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

[BullDawg]

"direct operational link"

Because he had no operational links doesn't rule out tactical or strategic links.

Before everybody gets all wrapped around the axle, this is a Pentagon-sponsored study.

Look up the military meaning of the term "operational."

Definition: (DOD) The level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or areas of operations. Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to accomplish the strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives, initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events. These activities imply a broader dimension of time or space than do tactics; they ensure the logistic and administrative support of tactical forces, and provide the means by which tactical successes are exploited to achieve strategic objectives.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermso/g/o4531.htm

In other words, he had no major campaigns planned with them. That doesn't rule out tactical or even strategic warfare.

Once again, some media yahoo who doesn't have a clue has taken a Pentagon report and read into it without studyiing it.

Considering the source of the report, that is a very valid point. Pentagonese is often difficult to translate to everyday English due to distinct nuances.

/howmanytrucksonpost?

 

[RebSaint]

Considering the source of the report, that is a very valid point. ********ese is often difficult to translate to everyday English due to distinct nuances.

/howmanytrucksonpost?

Fixed it. No, really I have no doubt that there are nuances about connectivity of hostile states to terrorists. By that logic, the United States should have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq.

No, still at the end of the day we were either lied to, or the intel. agencies completely dropped the ball. I'm thinking it was a little bit of both, but mostly the former.

 

[blackadder]

But the report also mentions that Saddam did have ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, and numerous other independent terrorist groups linked to Syrian terrorists who in the past have worked with or have been rumored to have worked with al-Qeida, black. The report also mentions that he gave sanctuary and money to people who were rumored to have radical anti-Isreali missions. Saddam probably did not deal with al-Qeida because rumored mutual mistrust but he did have terrorist ties and he did inquire about trying to obtain uranium from Africa. That is not a lie or exaggerated facts either so take it as is.

Just my two cents. Flame away

Palestinian liberation organizations use terror tactics, just like the Zionists used terror tactics to gain control.

They are not directed at the U.S. or U.S. interests, so that was between Saddam and the Israelis.

Likewise as far as I know the links to the Palestinians consisted of giving them cash, not direct support in planning or executing attacks against Israel.

So, that is no justification for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, IMO.

 

[blackadder]

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.

The Israelis had attacked Iraq in 1981 and Iraq and Israel never signed an armistace in 1948. Technically they remained at war.

He was quite predictable. He understood Israel as a liability to U.S. policies in the region and sought to draw Israel into the conflict and split the U.S. coalition against him.

Nothing crazy or unpredictable there. A simple, logical, strategic calculation.

 

[BullDawg]

Fixed it. No, really I have no doubt that there are nuances about connectivity of hostile states to terrorists. By that logic, the United States should have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq.

No, still at the end of the day we were either lied to, or the intel. agencies completely dropped the ball. I'm thinking it was a little bit of both, but mostly the former.

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.

 

[blackadder]

"direct operational link"

Because he had no operational links doesn't rule out tactical or strategic links.

Before everybody gets all wrapped around the axle, this is a Pentagon-sponsored study.

Look up the military meaning of the term "operational."

Definition: (DOD) The level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or areas of operations. Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to accomplish the strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives, initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events. These activities imply a broader dimension of time or space than do tactics; they ensure the logistic and administrative support of tactical forces, and provide the means by which tactical successes are exploited to achieve strategic objectives.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermso/g/o4531.htm

In other words, he had no major campaigns planned with them. That doesn't rule out tactical or even strategic warfare.

Once again, some media yahoo who doesn't have a clue has taken a Pentagon report and read into it without studyiing it.

Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida...

He had no links to Al Queda.

The study was based on EXHAUSTIVE review of Iraqi documents. What that says to me is that there was nothing in those documents that indicated any cooperation with Al Queda aimed the United States ON ANY LEVEL.

According the maxim of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" I would expect some indirect contact through operatives with Islamic extremists in order to keep tabs on them, not to attack the U.S.

You know quite well that if there was any evidence of ANY type of cooperaton in those documents -- operational, tactical or startegic -- there would have been a special issue of the Weekly Standard devoted to it and you would have already seen the Sean hannity hosted documentary about it on Fox News.

It's just not there on any level.

Spin on.

 

[varanook]

Yes, let them nuke Iraq while we've got hundreds of thousands of troops deployed there. That would have been absolutely brilliant!

And yes, that is exactly what I had in mind.
/sarcasm

Doubt that would have happened. If he attacked Israel than Israel should have handled it and we should have never been involved.

 

[DadsDream]

He had no links to Al Queda.

The study was based on EXHAUSTIVE review or Iraqi documents. What that says to me is that there was nothing in those documents that indicated any cooperation with Al Queda aimed the United States.

According the maxim of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" I would expect some indirect contact through operatives with Islamic extremists in order to keep tabs on them, not to attack the U.S.

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.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

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.

This is a huge stretch. The Pentagon has assigned a direct operational link between AQ and others. Why has their "lingo" suddenly changed when talking about Iraq?

It's clear what the meaning of the report is but like I said if Christ came down and said there was no link some folks would parse the statement and refuse to believe it.

 

[DadsDream]

And yes, that is exactly what I had in mind.
/sarcasm

Doubt that would have happened. If he attacked Israel than Israel should have handled it and we should have never been involved.

Sure, let Israel retaliate while we've got the entire Desert Storm armada of troops and tanks deployed along the Iraqi border.

You doubt it would have happened? Go back and take a look at how many times Israel has conducted retaliatory or pre-emptive air strikes.

If one...just one...of those missiles that hit Tel-Aviv had had a whiff of chemical weapons on it, all bets were off. It was a very real concern at the time and it was a valid concern.

After all, we gave Saddam chemical weapons to fight the Iranians. He had them. He'd used them before on the Kurds and Iranians.

To kick back now, in hindsight and say there was never a danger that Israel would have retaliated is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its finest.

 

[varanook]

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.

Ahh straight talk.

Thank god for johm McCain.

Are you kidding me? Because of 3 words than this search means nothing and is non-news.

Once again you derail a thread for semantics. The president and others are quoted as saying that there were direct links with saddam and Al-Queda. This is not true. I fail to see where the "term direct operational link" makes a lick of difference.

 

[varanook]

To kick back now, in hindsight and say there was never a danger that Israel would have retaliated is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its finest.

You used nuclear retaliation. I sincerely doubt nukes would have been used. It sounds to me like Israel is more dangerous than Saddam with WMD's from what you tell me. I wonder?

 

[DadsDream]

This is a huge stretch. The Pentagon has assigned a direct operational link between AQ and others. Why has their "lingo" suddenly changed when talking about Iraq?

It's clear what the meaning of the report is but like I said if Christ came down and said there was no link some folks would parse the statement and refuse to believe it.

Tactical - Maneuver units of Brigade size or smaller, geographically confined to a small area.

Operational - Maneuver units of Division size or larger, geographically confined to a region or country.

Strategic - Maneuver units of Army size, global in scale.

Hope that helps.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Tactical - Maneuver units of Brigade size or smaller, geographically confined to a small area.

Operational - Maneuver units of Division size or larger, geographically confined to a region or country.

Strategic - Maneuver units of Army size, global in scale.

Hope that helps.

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.

 

[DadsDream]

You used nuclear retaliation. I sincerely doubt nukes would have been used. It sounds to me like Israel is more dangerous than Saddam with WMD's from what you tell me. I wonder?

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.