Originally posted by prexparteAre you willing to answer our questions?
I will answer any question I can without violating any non-disclosure agreements to which I am still bound and perhaps others if I can find an open
source reference that says the same thing while stating that I can neither confirm nor deny any direct involvement or knowledge in an operation -
I take my oath seriously and will not divulge things that would harm the national security of the land I love and have bled for.
Does that seem fair?
Originally posted by prexparteI will start with the first question. what is your opinion on iraq war? was it oil related or terrorism
related? or some other reason? thanks
Opinions are easy and they are just those opinions...perhaps a little more informed than those of others, perhaps filtered and affected by my personal
prejudices but I will do my best.
Understand that the reason for the classification of certain information is not primarily for the protection of the information itself; rather it is
classified to protect the method, be it HUMINT, SIGINT, IMINT or whatever sources or methods are involved in the procurement of it.
For instance, say there are only a few Iraqis who have access to the WMD program and in one way or another, be it money, patriotism, fear or enhanced
interrogation should we then say - "Look, see we can prove it they had X - gas, Y - yellow cake material, or even W- bio agents". The individuals,
the schedules of the over flights, or abilities of the collection devices would then be at risk of evasion in the case of photo or electronic
collection or the humans who gave the information would be in danger of being killed for revealing this information. That is why there are secrets
kept from the people - they really don't have a need to know.
So let’s say we did find something, but decided not to reveal it. The reasons would be to protect the abilities of the source.
If the war were about oil I am guessing we'd be pumping it out like there was no tomorrow using the theory of "all your bases are belong to us"!
So that leaves some combination of terrorism and WMD as possible theories. If you are expecting the government to get up and give a briefing with
charts to prove it to you - don't hold your breath.
I can say there are a couple of open sources:
Here's a story you may have missed over the long holiday weekend: 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium worth tens of millions of dollars were
shipped out of Iraq to Canada. The material was transported in 37 military flights in 3,500 secure barrels, according to the Associated Press.
Terrorism Havens: Iraq
Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq. The
camps of Ansar fighters, who clashed repeatedly with anti-Saddam Kurds, were bombed in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In February 2003,
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda
affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in
Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Powell added that senior Iraqi and
al-Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s.
Then there is regime change; Husain was a meanie who exploited his people, who could not for the most part fight back. He destabilized the region
and his removal would go a long way to making the whole area more stable. I realize we created him, but much like an overindulged child or spouse
either discipline or divorce is in order – we make mistakes and people change over time. It’s no different with countries than people.
Now, having said the above; from my perspective as a professional Soldier, I didn't really have much choice one way or the other. The American
people voted for the civilian leadership and us (the Soldiers) are duty bound to prosecute their policy to the best of our abilities.
I think we have definitely done more good there than harm; sure a lot of collateral damage was incurred and some atrocities were committed, however,
19-21 year old kids on both sides scared for their lives tend to make some poor judgments at times. We investigate them and take action when
necessary, using the filter of any crime, intent, motive and opportunity. Did the person make a mistake or were they being a dick?
However, imagine the strength of our nation and its relative stability because of the involvement of the French on our side in the Revolutionary War.
There are Iraqi patriots just like Jefferson and Washington who risked their lives fortunes and personal honor to make the country a better place.
Some died to make that dream come true.
The life of the average Iraqi is better since we arrived, more schools, more infrastructure (sewage, power all day not 4 hours a day), a relative
democracy and functional government and a pretty well trained (having trained some of their SF equivalents) to now protect this new way of life that
can serve as a model for the rest of the region.
They can practice their religion and their way of life, no one took that away, we just made them a little less corrupt and tribal in their outlook.
Look how long we stayed in Germany and Japan after WWII to change them into the world economic forces they are now.
This stuff does not happen overnight and in the end every Soldier we have is a volunteer who I guarantee would rather be doing his job in war than
painting rocks and cleaning hallways.
The people I served with in SF are triple volunteers who's motto is "to free the oppressed" we fight for those who can't fight for themselves.
All know the risks and gladly take them for people they don't know so they may have the life we enjoy or at least a little more than they currently
None of their lives were wasted and to a man I know not one who would want his death/deeds marginalized in that way.