US officially gives up looking for WMD in Iraq

[John D Harris]

So the search has ended, and the Intell was incorrect, Sorry.


Don't that sound nice

Personally I have said all along SoDamn Insane needed his rear end kicked, I don't care what the reasons for kicking his rear end were, as long as his rear end was kicked. Yes, as far as I'm concerned the end did justify the means, make of that what you will.

Sham, I'm not so sure it is incompetence on the part of the Pentagon, as much as it is the fact Humans run the Pentagon. We, humans aren't in possession of omnipotence. This has been a perfect example of "No plan survives first contact with the enemy". Who amoung us can see every move an opponent makes ahead of time? Having writen that, it does not mean there were/are not incompetent indidivuals in the military. "Hale" the world is full of incompetent people, you can only do what you can do.

[shamrock_uk]

Right with you on kicking Saddam's butt - he had it coming, and it was the right thing to do.

Let me give you an oil example though JD and you might feel less inclined to forgive the Pentagon. Troops being jumpy is understandable, especially when they have to make life-or-death decisions all the time, but the pentagon has no such excuse, especially when so many of them have links to the oil industry (not an accusation, but making the point they should know what they're doing).

Wolfowitz promised the American people that Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction.

The first thing that the American's did was dissolve the Iraqi army, police and remove guards from oil refineries - not replacing them - looting of (just!) oil refineries during 2003 reached a total value of $1 billion because of this.

So, ok, maybe American troops were needed elsewhere and it slipped the Pentagon's mind. We could maybe forgive the oversight if we're feeling especially generous.

They then proceed to allocate 13 cents per barrel in investment.

The usual investment simply to keep oil plant operating (never mind improving it and repairing it after years of sanctions!) is between $1 and $2 per barrel!

But what's worse is that Bremner was sat on a $8 billion surplus at the end of 2003 - and not a penny of it was spent on oil.

It's just incredible, and if the American people realised how much taxpayers money they were having to cough up because of this there would be outrage.

About the only good thing in American-Iraqi oil policy is the fact that you aren't stealing the oil like many liberals like to accuse America of - the rest is just a shambles.

[ 01-13-2005, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[pritchke]

Originally posted by John D Harris: So the search has ended, and the Intell was incorrect, Sorry. Don't that sound nice Personally I have said all along SoDamn Insane needed his rear end kicked, I don't care what the reasons for kicking his rear end were, as long as his rear end was kicked. Yes, as far as I'm concerned the end did justify the means, make of that what you will.

That's all fine and dandy John, but tell that to the mothers of your dead soldiers. Make sure you bring some ice for your cheeks when you do.

[ 01-13-2005, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[John D Harris]

Sham, if what you say is true, and I no reason to doubt you. That is a stupid move.If the oil industry wasn't secure because, the troops were needed to put down an underestimated resistance that is one thing. If the Oil industry wasn't secure because, they didn't think it needed to be secure, Well that is "a horse of a differant color".

I haven't been in on any of the meetings with Bremmer, so I don't know why he would have been sitting on 8 billion, that could have been used. Did Bremmer make the decision on his own, or was he in consultations with the interem Government of Iraq? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Is the money allocated for something else that the "powers that be" believe is more important? What is the criteria on which they made the decision of what the order of importance should be? Those are some of the factors I need to take into consideration. I'm not in contact with your friend in the Iraqi oil ministery, so I can only depend on what you tell me. If your friend, says Bremmer didn't want to spend it because he didn't want to spend the money. I would say that was incompetant. If Bremmer didn't want to spend the money, because the oil industry wasn't secure yet, do to the actions of the insurgancey(sp?). Then I would say it was a pretty good move to hold off until things settle down. It would be incompetant IMHO to "throw good money after bad". Let me know what your friend says, I'm not tied to anything, I just need evidence.

[ 01-13-2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by pritchke: That's all fine and dandy John, but tell that to the mothers of your dead soldiers. Make sure you bring some ice for your cheeks when you do.

Prit, I know several people that have family members serving in the Military, and are currently in Iraq. I try to avail myself of every opportunity to thank them for their family members service. As I have done on this board, and do so agian. To all IW members that have served in the Military, or have family in the military, THANK YOU, your/their service is appeciated!! I grew up on USAF bases, I can remember full well, that when a USAF staff car drove through base housing, while my father's squadron was in SE Asia. All play on the playground stopped until we saw where the staff car went. If it stopped at a house, we ran home to let our mothers know. So they could find out what was going on and give what ever aid they could give.

[ 01-13-2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[shamrock_uk]

Thanks for your replies JD

Actually, I don't know this guy at all - I just attended one of his lectures (he wasn't the government one I referred to). I think he may have had some connection with the Iraqi oil ministry at some point and he now works for one of the international oil agencies, whilst editing a Middle-East journal (I think on energy).

My university ran a whole semester's worth of Iraq lectures and he spoke at them - I just checked and they've replaced the timetable already so I can't get his name and job specifics. Unfortunately he was introduced to fast for me to write it down!

I would think that the lack of security wasn't Bremner's fault - that would have occurred at the beginning, probably in a similar way to the lack of guards for weapons depots that the UN has reported about.

I can't remember (and my notes are too brief [he talked quickly!] to be certain) but the implication was that the looting took place in a short period after the invasion until everything that was moveable had been taken.

It is possible that you're right and there was a risk of insecurity hence the lack of funding but I'm not sure that's logical:

Firstly, as American contracters would have had to have carried out a lot of the operations, I doubt that they would have been allowed to work unless the situation was secure.

Secondly, assuming the situation was secure enough to work, it would still make sense to spend the minimal amount to prevent running the plant into the ground.

As for Bremner, I don't really have any knowledge about the specifics. I think it's more likely that he was simply ignorant of the need for more investment (rather than deliberately witholding money) but that still would indicate incompetence somewhere within the CPA.

Ice on your cheeks...ouch pritchke!

I always feel guilty when criticising the military which, after all, is mostly composed of honest hard-working men and women who are just trying to do their jobs.

War is so devisive sometimes...

[ 01-13-2005, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Thanks for your replies JD Firstly, as American contracters would have had to have carried out a lot of the operations, I doubt that they would have been allowed to work unless the situation was secure. Secondly, assuming the situation was secure enough to work, it would still make sense to spend the minimal amount to prevent running the plant into the ground. As for Bremner, I don't really have any knowledge about the specifics. I think it's more likely that he was simply ignorant of the need for more investment (rather than deliberately witholding money) but that still would indicate incompetence somewhere within the CPA.

Thanks Sham, I can follow that reasoning. I forgot about the civilain contractors working, you've moved me closer to your camp. I'm not warming my hands by the campfire yet, but I can definently stand inside the circle of light.

[shamrock_uk]

For a CoC you can be remarkably poetic...

[ 01-13-2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: War is so devisive sometimes...

War divides and unites but kills them all- uniters, dividers, and fence-sitters.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Davros: Sorry Azred - when it's war and there are thousands of people about to die for a mistake then the guy deciding needs to be more accountable than just accepting accepting a consultant's report.

That would be nice if things did work thusly; however, in a military campaign most decisions are made by consultants, especially when you consider that military strategists/generals are merely military consultants. In short, all military decisions are made by consultants.
That may sound cold because human lives are at stake, but sometimes life is cold and harsh. I don't necessarily like it, either, but I do have to deal with reality as it is.