It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Guardian
In its external aspects, Iraq remains a live, occasionally explosive issue in the US and Britain, as last week's row over General Sir Richard Dannatt's thoughts on a British withdrawal showed. But the deepening chaos inside the country attracts less and less attention. Like sailors long missing at sea, the fate of ordinary Iraqis three years after the country was driven on to the rocks grows increasingly remote from those who precipitated the disaster.
The Lancet's politically damaging report that more than 650,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 was swiftly dismissed by the White House. But the fact that October is proving the cruellest month for American soldiers, with an average 3.5 deaths a day so far, is deadlier domestic ammunition for the Democrats.
But inside Iraq, the picture appears very different to those who still care to look. As daily sectarian bloodshed, militia anarchy and political incompetence reach unprecedented levels, it seems likely that the worst is yet to come.
In a report for the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony Cordesman takes a more holistic approach reflecting Washington's responsibilities as well as its self-interest.
"Iraq is already in a state of serious civil war and current efforts at political compromise and improving security at best are buying time," he says. "There is a critical risk that Iraq will drift into a major civil conflict over the coming months ... The US cannot simply 'stay the course' and rely on existing actions and strategy. It needs new options."
Bush acknowledges Iraq-Vietnam war comparison
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush has for the first time acknowledged a possible parallel between the raging violence in Iraq and the Vietnam War.
But the White House also affirmed that it has no plan to reassess its strategy in the war-ravaged country, despite a surge in US casualties there and unrelenting sectarian bloodshed.
Bush was asked in an ABC News interview late Wednesday if he agreed with a New York Times columnist's comparison of the strife in Iraq with the Tet Offensive, which is considered a key turning point in the US war in Vietnam.
"He could be right," Bush said. "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence."
Originally posted by marg6043
Today in CNN news I will get the link later when available.
It was a sad thing to see obtained videos of insurgent snipers so well trained that they can pin point randomly American troops and shoot them in site with expert aim.
The are getting the training and then they turn around and use it for their own benefit and that included to bring US troops casualties.
PrisonPlanet
Former British Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, writes today that he suspects the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq has been intentionally provoked and continued by US and UK special forces in occupation of the country.
"As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK military. To what extent were they passively incompetent in facilitating the decline into civil war, and to what extent were they actively pursuing policies that promoted that outcome?"
Murray suspects that as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy, the same strategy used by British forces in Iraq 85 years ago, Special forces are being used to intentionally foment civil war by training and equipping Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers.
US Congressman Denis Kucinich took up the issue in April of this year in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld requesting all records pertaining to the plan.
Kucinich weighed in on the matter, providing further evidence that the Salvador Option was being implemented, he wrote:
."About one year before the Newsweek report on the "Salvador Option," it was reported in the American Prospect magazine on January 1, 2004 that part of $3 billion of the $87 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund operations in Iraq, signed into law on November 6, 2003, was designated for the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. According to the Prospect article, experts predicted that creation of this paramilitary unit would "lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists."
Originally posted by deltaboy
I read one story and saw pictures where the Marine countersnipers killed an Iraqi sniper that was hiding in the back seat in a black car with a camera. The driver was also killed. Its their prefer method of getting the hell out after the shot. The Iraqi sniper got cocky.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Souljah, that is based on what the ambassador thinks and suspects. Hes never heard of counterinsurgency where locals are used to killed the enemy insurgents and their sympathizers. Thats a difference between counterinsurgency and provoking a civil war.
News BBC
With no end to the Iraq conflict in sight, some US military strategists have been considering tactics used during the civil war in El Salvador, a brutal and bloody campaign that lasted for years.
I remember him commenting on how he had been glad to serve in El Salvador because he believed the United States had corrected the mistakes of Vietnam, learning at last the formula to defeat future insurgencies.
This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic.
The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.
Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.
It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.
Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.
Using fear, the policy succeeded in denying the rebels open civilian support.
Some in the Pentagon have now been mooting the idea of training Iraqi hit squads to target insurgents and their sympathisers to quash open civilian support for them.
But for this to work would mean out-terrorising the Iraqi rebels, a difficult task indeed.
Nor is success for a Salvador-style death squad democracy guaranteed.
Originally posted by Souljah
I already see you did not even bother to click on the link and read the full article, where mister Alex Jones mentiones several other facts, which are related to this same topic, which ambassoadr "suspects". But I guess you already know everything about Iraq needed so - who am I to point out what is left and what is right, right?
Again, wanna know about History, son?
With no end to the Iraq conflict in sight, some US military strategists have been considering tactics used during the civil war in El Salvador, a brutal and bloody campaign that lasted for years.
I remember him commenting on how he had been glad to serve in El Salvador because he believed the United States had corrected the mistakes of Vietnam, learning at last the formula to defeat future insurgencies.
This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic.
The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.
Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.
It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.
Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.
Using fear, the policy succeeded in denying the rebels open civilian support.
Some in the Pentagon have now been mooting the idea of training Iraqi hit squads to target insurgents and their sympathisers to quash open civilian support for them.
But for this to work would mean out-terrorising the Iraqi rebels, a difficult task indeed.
Originally posted by deltaboy
How can you see me? You don't. I can read fast enough as it is.
Since I'm a history major I know much about it, old man.
Pretty interesting, during the civil war. Not before the civil war.
The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.
Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.
It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.
Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.
Originally posted by Souljah
I can see by your answers.
So? I bet they will teach you all True History you want...
Your Point?
I guess you kind of missed the following facts:
The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror.
Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces.
It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved.
Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Well for starters anyone that uses Alex Jones as a source has already discredited their post.
And for seconds, the Lancelot Report has been debunked. The actual casualty figure is around 40,000 (Not a government figure - but a RELIABLE independant figure). I'm not saying that is good at all... but its hardly 655,000...
Originally posted by deltaboy
Then its based on your assumption.
Okay, so you pretty much believe that our professors are brainwashing us now.
Okay, theres a civil war going on. Before the U.S. got involved, and they wanted to put down this insurgency using counterinsurgency methods. A civil war going on...HELLOOOOO. The U.S. strategy was not about provoking a civil war, its about ending the insurgency.
O yeah, the facts that its a dirty war. Yep I seen wars that involves a lot of decapitating, and it don't always involve civil wars. But it does involve a lot of insurgencies and counterinsurgencies where both sides play dirty. I seen one video where some Chechen rebel beheaded a Russian soldier and cut him and skinned him like a cow.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Well for starters anyone that uses Alex Jones as a source has already discredited their post.
Originally posted by pugachev
Iraq has to be the biggest failure in our history. I honestly hope we pullout soon so we can focus on Afghanistan where its actually winnable. If the Iraqis ever decide to live in a country where they don't murder the man and his family down the street because of his religion they should let us know.