war comes from a debated 2006 report on Iraq ground munitions. First, these weapons were confirmed to pre-1991 era weapons found “in such a degraded state they couldn’t be used for what they are designed for.” [1] The statement that they *could* be sold on the black market is really just fear-mongering and conjecture.
The WMDs *could* be in the hands of some rabid terrorist outside your door tonight as well.
So, Bush claims that these people are armed to the teeth, ready to kill us all, and we need to take immediate action. The reality is that these weapons have been around for 15+ years, and their usability and potency is in question. Sure: they’ve been termed “lethal,” but even conventional weapons are “lethal.” And if these weapons have been around for so long, why take action 15 years later? If the weapons haven’t found use in the last two conflicts we’ve had in Iraq, it seems doubtful they’ll see any use.
Now do you realize why even the Bush administration didn’t flaunt the report?
Next, your assertion that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war started is loose at best. So if Colin tells the UN Security Council, it must be true? I also fail to see how killing a terrorist leader three years after the war started is proof that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. Joscelyn’s article seems contradictory as well:
Consider what a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, told his CIA interrogators after his capture in March 2002. According to the Senate Intelligence Report, Zubaydah said ‘he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.’
That rather sums it up for me. Top operative, not aware.
I hesitate to address your remaining arguments. I don’t think it’s anyone’s job to define what “good Latter-day Saints” should know, and to put words in the mouth of the prophet. If he says he’s for the war, why does he not say it plainly? It seems to me that he is reaffirming the Church’s position on following our civic leaders, and that above all, we should search for peace.
And while I believe God can turn any human mess into an opportunity, I don’t think wars are the best way to spread the gospel message. I don’t think that members on the ground in Baghdad are any justification for the continuance of this conflict.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 5th, 2007 at 7:25 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Let us look at the exact words of Gordon B. Hinckley here: “It may even be that He (God) will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.” Enough said on this one!
The debated report to congress was debated in the congress but was never taken into question as to its authenticity. There were many, many munitions in violation of U.N. orders.
Now, why don’t you finish the above quote by Abu Zubaydah that you took out of context along with the testimony of scores of other captured Al Qaeda operatives? Be truthful here!
September 5th @ 8:24 amI agree with that quote, but probably not your interpretation. If the government wants to install cameras in all of our homes in order to stop evil, are we allowed to fight against that measure? I think so.
The difference here is that you think the government is doing no evil themselves. I think that’s not a clear-cut as you’d like to think.
I’m also not doubting the authenticity of the report, I’m doubting its relevance. These munitions can’t even be used for what they were designed to do, and even if you don’t agree with that - why haven’t they been used yet?
Okay here’s the full quote. Context included for added contradiction:
So, he knows of no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but he heard that they’re a friend of a friend with good relationships to Iraqi Intel? That makes no sense.
September 5th @ 8:41 amI definitely do disagree with your interpretaion based on the rest of President Hinckley’s talk, that he was speaking specifically of the conflict in Iraq in this talk, and considering that President Hinckley was one of the clergy from several different faiths that Bush consulted with prior to the U.S. Invasion.
The declassified report only mentions a very few of the munitions found in Iraq since the war, and these alone show blatant defiance of the U.N resolutions that prohibited said items.
Another key point was Colin Powell mentioning Al Qaeda operative Musab al-Zarqawi as being in Iraq before congress and prior to the invasion - Now where did U.S. forces kill the scoundrel? What was the name of the group he headed? Sounds like Al Qaeda had a base of operations there - also many other operatives have been killed there and others have testified that Al Qaeda was there under Saddam Hussein and that Saddam Hussein was pouring money into the organization of our nemesis.
I don’t believe that you are being intellectually honest here.
September 5th @ 2:35 pmWe’ll have to agree to disagree about President Hinckley’s remarks.
Please address my original concerns about the declassified report. I still don’t see how the data collected there is relevant. Well yeah, they aren’t UN-approved, but the munitions found (three years after the war) don’t pose an imminent threat to the US. 15 year-old, unusable weapons… If they’re so dangerous, why haven’t they used them in the past 15 years?
Also, the main point of the article was that a top Al Qaeda figure knew of no Iraq/Al Qaeda ties. Please reconcile that.
Your other key point seems moot to me. No one is denying that Al Qaeda might be there *now*. I thought we were talking about justifications for entering the war in 2003. If anything, that makes me wonder if the war hasn’t increased terrorist activity in Iraq, for whatever reason.
Please don’t try to insult me about honesty, just stick to the facts and we’ll be just fine. :)
September 5th @ 3:22 pmZarqawi was an Al Qaeda operative. He was in Iraq before and after the invasion. Furthermore Al-Masari (who operated the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights, a Saudi oppositionist group an Al Qaeda front, out of London for more than a decade) told the editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi that Saddam “established contact with the ‘Afghan Arabs’ as early as 2001, believing he would be targeted by the U.S. once the Taliban was routed.” Furthermore, “Saddam funded Al-Qaeda operatives to move into Iraq with the proviso that they would not undermine his regime.” He also claimed that Saddam’s regime actively aided Zarqawi and his men prior to the war and fully included them in his plans for a terrorist insurgency.
As for the WMD’s, military experts in chemical and biological warfare said that these weapons were still lethal and could cause massive casualities if used against their enemies. Saddam had not declared them in accordance with U.N. resolutions and had not destroyed them as a condition of ceasefire in the first gulf war. Saddam was continuously plotting to reempliment his weapons program and could have done it a moments notice when he was not under the radar according to the Duelfer report. Where do you think all of the Oil for Food money was going?
September 5th @ 5:18 pmI don’t know where you’re getting this information:
Here’s some Pentagon and CIA reports debunking any strong Al Qaeda/Iraq/Hussein connections.
http://wpherald.com/articles/4137/1/Pentagon-report-There-was-no-Saddam-al-Qaida-connection/CIA-in-2002-found-no-cooperation.html
Published four months ago.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec10.pdf
(9/11 Commission Report, p.334 Section 10.3, second and third paragraphs)
There is not currently a strong opinion that there were strong ties before we invaded this country. You cannot continue to pretend that there were.
You reference Zarqawi, but I think you don’t realize that he was not a member of Al Qaeda until *after* we invaded Afghanistan. Research his initial group “al-Tawhid wal-Jihad,” if you don’t believe me. His initial targets were Jordanian.
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=400&issue_id=3179&article_id=2369019
WMDs:
Conventional weapons can also cause “massive casualties” and are also “lethal.” If they were so powerful, why have they not been used in the last 15 years against a clear American enemy? These WMDs are only being used as fear mongering tools against the ignorant. If they are so dangerous, they would have seen action in *fifteen* years.
I also doubt Saddam could have reimplemented his entire chemical weapons program “at a moments notice.” Pentagon officials described the weapons as “in such a degraded state they couldn’t be used for what they are designed for.”
If for some reason you think Saddam had operational ties to Al Qaeda before the war, you’d also be in disagreement with recent Pentagon reports:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html
Given that my sources are extremely recent (four months old), and from credible sources (CIA, pentagon), I don’t see how your claims hold any verity.
September 5th @ 9:01 pmI stated my source above, John. These were Al-Masari’s own words in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi. If you read the pre-war intelligence concerning these weapons (and these were but a small amount of them) you will know that these were some of the exact weapons that we went to war for and for which congress approved the actions. Colin Powell referred to Zarqawi as a member of Al Qaeda before the war and it was confirmed after the war. I notice most of your sources are second hand sources from mainstream media reporting. I don’t put much credence in the MSM. After all, look at what they do to anybody who is not a democrat - including Ron Paul. I stand by my initial findings. As I said in another blog thread, we won’t find out the whole truth for another 20 to 30 years when current classified documents are released.
Having worked military intelligence for many years I understand things about disemination of information that most do not. The dems understand this too. If they truly wanted to stop the war they have the tools to do it under the constitution. They are not telling you everything - this I promise you. There is a lot going on for strictly political expediency at this point from both sides of the spectrum. The republicans can’t say a lot without revealing sources which are highly compartamentalized and the democrats are taking advantage of that situation and beguiling the public to score political browny points. I saw it all before when I was in the thick of the know under Ronald Reagan. The dems fought him every step of the way and yet he will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
September 5th @ 11:33 pmLet’s take a quick look at your sources. The wpherald site says that the CIA acknowleges few contacts with Al-Qaeda. Interpretation there were some and they are not willing to release all the details. The washington post repeats the same. It is also evident from Zarqawi’s bio that he was thick with Al Qaeda for some time and had many associates therein from his time in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was a terrorist from way back. These do refute what I have said.
September 5th @ 11:43 pmPre-war intelligence was wrong. Info about the weapons was sketchy at best, and (I’ll state it once again) if they really are dangerous, why did they not get used? They absolutely, unequivocally cannot have been as dangerous as the Bush administration would like you to believe. The proof is in the last 15 years of history.
Colin Powell is wrong about Zarqawi. What was confirmed after the war? By who? The Jamestown bio (among others) clearly states that he was *not* a member of Al Qaeda before we invaded. He was a terrorist looking to attack the regime in Jordan.
Ignoring MSM just because they are mainstream is a broad generalization and a logical fallacy. Please address the facts. I might as easily say that non-MSM is just a bunch of hacks and ignore them at large, but I don’t. Truth is truth regardless of who speaks it.
I think its horrifically ironic that now, after we’ve invaded a country unjustly, and thousands have died… NOW you want to wait 20-30 years to see what the truth is. How convenient for you.
I don’t have to work in military intelligence to understand how government works. If your understanding is superior, then please explain these subtle nuances to the ignorant masses as best you can.
And please don’t change the subject. I’m not talking about the war progressing as it is now, I’m addressing the reasons for starting this war. That has nothing to do with current situation, and everything to do with past intelligence.
Those reports have been declassified, and now are debunking any Iraq/Al Qaeda connections.
And I’m not interested in your subjective interpretation of the report. Please just stick to the facts at hand and plain reason.
And yes, Zarqawi was a terrorist, but what you failed to see is that his targets were Jordanian before we invaded. Once we did so, he joined up to the Al Qaeda cause.
September 6th @ 8:21 amAnd some more relevant news today:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
September 6th @ 11:51 amJohn, the amount of pesticides (a key ingredient in nerve agents) alone should cause concern especially with the mobile labs that were found near by. These pesticides were stored with munitions. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t believe that there is much of an insect problem with munitions. To me there is just too much evidence to ignore.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree all the way around except as it pertains to the saving ordinances of the gospel, those that are essential to salvation. I can always love a brother in the gospel despite where they stand politically as is evidenced by the spirit in the temple.
It would take more time than I have to educate you on the collection, analysis, reporting and dissemination of intelligence data. I know first hand, however, how our congressmen take this intelligence twist it into anything except what it is and present it in its warped form to the American People and when they don’t do this they spill classified information all over the headlines. I saw it too many times as an intelligence analyst in the Reagan administration. Now, 20+ some years later people are extolling Reagan and the decisions he made although unpopular at the time. Think about it!
WMD were found, Iraq was in violation of cease fire agreements from the first gulf war, Saddam was supporting terrorism and Al Qaeda in his country. I can match you source for source, but what good would it do. You are as stubborn in your view as I am in mine. My personal opinion is that 20 years from now none of this may matter as I am hoping that the millenial reign will be ushered in before that time. I think we will both agree, we need it now!
September 6th @ 6:23 pmJust one thought on your new source. George Tenet’s new book “At The Center of the Storm” disagrees with this source. Here Tenet says, “There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and Al-Qa’ida (sic); there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi’s associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad…
“The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa’ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi’s arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a “senior associate and collaborator” of al-Qa’ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam. We believed that up to twoo hundred al-Qa’ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afgan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi’s reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi’s men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations…
“What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qaida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government.” Tenet devotes several pages to the Al Qa’ida/Iraq connection prior to the war. Tenet’s book was released in May of this year.
Who are you going to believe with so many conflicting reports? This book is by the then head of the CIA.
September 6th @ 6:44 pmDennis, just answer me this. Stop adding more on the pile, just address this main concern.
For a moment, let’s pretend (contrary to recent reports by the pentagon and the CIA) that Iraq has had WMDs in its hot little hands since 1991. Super deadly ones. Ones that could kill us all in a moment’s notice. Ones that we’d need to take immediate violent action against.
If these magical weapons were so dangerous, why were they not used in the past 15 years, three of which we were at war with this people? If they had this ultra-destructive weapon, why not use it against their most hated enemy?
Don’t give me some line about your extensive experience in intel. I know it’s mysterious and complex, but let’s just stick to what’s generally known and accepted.
Don’t bring irrelevant gospel language into the discussion. This isn’t a theological concern.
Don’t reference another misinterpreted article (btw, the NY Times think’s Tenet’s new book slams Bush and Cheney on their Iraq stance).
Just explain that.
The reason there is no answer is because these “weapons” are not so powerful as the Bush administration would like you to think. The reason they haven’t used them is that Iraq/al-Qaeda ties are not as strong as they’d like you to think.
What other reason is there?
This simple fact alone is proof to me that the Iraq invasion was an unjustified mistake at best.
Oh, here’s the NYT link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html?ex=1335326400&en=e6f2a5232d75afb5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
September 6th @ 8:45 pmThe NYTimes (most liberal and biased paper in America) has nitpicked the book to death. I’ve read the book and have a copy of it. While Tenet is critical at times of Bush he does not deny what Bush originally said. Read the book not an interpretation of the book!
Everyone knows that Iraq had the weapons in the first gulf war as well - did he use them then? No! Who knows what goes on in the mind of a mad man? The weapons were there - many were found, soldiers who were there will tell you they were found. You believe whatever you want to believe - go hold hands with like minded people in the Utopia set up by Ron Paul and sing another refrain of Kum-ba-ya and continue doing so until you are crushed by Sharia law.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I have seen no irrefutable proof from primary resources from you. I tried to play nice but if you really want the gloves to come off - I can get into that too. You give sources from the media! I give sources from the sources that said it (primary sources). I have read through the 911 report and the Duelfer report “en toto”. I thrive on that kind of stuff. Have you read them? Or have you just heard what certain parties want you to hear? Both of these are available on line. Read them in full and then make a decision and quit listening to everyone else - make up your own mind. I have!
September 6th @ 9:31 pmSo your answer to my pointed question is “who knows what goes on in the mind of a mad man.”
Is Saddam the only person capable of using these “weapons”? What about these super-scary claims that they easily could have been sold on the black market?
I agree he wasn’t completely sane, but was he so out of touch that he forgot he had these extremely deadly weapons for 15 years?
That just doesn’t add up. That answer isn’t good enough.
And I think I will live in Utopia a little longer. Why? Because how many terrorist attacks have we had on the mainland since 9/11? How many of these horribly dangerous gonna-kill-us-all-now madmen have affected Americans at home in the past six years.
None.
Sure, I think we’ll have to endure the tragedy of another terrorist attack sometime in the future, but only history will tell whether our unjustified position in Iraq was help or a hindrance, a stop or a antagonist, to the Jihadi cause.
My sources are not from mainstream media. Please stop decrying MSM at large. As I said before, that’s a logical fallacy. If you see where they are wrong, please outline it.
These articles are from the media that reference declassified Pentagon and CIA reports. I can probably find direct links to the reports outside of the media, but I don’t see how that matters. The reports are reports, regardless of who talks about them (I actually linked directly to a section in the 9/11 commission report - maybe you missed that). The commentary isn’t what I’ve referenced - its the meat in the reports.
I know you’ve definitely made up your mind. I’m lost as to how you reach your conclusion based on clear reporting from the Pentagon and the CIA, contrary to your position.
September 7th @ 8:41 amYes, none thanks to our President and our intelligence services! And my conclusions come from real world experience with the intelligence agencies that Libs so love to ignore.
September 7th @ 9:05 amIf I’m ignoring it, it’s because I have no reason to pay attention to it. You haven’t supplied one bit of specifically relevant info about it.
If your conclusions come from something you can’t explain, then why are you talking about them?
Besides that, I have no way of verifying your vast intel experience. I might as well say I’ve spoken to Saddam himself, he sided with me right before he was imprisoned, but sorry: I can’t really verify or explain that to you.
And speaking of ignoring, do you plan to address the other points in my last comment?
September 7th @ 9:32 amLike I would tell my children. I am not going to do all of your homework for you. Look at all the information on both sides of the issue. Put it together and make a rational decision based on the facts. This is what I have done. This is what congress has done (that is why they refuse to defund the war) and this is what our military has done. The large majority come to the same conclusions I have. Ask the people on the ground what they think. We can “website bash” all day and not come to a consensus. I just prefer primary sources.
September 7th @ 1:22 pmSo that’s a yes.
Guess we’re done. :)
September 7th @ 1:27 pmI’ve answered your many points time after time. Look at all the evidence. You want from me what you refuse to provide yourself. Typical Liberal behavior and I believe that is exactly what you Ron Paul supporters are. So you run over to the other Joker Paul site to ad your two cents worth. Enjoy it while you can because you know that that old idiot is going to implode.
September 7th @ 2:17 pmIndependent verification that there were no WMDs, and that Iraq had no pre-war Al Qaeda ties:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
January 22nd @ 10:40 pm