Bin Laden Wants to Bleed US in Iraq, Iran

[babylonsister]

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2585/Bin_Laden_Wants_to_Bleed_US_in_Iraq_Iran

Bin Laden Wants to Bleed US in Iraq, Iran

Former CIA Official Warns Against Expanding War Instead of Withdrawing
By CHRISTINA DAVIDSON


Bruce Seidel, former senior CIA official and current Brookings fellow, sounds a warning about a far-too-often overlooked implication of the United States' increasingly serious confrontation with Iran in this month's Foreign Affairs. Seidel also challenges the notion, regularly put forth by the Bush Administration, that the US military should not withdraw forces from Iraq for fear that al Qaeda would declare a victory. As he writes in "Al Qaeda Strikes Back":

"(Bin Laden) seeks to, as he puts it, "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The demoralized "far enemy" would then go home, allowing al Qaeda to focus on destroying its "near enemies," Israel and the "corrupt" regimes of Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. occupation of Iraq helped move his plan along, and bin Laden has worked hard to turn it into a trap for Washington. Now he may be scheming to extend his strategy by exploiting or even triggering a war between the United States and Iran.....

"Iraq is, of course, another critical battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

"No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends. Anbar and adjacent Sunni provinces have little water, few other natural resources, and no access to the outside world except through hostile territory. The Shiites and the Kurdish militias will have no compunction about attacking the Islamic State of Iraq. (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)"

[Kikosexy2]

1. The U.S. shouldn't ...

have invaded in the first place...so if OBL declares victory...then it all falls on Bushco for diverting our military into the misadventure that is Iraq...Bushies, Repigs and neocons really f*#ked everything up big time...It's their fault and theirs alone...OBL is having a gay ole time more than ever...

[november3rd]

2. bin Laden Bush: CUT THE CRAP

With all the questionable loyalties, judgments and behaviors on the part of foreign and domestic politicians, it's time to CUT THE CRAP.

"By their fruits ye shall know them" Bro!

When you're talking about terrorism, world domination, exploitation of world resources and further impoverishment of the people and the environment ... there's only one standard, and it applies to everybody.

People who kill are killers. People who profit from the blood of innocent people are murdering megalomaniacs. People who see injustice and turn away are complicit in the crimes of the perpetrators.

Let's get over the bullshit.

Time's up.

[CGowen]

3. More from the original article by Bruce Riedel

The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations, as it did for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1996 attacks on the U.S. barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were wise to be patient in both those cases; Washington would be well advised to do the same in the event of a similar attack in the future. In the meantime, it should, of course, continue do its utmost to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and from fomenting violence and terrorism in the Middle East by using tough diplomacy and targeted sanctions. And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304-p30/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html

Sounds just like Brezinski in February 1, 2007

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure
to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility
for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S.
blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against
Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire
eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf

Why do they get his name wrong on Iraq slogger? Is it "Bruce Seidel" or "Bruce Riedel" like in the original Foreign Affairs article?

[peacetalksforall]

4. Edit: PNAC and al-Queda agenda in sync.

WH Version To Citizens:

Contain terror in Iraq over there. (Translates this way - it's better to lose our young kids there than adults, kids, and children over here). Plus, the stuff about freeing Iraq and establishing a government (they gave up saying democracy).

Real reason - corporations either haven't had their fill of oil yet knowing the conquest of the ME isn't going to work - this time - OR - they are still determined to conquer the ME.


PNAQ Version for Iraq and ME (with everything in their favor):
Create dominance throughout the ME for the purpose of owning/dictating the earth resources, protecting Israel, establishing military bases that are resistance free as well as trouble free pipelines and protected corporate headquarters that free them from taxes and accountability.

Plus, somehow come off with a perceived win that will guarantee re-elections until military law rules.


CIA Analyst Version of the al-Queda Plan:

. Keep the U.S. trapped in war on Iraq soil - al-Queda's neighborhood. (See A below)
. Bankrupt the U.S. as they bankrupted the Soviet Union (See B below)
. Trigger war between the U.S. and Iran (See C below)
. Destroy Israel and the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Pakistaon.
. Iran wants the U.S. to continue to be trapped in Iraq quagmire.

Negatives of U.S. pull out

Though al-Queda will take credit, the "Islamic State" (cross-border ideology?) will fare well, but Sunni's in Iraq will be trapped with few resources and neither Kurds or Sunnis' well be able to fight Shiites.

SO PNAC and AL-QUEDA HAVE SHARED AGENDAS:

A. Keep the U.S. trapped in war on Iraq soil - al-Queda's neighborhood. By staying in Iraq, al-Queda gets to kill off our young while not having many expenses and risks - so the PNAC/WH and al-Queda all agree.

B. Bankrupt the U.S. as they bankrupted the Soviet Union, Evidently, PNAC and the WH/RNC are OK with this and agree with al-Queda as they (Republicans) have helped bankrupt us for 7-10 years (plus the horrible dips taken under Bush Sr and Reagan). And they have allowed our bankruptcy by assigning debt to China and other countries, allowing big weapon storage depots be broken in to, facilitating thefts of huge amounts of money and hiding more, probably counterfeiting, allowing corruption in war purchasing and contracts for the profit of friends, cooperating in the flourishing of drug transfers (?), privatizing the heck out of us, avoiding responsibilities in times of disaster, creating a pretense that all is OK (all with the help of THEIR CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC) and THEIR radio stations. (al-Queda and PNAC - matching agendas - bankrupt us)

C. Trigger war between the U.S. and Iran (Matching agenda).

Looks like PNAC/WH/RNC are definitely partners with al-Queda. Lockstep agenda.