Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida

[Shawn]

Maybe the confusion came about because of a broken teletype machine.

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

Let's make it clear what we're talking about here.

We're talking about a news item, written by Associated Press, published by Yahoo, about a report, paid for by Pentagon, which won't be released until tomorrow.

"...as through a glass, darkly..."

Yes Dad's we get it. What is obvious to just about everyone else is the SIGNIFICANCE of the report. Dice and slice it any way you want, the fact that the report even contains those words, "no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network" should make any patriot's blood boil. Whether he gave tangential support to Al Quaida is irrellevent in terms of justifying a war.

 

[DadsDream]

No. It's not. It's the adjective form of the word "operation". "I'm going to conduct an operation" "Is your unit operational to do so?" "Yes sir"

I'd buy that except that they took a direct quote from a Pentagon report, which used the words "no direct operational link."

In this context, from a a Pentagon report, it's likely that they meant the DOD meaning of the term. What's illogical about that?

The case you cite is a unit-level example. Exactly correct...for unit level, not for an overall report on the captured documents of an entire nation.

 

[blackadder]

DD is pointing out a valid point from a particular perspective many don't have. Why some people are resentful of his attempts to give insight to issues is beyond me. As to the subject at hand, when I first saw the thread, I was surprised because the military has found links between Saddam and AQ before, though not operational links. The links were published by the Army's counterterrorism center at WP, and when I have the chance, I'll find them for everyone. The continued exhaustive review of captured documents was an attempt to find operational links, which would be more damning against Saddam. None were found. So it's a story, just not the whole story, as DD pointed out.

Resentful??

It's just a little exasperation with the pattern of playing games with semantics.

Words are important indeed. But sometimes he stretches common sense.

The Pentagon has clandestine capabilities using small teams. What term do they use to describe a secret "operation." What's the official word for an operation if less than division is involved?

Here are examples of explicit used of the word "operation" by the Pentagon not involving a division of troops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ARK20050925&articleId=1001

No one I know of is aware of any proven link between Saddam and an Al Queda "effort" against the United States. I would believe Saddam would have had his own attempts to get links with Al Queda and Islamists -- to infiltrate them and keep tabs on them.

 

[LSSpam]

I'd buy that except that they took a direct quote from a Pentagon report, which used the words "no direct operational link."

In this context, from a a Pentagon report, it's likely that they meant the DOD meaning of the term. What's illogical about that?

The case you cite is a unit-level example. Exactly correct...for unit level, not for an overall report on the captured documents of an entire nation.

*shrugs*

Champ76 is right, the report is coming out later this week. We'll revisit it then.

 

[DadsDream]

But I think it has everything to do to rationalize the invasion. You know it, I know it, and everybody reading this threat knows it. No, I believe it isn't about your ego, it's about defending the Decider in Chief.

No, it's about an Associated Press article, posted in Yahoo News about a Pentagon report which won't be released until tomorrow.

 

[DadsDream]

Resentful??

It's just a little exasperation with the pattern of playing games with semantics.

Words are important indeed. But sometimes he stretches common sense.

The Pentagon has clandestine capabilities using small teams. What term do they use to describe a secret "operation." What's the official word for an operation if less than division is involved.

Here are examples of explicit used of the word "operation" by the Pentagon not involving a division of troops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ARK20050925&articleId=1001

No one I know of is aware of any proven link between Saddam and an Al Queda "effort" against the United States. I am sure Saddam would have had his own attempts to get links with Al Queda and Islamists -- to infiltrate them and keep tabs on them.

And here's the Wikipedia entry for "Operational Warfare."

Operational warfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operational warfare is, within warfare and military doctrine, the level of command which coordinates the minute details of tactics with the overarching goals of strategy.

The operational level is at a scale bigger than one where line of sight and the time of day are important, and smaller than the strategic level, where production and politics are considerations. Formations are of the operational level if they are able to conduct operations on their own, and are of sufficient size to be directly handled or have a significant impact at the strategic level. This concept was pioneered by the German army prior to and during the Second World War.

READ MORE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_warfare

 

[Pasty]

 

[blackadder]

And here's the Wikipedia entry for "Operational Warfare."

Operational warfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operational warfare is, within warfare and military doctrine, the level of command which coordinates the minute details of tactics with the overarching goals of strategy.

The operational level is at a scale bigger than one where line of sight and the time of day are important, and smaller than the strategic level, where production and politics are considerations. Formations are of the operational level if they are able to conduct operations on their own, and are of sufficient size to be directly handled or have a significant impact at the strategic level. This concept was pioneered by the German army prior to and during the Second World War.

READ MORE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_warfare

Again, relevence to a clandestine terror organization?

 

[champ76]

Resentful??

It's just a little exasperation with the pattern of playing games with semantics.

Words are important indeed. But sometimes he stretches common sense.

The Pentagon has clandestine capabilities using small teams. What term do they use to describe a secret "operation." What's the official word for an operation if less than division is involved.

Here are examples of explicit used of the word "operation" by the Pentagon not involving a division of troops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ARK20050925&articleId=1001

No one I know of is aware of any proven link between Saddam and an Al Queda "effort" against the United States. I am sure Saddam would have had his own attempts to get links with Al Queda and Islamists -- to infiltrate them and keep tabs on them.

Sometimes it all boils down to what the meaning of is, is. I suspect the report will explain what it means by "operational links" and may even refer to the "non-operational" ones. We should wait and see.

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

Saddam became too unpredictable. He sealed his fate when he launched missiles at Tel Aviv in the first Gulf War. For some reason, people seem to forget or gloss that over.

Dad's-
Above quote is your first post on this thread. It doesn't make mention of language in the article. It is a rationalization for the invasion of Iraq. "He sealed his fate ."
No mention of the wording of the article........until you needed something to help prop up an undefendable opinion. IMHO

 

[DadsDream]

Again, relevence to a clandestine terror organization?

Threat assessment, based on captured enemy documents is done at three levels:

Tactical
Operational
Strategic

We're talking about a Pentagon report regarding captured Iraqi documents. The methodology used to dissect said documents requires categorization, addressing each level, in turn.

"no direct operational link" means no links at a level which would provide warfare at that level.

There's nothing hard about this. Y'all can quibble with what I'm saying all you want though. That's fine.

 

[RebSaint]

Sometimes it all boils down to what the meaning of is, is. I suspect the report will explain what it means by "operational links" and may even refer to the "non-operational" ones. We should wait and see.

Wait for what? DadsDream did get one thing right--in many cases, this story is a bit of non-news. Just about every government study, commission, committee and agency has since debunked the administration's claim that there was significant ties between AQ and Hussein. Face it, either we were lied to by the bunch in the White House, or our intelligence agencies failed at an unprecedented level.

 

[DadsDream]

Dad's-
Above quote is your first post on this thread. It doesn't make mention of language in the article. It is a rationalization for the invasion of Iraq. "He sealed his fate ."
No mention of the wording of the article........until you needed something to help prop up an undefendable opinion. IMHO

That's because it was written in direct response to what Bulldawg posted:

Which just goes to show how screwed up the area is.

Syria was no friend of Saddam.

Context, my friend...context.