Comments for Secretary Gates in Singapore at http://www.michaelyon-online.com , comment 1 to 39 out of 20 comments http://www.michaelyon-online.com Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:27:59 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19192 Kevlaur, Surprised you would post a link that contradicts your own statement. 10 statements in the resolution referred to WMD, not 3 or 4. 5 were about Saddam's support for AQ and other unnamed terrorist organizations and the rest said Saddam was a bad person, duh. (oh, one of those was about an assassination attempt on elder Bush, the real reason perhaps for sacrificing our kids) Rutgar, you are well informed. Thanks - Scott Dudley, CDR, USN (ret) Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:47:22 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19197 Every intelligence org in the world thought he had WMD. Some was found, btw. And, as I've stated, the resolution authorizing use of force complete text lists only 3 or 4 statements claiming Iraq has WMD. That is out of 23 stated reasons for removing Saddam Hussein. Bottom line, I believe the region will be more stable, and already is, because of our presence. Who KNOWS was Iran would be doing right now. Good debating with you. NK... Kim is the real loon. - Kevlaur Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:38:46 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19198 No, I'm telling you that the Bush administration sincerely believed Saddam had WMD and had already made up their minds to attack Iraq halfway during 2002. To argue their case they put enormous pressure on the intelligence community to come up with the evidence to back it up. Because the available evidence was very weak, they misrepresented it, played it up and drew unwarranted conclusions from it. The administration made it perfectly clear that they only wanted to be told the things that would fit into their aggressive stance. Consistently, they took only the stuff that was useful for their message out of the intelligence briefings, while ignoring the very real doubts and contrary evidence that was also present. The intelligence community might have provided the wrong information, but it was the Bush administration that transformed the sparse, doubtful intelligence into a false story about 100% certainty on the presence of WMD's. To state that the Bush administration was deliberately misrepresenting the facts that they had (in the overly optimistic belief that their story would be vindicated once in Iraq) is not an agenda, it is simply the outcome of dozens of books and investigations. The research speaks for itself. The bias doesn't come in until you start to assign political significance to the facts. I have no problem believing that there is a media bias in the USA. Just don't be so arrogant to suggest that you yourself are not affected by a bias of your own when looking at these facts. Anyway, how did we end up here again? :p Perhaps we should get back to NOKOR. Talk in the news today of putting them back on the list of states sponsoring terrorism. Perhaps this is a sign of Obama proving to be "wiser and tougher" than previously assumed? ;) - Rutger van Marissing Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:14:02 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19199 Are you seriously telling me that President Bush, and his administration, KNEW that Saddam did not have WMD? They deliberately lied. You are a loon (to quote Monty Python). You admit yourself that people in your own country believed it. Every intelligence agency on the planet believed it. You could say that Saddam had the last laugh... except he was the butt of his own joke. How were you deceived? The intel was bad. Blame the message not the messenger. I haven't read any of those books. Probably won't. They all seem to have an agenda: Bush is stupid and lied to people. I wonder what they would have written if Clinton (or Gore) had started the war? Or, Obama? Probably fallen all over themselves to praise them. You may not know much of the media bias in this country (USA)... but you're certainly influenced by it. - Kevlaur Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:24:15 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19211 Concerning the run up to the war and the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, perhaps you should do a little less research of your own. Instead, perhaps you could read one of the dozens of books about this subject by well respected authors. Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco", Bob Woodwards "Plan of attack", Ron Suskinds "The one percent doctrine", George Packers "The Assassins Gate" or Michael R. Gordons "Cobra II" to name but a few. I believed at the time that Saddam had WMD's (like almost everyone here in the Netherlands) and in fact supported the war. In fact I still think that the burden of evidence lay with Saddam, not with us. That doesn't mean I wasn't, like everyone else, deceived by the Bush administration. Iraq's WMD stockpiles were destroyed in the 1990's, with only a minimal human and material capacity remaining to start production again. Vastly different than Tenets "slam dunk" or Bush's "no doubt". Not a sufficient cause for war. Accept it and over it. Btw, I am quite surprised at the people who started telling mr. Yon to stop writing about international relations or to stop analyzing politics. Personally I very much disagreed with mr. Yon about what he said about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians when he was there recently. However, I still respect his opinions and always find them stimulating. This is a weblog giving his own thoughts and he is free to write whatever he likes. To suggest to him to stop doing so whenever his writings might not follow your own biases anymore is quite disrespectful I think. - Rutger van Marissing Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:52:22 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19212 I'm terribly sorry, but it seems that you are still missing the point. It doesn't really matter what the insurgents and Al Qaeda think about the West. Their minds are made up. Abu Ghraib and other prisoner abuse cases to them just reaffirm what they already thought. (incidentally, they are indoctrined to believe they will be treated harshly and tortured in US detention. When they are captured and then tortured (or 'hazed' or whatever you want to call it) they shut up or tell lies. However, when treated gently and politely they are surprised, let their guard down and spill the beans. Countless examples of this. Another reason not to use EIT's.) However, the opinion of an Iraqi citizen who hasn't decided yet whether to back the insurgency or the new government IS very important. Remember, in any COIN the people are the prize and the key to victory. If you ever want to win the fight against global terrorism, you will have to care very much about what the PEOPLE think. You clearly have a very narrow definition of torture and I have a somewhat wider one. We can argue long and hard about which definition is the best one, but ultimately it is only important what definition the Iraqi people adhere to (or the population of any other COIN area, as Michael has once again aptly shown in this piece). The fact is that their definition is probably even wider than mine and therefore the use of EIT's estranges the people (the crucial prize in COIN) from us and leads to more people deciding they do not want to back the West. Like it or not, in COIN you have to think about the image of all your actions. If you ever want to win, you had better make damn sure that a population is not so disgusted with your actions that they will never support you again. Their opinions matter a great deal. The truth is that torture does not save lives, it costs lives. To argue that with a different media coverage, Abu Ghraib would not have been considered sadistic mistreatment and torture of mostly innocent prisoners, is a pretty weak argument I think. Whatever the media calls it, those pictures pretty much speak for themselves. In an Arab society, where personal dignity is one of the greatest values, they equal absolute disaster for anyone trying to convince the people that they bring freedom. Especially if it happens in one of Saddam's old prisons. - Rutger van Marissing Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:43:12 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19214 Perhaps my point was poorly made. I couldn't care less what they think about what we have done. Their deeds far outweigh anything we have done. This is not an excuse for torture (which we DON'T practice). It is simply an example of what is truly torture and truly barbaric. Does this excuse Abu Ghurayb? No. What I do care about is you, and all the media outlets in the world, helping to convince the insurgents/terrorists that what occurred was indeed torture and is soooo terrible. I wonder how many recruits you and them have helped to push to the extremist cause? As far the Bush administrations supposed lying about WMD... please see the resolution that was overwhelmingly passed in congress. I'm sooooo sick of 'Bush lied, people died.' Get a new line. And, do some research. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm Not very many reasons listed there about WMD. If you, for one second, think that President Bush's administration was the only group of people that believed Iraq had WMD... then you, my good man, are wrong. In fact, evidence was found, as well as a link to Al Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm) - Kevlaur Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:02:08 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19188 Perhaps my point was poorly made. I couldn't care less what they think about what we have done. Their deeds far outweigh anything we have done. This is not an excuse for torture (which we DON'T practice). It is simply an example of what is truly torture and truly barbaric. Does this excuse Abu Ghurayb? No. What I do care about is you, and all the media outlets in the world, helping to convince the insurgents/terrorists that what occurred was indeed torture and is soooo terrible. I wonder how many recruits you and them have helped to push to the extremist cause? As far the Bush administrations supposed lying about WMD... please see the resolution that was overwhelmingly passed in congress. I'm sooooo sick of 'Bush lied, people died.' Get a new line. And, do some research. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm Not very many reasons listed there about WMD. If you, for one second, think that President Bush's administration was the only group of people that believed Iraq had WMD... then you, my good man, are wrong. In fact, evidence was found, as well as a link to Al Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm) - Kevlaur Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:02:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19185 Michael - as an embedded reporter, in Iraq and Afghanistan, you have no equal. You are steadfastly unbiased, while remaining passionate. When you step outside this zone, and into the realm of politics, well.....let's just say that as a political analyst..you make a terrific war correspondent. Please, stick with what you know. - CJ Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:15:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19182 As if because Al Qaeda treats its prisoners in barbaric ways, its ok for the US to do so as well. The fact that you can even make a comparison between the two is bad enough. If we are ever to win the fight against terrorism, people should be talking ONLY about Al Qaedas barbaric deeds, not about the widespread US mistreatment of detainees. Again, you might think that Abu Ghraib is not worse than a simple hazing stunt or no worse than what happens during SERE (which I think is incomparable, because people being hazed or trained are not in prison and have the option to leave whenever they want), but that is not really the point. What IS important is the fact that Abu Ghraib has seriously undercut the image of the US occupation in Iraq and has given the insurgency and Al Qaeda untold numbers of new recruits. I think a good argument can be made that hundreds of US troops have been killed in Iraq directly because of the mistreatment of detainees and people (or former detainees) joining the insurgency because of it. That alone should be reason enough to never engage in the use of EIT's again. If the fact that they are clearly not effective in getting good intelligence, clearly illegal and clearly inhumane is not enough for you. How you can still have faith in the Bush administrations intelligence assertions after the WMD debacle is beyond me. Besides, even if they never exactly said that Saddam was partly responsible for 9/11 that is definitely still the image they tried to suggest. How else would a large part of America have believed this at a certain point? - Rutger van Marissing Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:02:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19181 The administration never said Iraq was behind, or helped, in the planning or execution of 9/11. They said that Al qaeda had made contact with the Iraqis. A sample of what they did say (I assume you, too, can use the internet...but here you go): President Bush: News conference, June 2004: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda... This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Vice-President Dick Cheney Interview on CNBC, June 2004: There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming... It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama Bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials. Here are all the DEMOCRAT party's reason we should have taken down Saddam: http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=544758&articleId=666691&func=5&channel=Rants+&+Raves So... who's the one who isn't intellectually curious now...hmmm? Sir, I'm not attacking what you believe (waterboarding is torture). I'm attacking your facts. Don't conflate the two. - Kevlaur Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:52:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19178 Ben - I should have known... I don't think Mr Dudley means to be intellectually dishonest. And you are right, I'm against torture, and I'm not convinced that water boarding is torture. Mr Marissing - re: undercutting effort. The more Iraqis, and hopefully Afghan people, spend with our troops they start to understand that the press in the US isn't that different than their own; full of propaganda and half-truths. How about videos of people (infidels) getting their heads sawn off.... that not terrible for their cause? That is something far worse than even occured at Abu Ghurayb. Which, more and more, looks no worse than hazing stunts pulled at college fraternities. - Kevlaur Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:06:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19177 So I tried Scott Dudley's google for "deaths from torture." Of the top 10 items, two are propaganda pieces from left-wing folks who seem to think that if a few isolated incidents of torture happen, then the military as a whole must be promoting it. One is a piece equating those same isolated cases of torture with mass torture in the Phillippines (something I should probably learn more about), and the rest are items of legitimate real torture, but are taking place or took place by the hands of, variously: China, ancient Peru, Tibet, Croatia, oh, and China. What seems to happen consistently, is that people who are against torture, like myself, are given the "you're promoting torture" line by people who want to pin the torture on our top leaders. And the only way they can do the pinning is by getting people to believe that waterboarding is torture, because that is the kind of technique that our leaders have admitted to. I have several friends in the military who have been waterboarded as part of their training. And none of them consider themselves to have been tortured. So the real question is, do we need to treat our prisoners better than we treat our soldiers? And if so, how can we look at our soldiers and not feel ashamed? - Ben Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19176 The question of whether EIT's are torture or not (and I believe they are, when you need a euphemism like Enhanced Interrogation Technique, you know what time it is) is not really the issue. The issue is that the use of EIT's have caused the US to lose its respect throughout the world. As any COIN expert will tell you, losing the moral highground fundamentally undercuts every effort made in combating terrorism. Mr. Dudley is right. Torture or not, the fact that the use of EIT's is a potent weapon in the hands of our enemies is reason enough to stop using them. - Rutger van Marissing Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:20:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19174 Just google deaths from torture. Lots of hits. Here is one. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/031205torture.htm Look, this is not just some intellectual exercise. People are dying in our custody unnecessarily. Our reputation as a decent nation with high ideals is tarnished. Torture byus is a great recruiting tool for our enemies. How many of our kids have died at the hands of those recruited by our use of EIT? We'll likely never know but one is too many. - Scott Dudley, CDR, USN (ret) Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:29:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19173 I assume those who post here are familiar with how to use google. I absolutely do not post anything that is not factual but I will not do scut work for those lacking intellectual curiosity. It is more than 20 deaths but less than 30. Yes, I will quote the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee any time. By the same token, do you seriously believe what Cheney says? He has a strong record of lying. Saddam was involved in 9/11, WMDs in Iraq, AQ worked closely with Iraq...all lies, proven lies. I say release the docs cheney is asking for to prove torture works over non-enhanced methods. Zubayda gave up info before EIT and shut down when subjected to such measures. And yes, waterboarding is torture as recognized internationally and we signed off on it being torture. Sean Hannity agreed to undergo waterboarding to raise funds for injured troops. Either he doesn't care about the troops or he is deathly afraid of something that might make him "uncomfortable". - Scott Dudley, CDR, USN (ret) Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:20:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19172 About equating torture with water-boarding. Michael, I'm a long time reader (since late 2005) and I'm shocked that you are parroting left-wing talking points. Water boarding is not torture. It isn't fun... but it ain't torture. CDR Dudley, please state your source re: the 20 deaths. Then cite for me how many service people we've lost, total, in all training events during that time period. Lastly, are you seriously quoting Sen. Levin? - Kevlaur Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:32:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19171 More than 20 deaths of those in our custody have occurred due to EIT. Army medical personnel conducting the autopsies listed cause of death as murder. Deaths resulted not just from Army personnel but from CIA, SEAL, and contractors as well. It is not as clean as many would like to think. HBO is running, periodically, a documentary called "Taxi to the Dark Side". I commend its viewing to all. - Scott Dudley Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:34:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19170 Michael, as I indicated in my earlier comment, I think there is much insight in this piece, but on the other hand I've had a vague discomfort with something about it and I think I've put my finger on the problem. It has to do with your discussions with the Japanese journalists and torture. Regardless of one's beliefs concerning the propriety of the use of EITs, I believe it is wrong to conflate them with what is traditionally understood as "torture" and specifically the infamous treatment many received at the hands of the EOJ. On the one hand we have a limited number of individuals being specifically authorized to perform specific and carefully controlled acts on certain prisoners for clearly defined goals with a concientious consideration of the subjects' long-term health, while on the other we have wanton, random and often purposefully cruel and painful acts being done by anyone in power upon whomever they wished for whatever reason they considered appropriate with complete disregard to the subjects' life and limb. The perception that you could appear to conflate the two is troubling. If there is any similarity in international reaction to the two it is largely due to an IW victory on behalf of the jihadis. - submandave Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:29:00 +0100 http://www.michaelyon-online.com/secretary-gates-in-singapore.htm#comment-19169 Seems to me that if the NK problem were easy, it would have been solved over the last 8 years. Never ceases to amaze me how many folks have a memory such that they can only recall the last 5 months. That being said, as a destroyerman, I'll bet on the "cans" at least for a while. (I also worked on the Tomahawk program) - Scott Dudley Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:54:00 +0100