An Average Joe On the Situation in Iraq

[Toad]

At one time I had TS/SI/EBI/SCI and some other gobbledegook clearances.

Doesn't mean you can't talk at all. Means there's some things you can't talk about.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Arfann
SOP may have changed since my experiences 35 years ago, but the rule then was that if you know more than you can say you avoid the subject completely. "I know, but I can't tell you" were  words of a wannabe.

A valid concern but don't worry in this case. I take any possible security breach caused by my actions very seriously (figured you'd want to know that, having served and such). I made no mention of anything classified or even sensitive. Had I gone into detail, as opposed to saying 'check around for who is ambushing our guys', etc. I might have which is why I said what I said. To give you an idea of how (overly) cautious I was being - I know that the topic isn't classified at all (I've read numerous news reports on it, all from different sources). But even then I wasn't willing to possibly be the person to 'officially' verify it. Does that make sense? In other words you are cautioning someone who gets told all the time that he's 'overly paranoid'.

And I'm not a 'wannabe', unless it's a 'wannabe a Playboy Talent Scout'.

But you can call me on stuff like that all day and anytime you want. I'd rather get reminded (even if not necessary sometimes) than screw up even once.



Mike/wulfie

p.s. There are conversations on this and other BBSs I have avoided before due to what you were implying. So I don't think you're crazy in the least. Please understand that I agree and act responsibly in such matters.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Toad
At one time I had TS/SI/EBI/SCI and some other gobbledegook clearances.

Doesn't mean you can't talk at all. Means there's some things you can't talk about.

My point exactly. When a subject you can't talk about comes up you don't play "I know but I can't tell you". You just don't join the discussion.

[Dowding]

There's been some interesting reading in thise thread. Thanks for kicking it off in a way that would promote it Zippatuh. I wish I had that kind of tact.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
About your pissed off car salesman, well I think most Irakies are pretty familliar with war and war equipments. It's not like USA a peacefull country, it's more like Libanon where bullets are flying since those guys were kids.

That is a very true statement. Guys I know have been surprised at the difference in 'default battlefield awareness' between people who have grown up in war zones and people who haven't. One buddy of mine noted that a group of fairly young locals pinpointed the general location of some 'sniper' (I say 'sniper' because it was someone sniping with a regular rifle,l and they weren't a trained sniper) fire several seconds before some Coalition personnel came to the same conclusion. This involved choosing one area out of several possible areas. It was simply a matter of being exposed to those types of sounds and that type of environment to a much greater degree.

Mike/wulfie

[Toad]

Arfann, if you've been there, then you must have had guys with higher clearances tell you something like "you're wrong".

And when you asked how they KNEW you were wrong, they just said "Because I know." and left it there.

Now, you have a choice; you can believe them or not. But what you believe really has no bearing on whether they actually know or not.

I know this doesn't seem to make sense. But my old Ops Officer was famous for his "look".

He'd say "you're wrong", "because I know" with "that look" on his face.

And months or even years later, you'd either realize or be shown that you had indeed been wrong.

Now wulfie may or may not have "that look" to you. But after reading his stuff a while, he "looks" that way to me and I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Far more so than say... the wizards of CNN or the New York Times.

Just my .02

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Toad
Arfann, if you've been there, then you must have had guys with higher clearances tell you something like "you're wrong"...

Hey I understand why he said what he said. I think that's maybe the only time I've put myself in such a position on the AH BBS. But I just wanted to clarify the reason I did so - it was to explain to someone that I wasn't calling him stupid. The point that we were discussing - that military holdouts, Sadaam loyalists, etc. were behind the attacks as opposed to disgruntled 'average' Iraqis - that can be verified via a number of public sources.

Same phrase which is why I can see him reacting that way, but a much different motive. I could (should) have gone and found links for a bunch of reports but as I mentioned elsewhere I'm kind of short on free time lately.

Mike/wulfie

[Hortlund]

Wulfie, thanks for taking the time to write these posts. I always appreciate reading your views on the how's and why's on the current situation.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Toad
Arfann, if you've been there, then you must have had guys with higher clearances tell you something like "you're wrong".

And when you asked how they KNEW you were wrong, they just said "Because I know." and left it there.

Now, you have a choice; you can believe them or not. But what you believe really has no bearing on whether they actually know or not.

I know this doesn't seem to make sense. But my old Ops Officer was famous for his "look".

He'd say "you're wrong", "because I know" with "that look" on his face.

And months or even years later, you'd either realize or be shown that you had indeed been wrong.

Now wulfie may or may not have "that look" to you. But after reading his stuff a while, he "looks" that way to me and I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Far more so than say... the wizards of CNN or the New York Times.

Just my .02

Where I was: Vietnam, mid to late sixties.
My response to the remainder of your post: What in the world are you talking about?

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by wulfie
Spare me - the complaint of 'no WMD' is purely a political ploy. The same people complaining now are on record as being concerned about Iraq and the spread of WMD before our current President was ever in the White House.

When Congress was debating use of force earlier this year, I heard Diane Feinstein speaking on the radio.  This was going to be interesting, was she going to oppose the war?  No, she said she was in favor of military action, based on evidence she heard during Senate intelligence breifings that Saddam was still developing WMDs.  

If it turns out that the secret briefings the adminstration gave Congress were deliberatly false, then I think representatives have a right to be upset.

[Nash]

Absolutely. If their vote was based on faulty information given them, how could they be held to it? It's no longer good to say "They approved and voted for the use of force".

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Montezuma
When Congress was debating use of force earlier this year, I heard Diane Feinstein speaking on the radio.  This was going to be interesting, was she going to oppose the war?  No, she said she was in favor of military action, based on evidence she heard during Senate intelligence breifings that Saddam was still developing WMDs.  

If it turns out that the secret briefings the adminstration gave Congress were deliberatly false, then I think representatives have a right to be upset.

I agree with you. But the specific evidence and briefings that are being questioned all took place/were revealed a few months after alot of the 'doubters' voted in favor of military action.

From http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/ (Monday's page):

"How many Americans found the case for regime change otherwise unpersuasive but were won over by the part about uranium in Africa? It seems likely the answer is very few; and it's surely implausible that three of the four leading Democratic candidates for president fall into this group (especially since they voted for the war 3 1/2 months before Bush mentioned the allegation)."

Don't get me wrong some of the writing that shows up here is the 'republican' version of the fact-bending rhetoric that I hate. But in this case the people claiming 'falsified data' can't say that's why they voted for military action.

In all honesty the thing that people should not be able to 'breeze around' is the 'guitly' behavior of Iraq's leadership when it comes to the deception(s) that took place in their dealings with the UN WMD inspection teams. When the first team got booted I could understand the rationale from a National pride standpoint - *if* the team was loaded with pure intelligence officers posing as WMD specialists, then I could see the Iraqi leadership getting pissed and demanding another team - a sort of variation of Nations declaring foreign embassy personnel 'PNG' when they get caught being too aggressive in terms of intelligence work.

But the team led by Blix - they had a golden opportunity to go along with the UN, get the sanctions lifted, and start raking in some serious $$$ - all which would have been a big slap in the face to the U.S.A., U.K. and others after defying the cease fire for 10+ years.

Look at the intercepts quoted by Powell in the UN session - the ones where an Iraqi superior is telling one of his senior officers to 'delete all references to chemical weapons' in his unit's SOP/CA. In my opinion there's too much 'guilty' behavior for no WMD to exist - which is a cause for concern.

Hey maybe in 10 years we'll all have beers together and look back and say 'who would have thought that the National Inquirer was right all along about the location of the WMD'.

Mike/wulfie

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Arfann
Where I was: Vietnam, mid to late sixties.

That must have been 'interesting' to say the least. I get the feeling you were in the field. Have you read any books by Vietnam veterans? If so, which do you think give the most accurate portrayal?

My Dad was over there when I was 2-3 years old. There was a little 'picture movie' (i.e. a series of photographs displayed one after the other, each for about 4 seconds) that was on TV before the morning news came on. The music that played to the pictures was that song 'What's Goin On' I think. One of my earliest memories is sitting by my Mom while she ironed clothes in the living room and when the still picture of the black soldier or marine playing a guitar behind some sandbags came on the TV my Mom would tell me "That's where you Daddy is right now".

Mike/wulfie

p.s. I may be offline for a couple of weeks before you reply to this. If you have a book recommendation send it to me via personal message on the AH BBS please.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Arfann
Where I was: Vietnam, mid to late sixties.
My response to the remainder of your post: What in the world are you talking about?

Talking about people who have higher clearances that know stuff they can tell you but can't tell you how they know.

In some cases the fact itself is unclassified. How the fact was discovered and verified is highly classified.

You can either believe them or not. But you simply don't know what they know or how they discovered and verified it.

[Nash]

If memory serves (and a BBS search may verify) Toad, you referred to just such a scenario in much the same way (your friends in high places) as bolstering your confidence in WMDs (along with a well developed nuke program) in Iraq. They may give you a knowing look, but it doesn't mean they're right.

Of course... I could be remembering this all wrong.