New Pentagon Paper: War on Terror an Unmitigated Disaster

Here's an article discussing the report on the "War on Terror" that was supressed due to the election. The conclusion? It ain't brain surgery. "The War on Terror" is described as an unmitigated disaster. Big surprise.

The new Pentagon Paper
A scathing top-level report, intended for internal consumption, says that Bush's "war on terrorism" is an unmitigated disaster. Of course, the administration is ignoring it.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal

Dec. 2, 2004 | Who wrote this -- a pop sociologist, obscure blogger or antiwar playwright? "Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic -- namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is -- for Americans -- really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves."

This passage is not psychobabble, punditry or monologue. It is a conclusion of the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, the product of a Pentagon advisory panel, delivered in September, its 102 pages not released to the public during the presidential campaign, but silently slipped onto a Pentagon Web site on Thanksgiving eve, and barely noticed by the U.S. press.


The task force of leading strategists and experts within the military, diplomatic corps and academia, and executives from defense-oriented business, was assigned to develop strategy for communications in the "global war on terrorism," including the war in Iraq. It had unfettered access, denied to journalists, to the inner workings of the national security apparatus, and interviewed scores of officials. The mission was not to find fault, but to suggest constructive improvements. There was no intent to contribute to public debate, much less political controversy; the report was written only for internal consumption.
www.salon.com...

This is what we have been telling conservatives all along, but instead of listening for a change, us Lib's are labled as anti-patriots, or some other bull# name. ECK, thank you for bringing this internal paper to light.Excellent find. Now I wonder how long it will take for all the conservatives here to try and deny this report as spin, or Liberal propaganda? Not long Im betting LS will be here soon Im sure

[edit on 12/16/04 by Kidfinger]

Lost Sailor... Lost Sailor...

I guess he's currently, uh.. lost.

Ok, enuff of that silliness! Gotta love how BushCo. was so confident in their prosecution of this fiction, I mean, war, they wouldn't allow the report to see the light of day until after the election.

It's funny, when Bush took office in 2000, I felt good thinking that the adults were once again in charge. As it turns out, team Bush is even more inept than the Clinton administration when it comes to the military.

Anyone else notice how few Bush apologists are left here? I guess the rest of them realized you cannot defend the indefensible.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

I am really very much concerned the US is almost at the point that it has lost the war in the Middle East: that is the spreading of democracy/capitalism and the non-proliferation of WMD have such a set back in the Middle East, that it cannot be achieved anymore in the foreseeable future.

The invasion of Iraq -where it is proven that it hasn't effective WMD anymore, see Duelfer report- is a burden for any preemptive strike on Iran. One can therefore ask, what has the US really achieved with the invasion of Iraq?

Blobber

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ok, enuff of that silliness!

Gotta love how BushCo. was so confident in their prosecution of this fiction, I mean, war, they wouldn't allow the report to see the light of day until after the election.

It was one of six studies commissioned in the summer of 2004, released in September, 2004. And where exactly was it delivered? To the Pentagon? The DoD? What I'm driving at is, where's your source that the White House suppressed it, since it was available to everyone on the internet?

Anyone else notice how few Bush apologists are left here? I guess the rest of them realized you cannot defend the indefensible.

Defend the indefensible, ECK? Like certain statements that inflation is raging out of control, and our money isn't worth the paper it is printed on?

Know anybody that makes such statements, and cannot defend them when presented with facts to the contrary, ECK?

Back to topic. The study recommended stronger strategic communications, in a nutshell, including better use of the printed word and the internet as conduits for propaganda. It even suggests using more psyops. I'm all for that, and I'll admit that GWB hasn't used them wisely in the past. Hopefully, we'll see a change in the next four years. But, even though I agree that strategic communications is necessary, I won't go so far as Kerry would have; asking the UN for permission to do something.

Finally, I wonder why some of the pages are out of order? Not suggesting anything, it's just that it makes for a difficult read. I'm referring to pp 87 - 90 (acro-numbered pages). Maybe somebody just dropped the stack on the way to the copier... or ??

I would expect this from Clinton era pentagon greed-masters. The problem with Iraq is the big part of the war was over too soon. Big defense companies didn't make enough money. That is why they are going after Rummy. Not enough Bucks for the Bang.

Originally posted by Blobber
One can therefore ask, what has the US really achieved with the invasion of Iraq?

Blobber

Controlled chaos.

The U.S. now has its boot firmly on the neck of OPEC and has a central location to stage our military. Chaos? Near bankruptcy of the US treasury? A thriving recruiting magnet for real terrorists? Who cares? Rummy and Tricky Dick are in charge! What they want, they get. Screw the rest of us useless feeders.

Eastcoastkid,

Yes, I am very much affraid that we and our children will pay the price for the errors that have been made with the invasion of Iraq.

Blobber

Originally posted by jsobecky
where's your source that the White House suppressed it, since it was available to everyone on the internet?

This has been known for quite some time. At least to those paying attention.

Know anybody that makes such statements, and cannot defend them when presented with facts to the contrary, ECK?

Yep.

I won't go so far as Kerry would have; asking the UN for permission to do something.

This statement is false. If you wish to push this fallacy here, please supply us with a direct quote of him saying it.

Yes, our children and their children will definitely be paying the price for this collossal folly. Our national debt now is beyond astronomical. One of the biggest mistakes this administration has made, due to sheer greed and hubris, is implementing tax cuts while going to war. BIG mistake. BigTime. Even Dubya's dad & his crew knew better. Poppy had to go back on his tax pledge b/c of those same factors. Looking back, we now know he did the right thing. His change of course planted the seed that grew into Clinton's vibrant economy. (It often bugs me that Clinton gets the credit for that. He should only share it, being that he husbanded it well.)

Our young are also being needlessly offered up to die and kill on the alter of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld's imperial greed and bloodlust. I believe there will be a special place in hell for them and those of their ilk.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
This has been known for quite some time. At least to those paying attention.

Not even close to an answer. I can understand if you can't back it up, though.

I won't go so far as Kerry would have; asking the UN for permission to do something.

This statement is false. If you wish to push this fallacy here, please supply us with a direct quote of him saying it.

No it's not false, and you know it. He said during one of the debates that he would put preemptive war decisions to a "Global Test", another way of saying he would ask permission of the UN.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I won't go so far as Kerry would have; asking the UN for permission to do something.

No it's not false, and you know it. He said during one of the debates that he would put preemptive war decisions to a "Global Test", another way of saying he would ask permission of the UN.

Sorry, but your HEARSAY doesn't cut it. Let's see the quote.

"Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic -- namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is -- for Americans -- really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves."

This is nothing new.

"Finaly" ? Or, do you mean for the last half century? Americans have been fixated in the Middle East for financial gains, as they have been in the early part of this century in Brazil --cofee; and, as they have been in virtualy every foriegn country one can name. This is nothing new, American society revolves around materialism.

I'm not sure why we are all shocked about this. I have to call into play the credibility of this site though. That quote does not seem to fit into the rest of the report. It's too formal..

Deep

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Sorry, but your HEARSAY doesn't cut it. Let's see the quote.

Sure. I have no problem at all backing up what I say:

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.


What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?


KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control....


But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

Now, where's your quote or other backup to my previous question? We already know what your word is worth irt inflation, where's your proof to back up this claim? "EVERYBODY KNOWS" doesn't cut it, either.

Originally posted by jsobecky
where's your source that the White House suppressed it, since it was available to everyone on the internet?

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.


What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?


KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control....


But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

Nowhere in this statement does it say that we will ask the UN for permission to a preemptive strike. What it DOES imply is that he would rather have a world majority of support before we go poppin off governments agian. Better find a different quote

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Sorry, but your HEARSAY doesn't cut it. Let's see the quote.

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control....

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

yawn. Sorry, but he says the president has always had the right to use pre-emptive force. You are somehow hearing what you wish to hear. If you are assuming, by him referring to a test - global, or whatever - before the application of force, he means having solid PROOF and CONSENSUS. Are you unclear on the meaning of that? Or do you just refuse to acknowledge the wisdom in that approach?

where's your source that the White House suppressed it, since it was available to everyone on the internet?

I don't have time to avalanche you with my sources. If you had been paying attention to alternative news sources, as in credible - unlike the totally suspect US mainstream media - you would have picked that up. Just start monitering as many online news compendium sites as you can. You'll gather an absolute wealth of news and analysis - that you will not get in the US mass media. I'll go even further, as far as news goes, I'd suggest throwing your tv out the window, cause 98% of it is US Grade A government propaganda.

To the EastCoastKid,

Boo Hoo Hoo, It makes me so sad for all you left wingers who haven't gotten over President Bush beating your psudo war hero boy.

Here's a news flash for you, get used to it, the president won big, he has far more supporters than detractors.

Originally posted by JimboE

To the EastCoastKid,

Boo Hoo Hoo, It makes me so sad for all you left wingers who haven't gotten over President Bush beating your psudo war hero boy.

Here's a news flash for you, get used to it, the president won big, he has far more supporters than detractors.

Alrighty, then JIMBO.

By the way, I did vote for Dubya, at least once. And uh, I'm a Republican. Just for the record.

By the way, here's a tip, just 'cause one's a member of the GOP, does not mean, one has to check his brain at the door.

I am really very much concerned the US is almost at the point that it has lost the war in the Middle East:

Does anyone still actually believe in the idea the US can win in Iraq? if so explain your idea for winning from this point in time.

My reference is to history, as it dictates that the US cannot possibly beat such a growing insurgency.
The US tried it in Vietnam in the 60's and were defeated.
The soviets tried it in Afghanistan in the 80's and were defeated.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

yawn. Sorry, but he says the president has always had the right to use pre-emptive force. You are somehow hearing what you wish to hear. If you are assuming, by him referring to a test - global, or whatever - before the application of force, he means having solid PROOF and CONSENSUS. Are you unclear on the meaning of that? Or do you just refuse to acknowledge the wisdom in that approach?

Yeah, eck, go get a cup of coffee. I'll wait. Yeah, I'm unclear on the PROOF and CONSENSUS thing, especially the CONSENSUS part.

Does that mean if we don't have 100% consensus, we don't go?

And even though I can't see the wisdom in the global test, I do see the folly in it.

where's your source that the White House suppressed it, since it was available to everyone on the internet?

I don't have time to avalanche you with my sources. If you had been paying attention to alternative news sources, as in credible - unlike the totally suspect US mainstream media - you would have picked that up.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to rabid-dog-spittle or whatever. I want to see facts, not wild-eyed theories.

And you don't have to avalanche me. I'll be satisified with one verifiable snowflake of proof that the White House supressed it.