"The insurgents who kill our young soldiers are ruthless, but we have sometimes been cautious in our response. Take the question of targeting bomb makers:
There may be an unlimited supply of explosives in Iraq, but there is not an unlimited supply of people who know how to wire the detonators. In 2004, CIA operatives in Iraq believed that they had identified the signatures of 11 bomb makers. They proposed a diabolical -- but potentially effective -- sabotage program that would have flooded Iraq with booby-trapped detonators designed to explode in the bomb makers' hands. But the CIA general counsel's office said no. The lawyers claimed that the agency lacked authority for such an operation, one source recalled".:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

(maybe they are afraid of a law suit by the defenders of the enemy here and abroad )

"There are technologies that would allow us to detonate every roadside bomb in Iraq by heating the wires in the detonators to the point that they triggered an explosion. But these systems could severely harm civilians nearby, so we're not using them, either. "In our system, we often are not given credit for the fact that we are very concerned about collateral damage,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060802405.html

If only we would raise out level to a higher moral plane... like our enemies; we would not have any issues defeating them. Maybe we should read them Miranda rights before we engage them in battle.

Hello again, tom:

How to lose a war??

Given the honorable populace we've got, you do it by invading a country that didn't threaten us, based upon reasons that couldn't be substantiated.

excon

The majority of the honorable populace was all in favor of the war at the time of the invasion . It's a funny thing how history was revised when things went a little south.

I have no wish to rehash all the prewar justifications and their validity .That isn't really the point . Would you authorize the deploying of rigged triggers and the use of technology that would explode IEDs when there is a chance of collateral damage ? Imagine if these standards were applied on D-Day .

Did the population vote on going to war? Or did they just vote for a president?

Please tell me you understand how a representative gvt . Works ? Both houses of Congress ,the President ;and [ based on all polling of the time ] the American population was in favor of the invasion.

No, I think you are confusing things. The repubs in congress voted to go, not the general population.

Hello again, tom:

I understand that you don't want to rehash what got us into the war. But you asked how you lose a war, and the reasons we got into it have a great deal to do with why we're losing.

If you want to talk about it from a military perspective, IED's aren't the reason. We don't have enough troops to do the job and never did. That's the real reason we're losing. The IED stuff you talk about is simply how that problem manifests itself.

excon

Troop level is not relevant . The weapon is being imported /smuggled into the country from a sanctuary country We have the way to detonate them before our troops come in harms way. They are the major cause of casualties of our troops .This could be the first time that we have the means to neutralize the major weapon system of the enemy and CHOOSE not to do so .

Strange .

The CIA sucks.


NeedKarma . The vote was bipartisan . 296-133 (81 Democrats in favor )in the House of Representatives and 77-23 in the Senate(29 Democrats in favor ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

troop level is not relevent .......... This could be the first time that we have the means to neutralize the major weapon system of the enemy and CHOOSE not to do so .

---

Hello again, tom:

The war was lost because we didn't secure the country right away. We didn't because we didn't have enough troops to do that.

AFTER that became evident, the reasons we invaded in the first place became suspect, and our fate was sealed.

You're talking about a weapons system that could be neutralized, and I'm talking about a country that could have been neutralized. Once the war was lost, and that was probably within the first year, how it actually manifests itself down the road, while interesting, is unimportant in terms of winning or losing.

excon

Hello! The war is over, and the mission has been accomplished, Iraq is free to do as they please, and its time for us to go home, rest and figure who else's butt needs to be kicked. I vote for that Chavo guy, who's talking crap about the oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

general counsel's office......lawyers.........

---

That's really all that needs to be said right there.

I dig the CIA. Worked with them (read: "was one of their instruments of policy") in a certain Central American dungpile, and found that they--at least those few guys--were honorable men with a fierce dedication to their country and their duties.

What makes me gag is that the CIA even HAS a "general counsel's office." While I agree, at least nominally, with the idea of oversight, f***ing lawyers have so polluted EVERYTHING this country does that we might as well just turn the whole shootin' match over to them, and the rest of us just bug out for whatever country suits us.

In fact, I think I'll post a piece I wrote about lawyers sometime today. It ain't pretty, so those who are easily offended or have heart conditions should probably not read it.

DK

Quote:

---

Would you authorize the deploying of rigged triggers and the use of technology that would explode IEDs when there is a chance of collateral damage ?

---

Yes. Of course like you I've been arguing against the ridiculous rules of engagement our troops are supposed to follow. People can't seem to understand the primary purpose of our military is to do great violence when called on, and this enemy only understands violence.

Anyone with half a conscience is concerned about collateral damage, but are these bombmakers making the bombs in the middle of street or are they doing so from their safehouses or some other outpost? I'm betting they aren't making them in public so what kind of collateral damage are we talking about? And what kind of message would it send to the Jihadists when their bombs start detonating in their hands?

I think it would tell them you're messing with the wrong people and you'd better be looking over your shoulder, 'cause we're coming after you and you have no idea when and where. Killing and/or putting fear in a terrorist's mind, what a novel idea. :D

DK

I'm sure the spooks are the same honorable people you mention . The bureaucracy of the organization however is full of Clintonoid holdovers . As much as I agree with your view about lawyers [maybe some of these explosive triggers should be sewn into law book bindings] ;they are not the decision makers in this case . More likely it is the same sub-group in the agency that gave us Joe Wilson sipping tea poolside in Niger while doing an exhaustive investigation of their uranium exports.

Tom :

Interesting article,
Later - they mention that we have taught the enemy about asymmetric warfare.
Oops?

Whatever happened to "all fair in love and war", Let the military do their job.
Would the USA have had to get legal approval to drop the bombs on Japan?

Agree with Kindj - maybe the solution is to flood the insurgents with Lawyers.



Grace and Peace

While a lot of what Admiral Fisher had to say was a load of garbage (he was never a combat officer), this particular statement of his is 100% true.

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility."

One cannot fight a battle at the same time they are trying to win hearts and minds of the population. The two are incompatible. And that is the mistake that we are making in Iraq. If we would just stop trying to win the peace before we win the war, we could clear this situation up in a number of months.

Elliot

This news just shocked the hell out of me. WE have the means to neutralize the one weapon the enemy has left and we won't do it. The CIA has to answer for the death and injuries of hundreds of our soldiers.