Top Priorities

[asterism]

With Reagan and Gorbechev ending the cold war, there was no need for the increased military budgets and troop strength that Reagan had instituted. Therefore, Clinton brought both down to pre-Reagan levels. End of THAT story.

I don't think an accurate picture can be painted by just using budget numbers. I do agree that there was a general concept called the "peace dividend" and that was near universally accepted. I don't blame Clinton for the sum of his defense budget cuts. However, he missed a pretty big threat that was emerging and got largely ignored as it pertains to defense priorities and budgeting: the threat of middle eastern terrorism. Largely considered a law enforcement matter, the focus was on "catching the bad guys" instead of "eliminating this military threat."

That didn't work out too well. I'm not sure if I blame Clinton for that, but it certainly happened on his watch despite all the warnings by people who he believed were correct in assessing the Soviet threat.

Perhaps that Gorelick wall wasn't such a good idea and the lack of funding for HUMINT and information processing weakened our capabilities to thwart and/or respond to situations that would later expand into full long scale wars.

The Clinton Administration always treated "terrorism" as a crime, not as an enemy that could be defeated militarily. He was right, of course.

I disagree. Putting Abdul-Rahman behind bars did nothing to improve our position against Al Qaeda. Ignoring the threat that emerged in Mogadishu when outside assistance (from Al Qaeda) was discovered in favor of "catch and jail the bad guy, Mohammad Farah Aideed" actually weakened our position, as did pulling out and conceding defeat after the "Black Hawk Down" incident.

From a law enforcement perspective, there was a separation of information since disclosing certain information and methods used to acquire that information in a public trial were not viable. That hamstrung any effort to defeat the threat and it basically turned into a clusterfuck of being behind the curve.

"We can catch him here."

"How do you know that?"

"I can't tell you, but this guy is going to be here and he's the one you want."

"Well he hasn't done anything yet and since you can't tell me how you know, my protocol cannot deem this person as a 'credible threat.'"

What did Abdel-Rahman do in 1993 and what was putting him in jail supposed to accomplish?

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration that eliminated the counterterrorism branch which fell under the Pentagon's budget. Go figure.

Which counterterrorism branch of which agency and when? I believe you, but I don't know specifically which situation you are talking about since branches of different agencies are always being adjusted and shifted around.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't think an accurate picture can be painted by just using budget numbers. I do agree that there was a general concept called the "peace dividend" and that was near universally accepted. I don't blame Clinton for the sum of his defense budget cuts. However, he missed a pretty big threat that was emerging and got largely ignored as it pertains to defense priorities and budgeting: the threat of middle eastern terrorism. Largely considered a law enforcement matter, the focus was on "catching the bad guys" instead of "eliminating this military threat."

That didn't work out too well. I'm not sure if I blame Clinton for that, but it certainly happened on his watch despite all the warnings by people who he believed were correct in assessing the Soviet threat.

Perhaps that Gorelick wall wasn't such a good idea and the lack of funding for HUMINT and information processing weakened our capabilities to thwart and/or respond to situations that would later expand into full long scale wars.

The Clinton Administration always treated "terrorism" as a crime, not as an enemy that could be defeated militarily. He was right, of course.

I disagree. Putting Abdul-Rahman behind bars did nothing to improve our position against Al Qaeda. Ignoring the threat that emerged in Mogadishu when outside assistance (from Al Qaeda) was discovered in favor of "catch and jail the bad guy, Mohammad Farah Aideed" actually weakened our position, as did pulling out and conceding defeat after the "Black Hawk Down" incident.

From a law enforcement perspective, there was a separation of information since disclosing certain information and methods used to acquire that information in a public trial were not viable. That hamstrung any effort to defeat the threat and it basically turned into a clusterfuck of being behind the curve.

"We can catch him here."

"How do you know that?"

"I can't tell you, but this guy is going to be here and he's the one you want."

"Well he hasn't done anything yet and since you can't tell me how you know, my protocol cannot deem this person as a 'credible threat.'"

What did Abdel-Rahman do in 1993 and what was putting him in jail supposed to accomplish?

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration that eliminated the counterterrorism branch which fell under the Pentagon's budget. Go figure.

Which counterterrorism branch of which agency and when? I believe you, but I don't know specifically which situation you are talking about since branches of different agencies are always being adjusted and shifted around.

Richard Clarke's counterterrorism center was abolished (and his job relegated to a desk job), following the 911 attacks and counterterrorism thereafter put under the auspices of Homeland Security. It came about as recognition (as you state) that the wall between the CIA and FBI had put huge constraints on coordinating operations. The problem, however, has become the size of Homeland Security and the-- how many-- six(?) intelligence agencies plus the FBI which now must share information. Too many fingers in the pie, as has been evident by the Christmas Day bomber and a few others that all the agencies seemed oblivious to. The new Terrorist Screening Center has created a single terrorist watch list for the whole country, which has become so massive it's almost ineffective. Bigger is not always better. (And I shall now duck having made that comment.)

 

[asterism]

The Clinton Administration always treated "terrorism" as a crime, not as an enemy that could be defeated militarily. He was right, of course.

I disagree. Putting Abdul-Rahman behind bars did nothing to improve our position against Al Qaeda. Ignoring the threat that emerged in Mogadishu when outside assistance (from Al Qaeda) was discovered in favor of "catch and jail the bad guy, Mohammad Farah Aideed" actually weakened our position, as did pulling out and conceding defeat after the "Black Hawk Down" incident.

From a law enforcement perspective, there was a separation of information since disclosing certain information and methods used to acquire that information in a public trial were not viable. That hamstrung any effort to defeat the threat and it basically turned into a clusterfuck of being behind the curve.

"We can catch him here."

"How do you know that?"

"I can't tell you, but this guy is going to be here and he's the one you want."

"Well he hasn't done anything yet and since you can't tell me how you know, my protocol cannot deem this person as a 'credible threat.'"

What did Abdel-Rahman do in 1993 and what was putting him in jail supposed to accomplish?

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration that eliminated the counterterrorism branch which fell under the Pentagon's budget. Go figure.

Which counterterrorism branch of which agency and when? I believe you, but I don't know specifically which situation you are talking about since branches of different agencies are always being adjusted and shifted around.

Richard Clarke's counterterrorism center was abolished (and his job relegated to a desk job), following the 911 attacks and counterterrorism thereafter put under the auspices of Homeland Security. It came about as recognition (as you state) that the wall between the CIA and FBI had put huge constraints on coordinating operations. The problem, however, has become the size of Homeland Security and the-- how many-- six(?) intelligence agencies plus the FBI which now must share information. Too many fingers in the pie, as has been evident by the Christmas Day bomber and a few others that all the agencies seemed oblivious to. The new Terrorist Screening Center has created a single terrorist watch list for the whole country, which has become so massive it's almost ineffective. Bigger is not always better. (And I shall now duck having made that comment.)

While I am formulating a response to this, do you care to comment on the other points I raised or should I assume you agree?

 

[antagon]

on aggregate, i think we would have gone far further with respect to mitigating terrorism with an approach which didn't entail occupying nations on such a massive scale. i believe it would have been better served with an intelligence and special forces approach than with the cumbersome military angle we've taken in afghanistan. what the campaign there and in iraq has shown is that our presence anywhere in these massive operations will attract and empower terrorist enclaves where they may have hardly existed before. one thing is for sure: it is not sustainable.

 

[asterism]

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration that eliminated the counterterrorism branch which fell under the Pentagon's budget. Go figure.

Which counterterrorism branch of which agency and when? I believe you, but I don't know specifically which situation you are talking about since branches of different agencies are always being adjusted and shifted around.

Richard Clarke's counterterrorism center was abolished (and his job relegated to a desk job), following the 911 attacks and counterterrorism thereafter put under the auspices of Homeland Security. It came about as recognition (as you state) that the wall between the CIA and FBI had put huge constraints on coordinating operations. The problem, however, has become the size of Homeland Security and the-- how many-- six(?) intelligence agencies plus the FBI which now must share information. Too many fingers in the pie, as has been evident by the Christmas Day bomber and a few others that all the agencies seemed oblivious to. The new Terrorist Screening Center has created a single terrorist watch list for the whole country, which has become so massive it's almost ineffective. Bigger is not always better. (And I shall now duck having made that comment.)

Okay so just that we're clear on this, you are referring to the closing of one counterterrorism center inside a much larger branch of the military, which is inside of the much larger branch of the DoD, which is inside of the much larger structure of he IC (intelligence community). That's not at all what you claimed, which is:

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration that eliminated the counterterrorism branch which fell under the Pentagon's budget. Go figure.

Bush didn't eliminate "the counterterrorism branch," he abolished Clarke's specific center. Before we debate the merits of that decision honestly, let's make sure we both are realistic in what actually took place instead of using rhetoric. Is that okay with you?

Also before we get into the meat of this, I'd like to get some clarification on this:

Richard Clarke's counterterrorism center was abolished (and his job relegated to a desk job)

At what point was Richard Clarke not in a "desk job?"

 

[007]

I'd like to see mister obama focus on shutting the fuck up and going away.

 

[007]

on aggregate, i think we would have gone far further with respect to mitigating terrorism with an approach which didn't entail occupying nations on such a massive scale. i believe it would have been better served with an intelligence and special forces approach than with the cumbersome military angle we've taken in afghanistan. what the campaign there and in iraq has shown is that our presence anywhere in these massive operations will attract and empower terrorist enclaves where they may have hardly existed before. one thing is for sure: it is not sustainable.

I agree, however, I noticed your shift key must be broken.

 

[antagon]

quite observant, 'rider. its an e e cummings tribute thing i've been on since ive joined up here.

i cant help but think how far a blanket of intelligence and counter-terrorism special ops would have spread with the same billions spent on those campaigns. i'm left, alas, with the impression that the reason we entered those theaters wasn't quite counter-terrorism at all, but that dont make me a genius.

 

[007]

quite observant, 'rider. its an e e cummings tribute thing i've been on since ive joined up here.

i cant help but think how far a blanket of intelligence and counter-terrorism special ops would have spread with the same billions spent on those campaigns. i'm left, alas, with the impression that the reason we entered those theaters wasn't quite counter-terrorism at all, but that dont make me a genius.

I do agree antagon. I remember sitting late at night watching the new as the Shock 'n Awe campaign kicked off in Iraq, and I was thinking to myself... "what in the FUCK are we doing that for?" I think this invasion, nation building and occupying stuff is wrong on just about every level. If we're attacked, we should find out who did it, kick their ass, and LEAVE. These long, drawn out, protracted wars are in large part why our economy is in the toilet, let alone verging on unconstitutional.

 

[asterism]

quite observant, 'rider. its an e e cummings tribute thing i've been on since ive joined up here.

i cant help but think how far a blanket of intelligence and counter-terrorism special ops would have spread with the same billions spent on those campaigns. i'm left, alas, with the impression that the reason we entered those theaters wasn't quite counter-terrorism at all, but that dont make me a genius.

On that we'll part in agreement, since I don't attribute incompetence to malice.

All options since before 1992 were incompetent, just some more than others. I use 1992 as an arbitrary standard, since that was the first time I got to make an informed choice in an election.

 

[asterism]

quite observant, 'rider. its an e e cummings tribute thing i've been on since ive joined up here.

i cant help but think how far a blanket of intelligence and counter-terrorism special ops would have spread with the same billions spent on those campaigns. i'm left, alas, with the impression that the reason we entered those theaters wasn't quite counter-terrorism at all, but that dont make me a genius.

I do agree antagon. I remember sitting late at night watching the new as the Shock 'n Awe campaign kicked off in Iraq, and I was thinking to myself... "what in the FUCK are we doing that for?" I think this invasion, nation building and occupying stuff is wrong on just about every level. If we're attacked, we should find out who did it, kick their ass, and LEAVE. These long, drawn out, protracted wars are in large part why our economy is in the toilet, let alone verging on unconstitutional.

We achieved our military success in Iraq in April of 2007. We should have declared victory and gotten out then. Afghanistan should have been prosecuted as a "take 'em out, then wait and see" operation while all the other anti-terrorism mechanisms were implemented. But we've got to remember that even conservatives are susceptible to bureaucratic groupthink when they start spending most of their time inside the beltway.

When we realize that we cannot force a resolution to all the tactical problems, we'll get more effective strategically. Nation building is a farce.

 

[antagon]

i think nation building is a farce for regional destabilization. see, i'm cynical now.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is easy to understand the reasoning. So we crushed Iraq's war making capabilities and enforced the U.N. resolution re weapons inspections. And Saddam was effectively defanged though it took awhile to find the rat hole he was hiding in.

So then we pack up our toys and go home leaving the Iraqi people with no government and a huge void any number of pretty ugly people would be thrilled to fill? Do we leave an even crazier, more evil enemy in place there that we would likely have to fight again?

Or we leave the Iraqi people better off than they were before and seize the opportunity to have a strong ally in the Middle East instead of a resentful enemy? What if we had not stayed in Germany and Japan after WWII until those nations had formed new and effective and peaceful governments?

So it's a really tough call folks. We opted for the latter of course, but prosecuted it poorly opting for a politically correct war instead of just going in with overwhelming force and defeating those counter producitve to our goals. That almost certainly would have saved some lives, but then again it might not work.

Some marked energy security up there as a priority. The fact is a huge percentage of the world's oil reserves are right there in the Middle East. We can wail and cry all we want "No blood for oil", but the fact is oil is the fuel of freedom, democracy, and a civil, peaceful world. No reasonable person wants it all in the hands of those who intend to dismantle freedom, democracy, and all that is good.

In all cases, if foresight was anywhere near as clear as hindsight, things could be a lot less complicated.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Obama's apparant top priority is vacationing to help improve local economies.

See he is fixing local economies by going on vacation, stimulus works


On a side note its kinda funny how the stimulus spending is all "Trickle Down" stuff.

 

[Spoonman]

I wanna know what happened to Obama's idea of charging 25 cents for all service calls leaving the US? I had such hope of my job coming back.

Never put your hope in anything Obama says.

 

[MaggieMae]

I disagree. Putting Abdul-Rahman behind bars did nothing to improve our position against Al Qaeda. Ignoring the threat that emerged in Mogadishu when outside assistance (from Al Qaeda) was discovered in favor of "catch and jail the bad guy, Mohammad Farah Aideed" actually weakened our position, as did pulling out and conceding defeat after the "Black Hawk Down" incident.

From a law enforcement perspective, there was a separation of information since disclosing certain information and methods used to acquire that information in a public trial were not viable. That hamstrung any effort to defeat the threat and it basically turned into a clusterfuck of being behind the curve.

"We can catch him here."

"How do you know that?"

"I can't tell you, but this guy is going to be here and he's the one you want."

"Well he hasn't done anything yet and since you can't tell me how you know, my protocol cannot deem this person as a 'credible threat.'"

What did Abdel-Rahman do in 1993 and what was putting him in jail supposed to accomplish?



Which counterterrorism branch of which agency and when? I believe you, but I don't know specifically which situation you are talking about since branches of different agencies are always being adjusted and shifted around.

Richard Clarke's counterterrorism center was abolished (and his job relegated to a desk job), following the 911 attacks and counterterrorism thereafter put under the auspices of Homeland Security. It came about as recognition (as you state) that the wall between the CIA and FBI had put huge constraints on coordinating operations. The problem, however, has become the size of Homeland Security and the-- how many-- six(?) intelligence agencies plus the FBI which now must share information. Too many fingers in the pie, as has been evident by the Christmas Day bomber and a few others that all the agencies seemed oblivious to. The new Terrorist Screening Center has created a single terrorist watch list for the whole country, which has become so massive it's almost ineffective. Bigger is not always better. (And I shall now duck having made that comment.)

While I am formulating a response to this, do you care to comment on the other points I raised or should I assume you agree?

You would rather the Blind Sheikh is still running around the USA recruiting? What good would it do to capture and jail OBL? They are both now symbolic heroes of Islamic terrorism, which has now reached such proportions that it probably doesn't matter who replaces them but I don't think they should be free just because of that.

As for the botched effort at Mogadishu, I don't really know a whole lot about that other than it was botched--a combination of bad intelligence and a failed military operation.

 

[Spoonman]

Richard Clarke's counterterrorism center was abolished (and his job relegated to a desk job), following the 911 attacks and counterterrorism thereafter put under the auspices of Homeland Security. It came about as recognition (as you state) that the wall between the CIA and FBI had put huge constraints on coordinating operations. The problem, however, has become the size of Homeland Security and the-- how many-- six(?) intelligence agencies plus the FBI which now must share information. Too many fingers in the pie, as has been evident by the Christmas Day bomber and a few others that all the agencies seemed oblivious to. The new Terrorist Screening Center has created a single terrorist watch list for the whole country, which has become so massive it's almost ineffective. Bigger is not always better. (And I shall now duck having made that comment.)

While I am formulating a response to this, do you care to comment on the other points I raised or should I assume you agree?

You would rather the Blind Sheikh is still running around the USA recruiting? What good would it do to capture and jail OBL? They are both now symbolic heroes of Islamic terrorism, which has now reached such proportions that it probably doesn't matter who replaces them but I don't think they should be free just because of that.

As for the botched effort at Mogadishu, I don't really know a whole lot about that other than it was botched--a combination of bad intelligence and a failed military operation.

The guy is attached to a kidney machine. How much recruiting is he doing?

 

[MaggieMae]

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration that eliminated the counterterrorism branch which fell under the Pentagon's budget. Go figure.

Which counterterrorism branch of which agency and when? I believe you, but I don't know specifically which situation you are talking about since branches of different agencies are always being adjusted and shifted around.

Okay so just that we're clear on this, you are referring to the closing of one counterterrorism center inside a much larger branch of the military, which is inside of the much larger branch of the DoD, which is inside of the much larger structure of he IC (intelligence community). That's not at all what you claimed, which is:

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration that eliminated the counterterrorism branch which fell under the Pentagon's budget. Go figure.

Bush didn't eliminate "the counterterrorism branch," he abolished Clarke's specific center. Before we debate the merits of that decision honestly, let's make sure we both are realistic in what actually took place instead of using rhetoric. Is that okay with you?

Also before we get into the meat of this, I'd like to get some clarification on this:

Richard Clarke's counterterrorism center was abolished (and his job relegated to a desk job)

At what point was Richard Clarke not in a "desk job?"

I can see you want to be picky, and sorry, but my recollection of those events isn't crystal clear without going to material saved on disks or an extensive Google search for the clear facts, which can't be picked apart. I don't intend to get into a donnybrook with you over this, although I do believe that everything I stated (paraphrased) was revealed during the 911 Commission hearings, including the fact that Condi Rice considerably downsized Richard Clarke's mission and accomplishments to date. That too was made clear at the time. I called it a "desk job," but you can call it anything you want.

The BA preferred not to have anything Clinton-esque that occurred regarding counterterrorism (or anything else) prior to the 911 as their model. That too was common knowledge.

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama's apparant top priority is vacationing to help improve local economies.

See he is fixing local economies by going on vacation, stimulus works


On a side note its kinda funny how the stimulus spending is all "Trickle Down" stuff.

Nothing wrong with trickle down when it actually happens.

 

[MaggieMae]

While I am formulating a response to this, do you care to comment on the other points I raised or should I assume you agree?

You would rather the Blind Sheikh is still running around the USA recruiting? What good would it do to capture and jail OBL? They are both now symbolic heroes of Islamic terrorism, which has now reached such proportions that it probably doesn't matter who replaces them but I don't think they should be free just because of that.

As for the botched effort at Mogadishu, I don't really know a whole lot about that other than it was botched--a combination of bad intelligence and a failed military operation.

The guy is attached to a kidney machine. How much recruiting is he doing?

That's never been confirmed.