Recommended book on GWOT- Particularly War in Iraq

[swampy]

Would some military guru please explain to Kanesa the difference between "mission" and "battle" and "war"?

[kanesa]

swampy wrote:
Would some military guru please explain to Kanesa the difference between "mission" and "battle" and "war"?

Thanks but no thanks, swampy.

I was raised in the military. No need to explain anything to me. My father was a 20 year Army vet and my sister served in Desert Storm and was editor of the National Guard magazine. I don't need any help. I knew most of this stuff by the time I was 10.

[swampy]

Then you understand "Mission Accomplished". Great.

[JoeH]

swampy wrote:
Then you understand "Mission Accomplished". Great.

Yeah, he does and it is not what you want it to be. Or Bush and his cronies. I also have military connections, and if you think we reached "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq either back then or since, you did not learn anything from your spouse.

[swampy]

The mission was to take down Saddam. Mission Accomplished.

[Ted King]

Dakota wrote:

If it was crazy you would have had something to say about it. Every word of it is true.

Gee, I thought only God was infallible. Maybe so:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04132008/pos...htm?page=0

In November 2003, I wrote about the Feith Memo for The Weekly Standard. The article was composed mostly of long quotes taken directly from the intelligence reports. I did little more than provide historical context for the claims included in Feith's memo.

The article, and the memo that triggered it, created quite a stir. Congressional Democrats lashed out at Feith, accusing him of exaggerating the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Media reports amplified and added to this critique. Later, Thomas Gimble, the Inspector General at the Pentagon, publicly upbraided Feith, calling the activities that led to the production of the memo "inappropriate."

In op-eds and interviews, Feith has defended himself by challenging the criticism and distancing himself from the memo that bears his name. He continues this effort in "War and Decision" and it gets him in trouble.

Feith writes that his "list became the subject of a cover story in The Weekly Standard that incorrectly depicted it as my 'case' for claiming a close connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. That supported the magazine's own editorial position, but in fact the list was no such thing."

Either Feith is unfamiliar with the contents of the memo that bears his name or he is simply misrepresenting its contents. Consider, for instance, item No. 37. "Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate [Abu Musab] al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials." Elsewhere, Feith describes a "credible" source with "close access" to Osama bin Laden and concludes "bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq." In his memo, then, Feith points to an "operational alliance" between Zarqawi and the Iraqi regime and argues that al Qaeda's leader was "heavily involved" with Iraq. But in his book Feith denies he ever made those arguments and tells his readers that he never claimed a close connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Falsus en uno.

That is just one instance - albeit a very important one - of Feith saying something in his book that was not true. I pointed out another earlier where Feith claims in his book that Armitage was disappointed about not being picked to be in the Defense Department, but that was also not true. I'm sure if I tried I could dredge up more. I am not claiming that Feith is more in error than most people are when writing their memoirs, but to simply take it as a given that any particular item that he wrote is true without outside verification is not wise. If for no other reason, the man simply has too much vested interest in presenting a biased view to be trusted as the sole source for any given claim he makes. He does have extensive footnotes, but that alone does not justify the conclusion that his claims should be assumed to be true.

[Mac1337]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Dakota]

If it was crazy you would have had something to say about it. Every word of it is true.

Gee, I thought only God was infallible. Maybe so:
Ted, you misunderstood. I meant every word that *I* said in my post was true. I haven't read Feith book. Only heard him interviewed once.

[Stizzealth]

http://www.dougfeith.com/

A little ways down on the page, there is a video of Feith testifying in front of a Congressional committee in regards to the use of torture in the GWOT.

[Mac1337]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=swampy]
Then you understand "Mission Accomplished". Great.

Yeah, he does and it is not what you want it to be. Or Bush and his cronies. I also have military connections, and if you think we reached "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq either back then or since, you did not learn anything from your spouse.
OK, now you have your chance to define "Mission Accomplished" in Afghanistan. You know, the war that we got "distracted" from and Obama is going to "win" it for us. I have a feeling that "the war is lost" there.

[deckeda]

I get it now. It's not success the neocons need in Iraq, just an accomplished mission.