Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (1 Viewer)

I don't need your help. I know the meanings. I'm just not silly enough to try and use them incorrectly in this context to deny the obvious meaning of the report. :9:

Yes, the obvious meaning of the report is that Saddam was not planning Brigade-sized conventional military operations with al-Qaeda. Correct.

That's what makes the news article and the way it was reported incorrect. :ezbill:
 
Eh...I think you may be missing the point.

What the Pentagon reports does is a bit of CYA. It publishes the truth (no direct operational link) without insinuating a lie. It's playing both ends against the other in a very "hiding in plain sight" manner.

An example of how this applies is in the different "types" of strategy.

  • Grand strategy - the art and science of coordinating the development and use of those instruments to achieve national security objectives
  • Military strategy - coordinating the development, deployment, and employment of military forces
  • Operational strategy - the art and science of planning, orchestrating, and directing military campaigns within a theater of operations to achieve national security objectives
  • Battlefield strategy - the art and science of employing forces on the battlefield to achieve national security objectives
These are so similar that most folks just scratch their heads and wonder what the real differences are. But to the Pentagon, there are great differences between each in scope and scale.

Oho, I got the point. I knew what the point was--in this context, its more gainsaying about going to war based on something the administration said which we've found out isn't true.

But it's been a long, long pattern with DD--most everything this administration has done vis a vis Iraq, in his opinion has been sound, or explained away by [insert convoluted military jargon]. :shrug:

We've been through this exercise before.
 
Yes, the obvious meaning of the report is that Saddam was not planning Brigade-sized conventional military operations with al-Qaeda. Correct.

That's what makes the news article and the way it was reported incorrect. :ezbill:

Or creates yet another case of you so far in left field trying to rationalize an illogical and ridiculous point that you come of more kooky than Ron Paul on a see-saw... either / or. :hihi:
 
Oho, I got the point. I knew what the point was--in this context, its more gainsaying about going to war based on something the administration said which we've found out isn't true.

But it's been a long, long pattern with DD--most everything this administration has done vis a vis Iraq, in his opinion has been sound, or explained away by [insert convoluted military jargon]. :shrug:

We've been through this exercise before.

The entire news article was based on a Pentagon report and hinges on the reporter's mis-interpretation of a piece of military terminology.

The headline is wrong.

The story is misleading.

If you want to dismiss what I'm saying, fine, go ahead. But, lay off the character assassination. :plus-un2:
 
If a chemical warhead had landed in Tel Aviv, which was entirely possible, you can sincerely doubt all you want to. Israeli planes would have rolled in on Saddam with a nuke.

We will have to agree to disagree there. IIRC, didn't he do that in retaliation to us attacking him? I really don't remember so correct me if I am wrong.

Still, you are derailing a thread for silly semantic reasons. You are actually attempting to marginilize an entire article for 3 words.

I think something like that can be compared to the 9/11 truthers, lol.
 
Or creates yet another case of you so far in left field trying to rationalize an illogical and ridiculous point that you come of more kooky than Ron Paul on a see-saw... either / or. :hihi:

No, it creates a case of people dismissing what I'm offering and bringing to the table, simply because I'm the one bringing it.

The headline is misleading.

The story is inaccurate.

The whole thing hinges on some reporter taking a word and using the English meaning of it instead of the Pentagon meaning of it.

Let me rewrite it:

"Report Finds Saddam Had no Division-sized Conventional Warfare Plans With al-Qaeda"

non-news
 
If a chemical warhead had landed in Tel Aviv, which was entirely possible, you can sincerely doubt all you want to. Israeli planes would have rolled in on Saddam with a nuke.

Saddam was rational. Vicious to enemies, but rational. Highly unlikely he'd start with chemical warheads, for the very reason you state.

Just like the Iranians would understand the consequence of using a chemical or nuke weapon. Now, if Israel hits them first, I'm less certain of what the retaliation would consist of.
 
We will have to agree to disagree there. IIRC, didn't he do that in retaliation to us attacking him? I really don't remember so correct me if I am wrong.

Still, you are derailing a thread for silly semantic reasons. You are actually attempting to marginilize an entire article for 3 words.

I think something like that can be compared to the 9/11 truthers, lol.

Nope. That's not what I'm doing.

I'm providing a piece of knowledge
 
No, it creates a case of people dismissing what I'm offering and bringing to the table, simply because I'm the one bringing it.

The headline is misleading.

The story is inaccurate.

The whole thing hinges on some reporter taking a word and using the English meaning of it instead of the Pentagon meaning of it.

Let me rewrite it:

"Report Finds Saddam Had no Division-sized Conventional Warfare Plans With al-Qaeda"

non-news

Can we get a copy of this so you can point out exactly what chemical warfare plans Saddam did have with Al Queda?

If Saddam had "less than division sized" plans then don't you think the headline in the Weekly Standard would be "Proof Saddam had War Plans with Al Queda"
 
You missed the entire point. See Bulldawg's post above.

Operational (standard English) - Working, viable.

Operational (Pentagon-ese) - A level of war involving Division-sized elements confined to a given geographical region, limited in size and scope, ie: Operation Desert Storm.

The headline of the story you posted is totally misleading and way off base. The report it cites is a Pentagon report, written in Pentagon lingo. It doesn't say there was "no link" it says there was no "direct operational link."

Given that al-Qaeda doesn't do conventional warfare, using division-sized maneuver elements, this is hardly surprising.

Non-news.

No I get the point.

They pored over every document they captured from the Iraqis. And in those documents there was nothing linking Saddam to Al Queda on any level.

You can play the word games if you like, but if there WAS anything in those documents that even remotely suggested a credible link between Saadam and Al Queda, it would have been leaked by now and you would have heard about it on Fox News.

They wold have already done the story about the proof of how Saddam was "cleverly maintaining" an arm's length relationship with Al Queda but secretly cooperating on a "strategic level."

But we have not heard that story because it not in the documents.
 
Last edited:
If you want to dismiss what I'm saying, fine, go ahead. But, lay off the character assassination. :plus-un2:

Who's assasinating your character here? :shrug: SBTB saved me some typing.

Do I dismiss the Pentagon terminology? No, absolutely not. But it doesn't take anything away from A. The fact that the administration VASTLY VASTLY overestimated the connection between Al-Queda and Hussein to the point of telling a bald-face lie, then repeated it over and over again.

There's a usefulness and utility for Pentagonese, but it still doesn't take away from the jist of the news story. Why focus on some obscure minutia?
 
Operational - Maneuver units of Division size or larger, geographically confined to a region or country.

Ummm, how is that term in a strict Pentagon sense applicable to Al Queda, since they do not have overt standing organizations, especially in the course of clandestine operations spanning multiple countries?

"Operational links" in the case of Al Queda, as I would understand it, means knowledge of and direct material support of plans to launch an attack of any against the United States. Such an attack would not invlove military or paramilitary units organized into any formation offically recognized by the Pentagon's conventional taxonomy, so I don't get the applicability of the term as you interpret it.

Nothing in the documents captured from Saddam showed any cooperation with Al Queda on any level. Whatever links the die-hards maintain there were, they are not illuminated one way or another by these documents.

That is the key point here, not the debate on semantics.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is silly that a news reporter and a headline writer took a Pentagon report, written in Pentagon language and interpreted it for the public using the standard English meaning of a key word, rather than the Pentagon meaning of the word.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom