It's a sign they just have to keep pushing. It means increasing attacks on free-world countries. We could lose this war. If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive.)Navy

REALLY FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST A NATION THAT DID NOT ATTACK US BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS MAKES US STRONGER? THAT IS INTERESTING SINCE BUSH'S INVASION OF IRAQ, WE HAVE LOST OUR POWER IN THE WORLD, WE HAVE LOST ANY POSITION OF MORAL LEADERSHIP. NOT TO MENTION THAT THIS WAR HAS BANKRUPTED OUR TREASURY. THE DOLLARS IS IN A STEEP DECLINE, OUR COUNTRY IS SPIRALING TOWARDS RECESSION. FIGHTING A JUSTIFIED WAR BASED ON NECESSITY, IS ONE THING, BUT LAUNCHING A WAR ON A PACK OF LIES AND OR MISTAKES DOES NOT INCREASE OUR STRATEGIC STRENGTH. SINCE BUSH'S INVASION OF IRAQ, RUSSIA IS RESURGENT, THE MULLAHS IN IRAN ARE STRONGER,ALL OUR ALLIANCES IN EUROPE ARE STRAINED. THE WHOLE MIDDLE EAST IS DESTABILIZED AND OSAMA IS STILL IN THE VIDEO PRODUCTION BUSINESS. REMEMBER DEAD OR ALIVE, I DO, AND BUSH HASN'T DONE BUBKUS TO ACTUALLY CAPTURE AND KILL THE PEOPLE THAT ATTACKED US. 30,000 TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN WHERE AL QUAEDA WAS BASED, AND 175,000 TROOPS IN IRAQ WHERE HALLIBURTON AND BLACKWATER GET THEIR PROFITS. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting back against the people that attacked us on 9-11, and George Bush has said so on more than one occasion on TV.

And these morons want to repeat our success in Iraq in Iran and Syria as well, yes this country will be destroyed if we continue to launch wars on based on the paranoid rantings of crazed neocons. 2.5 trillion dollars peed away in Iraq, and a generation of crippled American teenagers. If these people have their way we will be at war indefinetly, look at John Mccain he wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT SAYS IRAQ HAD NO OPERATIONAL LINK TO AQ, OUR OWN GOVERNMENT SAID IRAQ HAD NO WMD PROGRAM. AND BEFORE THE WAR SADDAM HAD LET THE INSPECTORS BACK INTO THE COUNTRY AND THE UN STATED THAT THEY HAD UNFETTERED ACCESS TO HUNDREDS OF SITES AND THAT THEY HAD FOUND NOTHING. IF YOU WANT YOUR KIDS GONADS BLOWN OFF TO SECURE BUSH'S LEGACY OR TO WIN A WAR FOR EXXON'S PROFITS GO RIGHT AHEAD, I WOULDN'T LIFT A FINGER TO SUPPORT THIS POLICY AND I WILL FIGHT IT TILL THE DAY THE LAST AMERICAN SOLDIER LEAVES THAT COUNTRY. THE WARMONGERS, CONSERVATIVES, AND BUSH SUPPORTERS HAVE STABBED THIS COUNTRY IN THE BACK. THEY AREN'T PATRIOTS, JUST BLOOD THIRSTY SAVAGES AND BIGOTS, WHO RAP THEMSELVES IN THE FLAG TO COVER THEIR OWN BLOOD LUST AND HATRED.

It's a sign they just have to keep pushing. It means increasing attacks on free-world countries. We could lose this war. If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive.)Navy

REALLY FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST A NATION THAT DID NOT ATTACK US BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS MAKES US STRONGER? THAT IS INTERESTING SINCE BUSH'S INVASION OF IRAQ, WE HAVE LOST OUR POWER IN THE WORLD, WE HAVE LOST ANY POSITION OF MORAL LEADERSHIP. NOT TO MENTION THAT THIS WAR HAS BANKRUPTED OUR TREASURY. THE DOLLARS IS IN A STEEP DECLINE, OUR COUNTRY IS SPIRALING TOWARDS RECESSION. FIGHTING A JUSTIFIED WAR BASED ON NECESSITY, IS ONE THING, BUT LAUNCHING A WAR ON A PACK OF LIES AND OR MISTAKES DOES NOT INCREASE OUR STRATEGIC STRENGTH. SINCE BUSH'S INVASION OF IRAQ, RUSSIA IS RESURGENT, THE MULLAHS IN IRAN ARE STRONGER,ALL OUR ALLIANCES IN EUROPE ARE STRAINED. THE WHOLE MIDDLE EAST IS DESTABILIZED AND OSAMA IS STILL IN THE VIDEO PRODUCTION BUSINESS. REMEMBER DEAD OR ALIVE, I DO, AND BUSH HASN'T DONE BUBKUS TO ACTUALLY CAPTURE AND KILL THE PEOPLE THAT ATTACKED US. 30,000 TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN WHERE AL QUAEDA WAS BASED, AND 175,000 TROOPS IN IRAQ WHERE HALLIBURTON AND BLACKWATER GET THEIR PROFITS. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting back against the people that attacked us on 9-11, and George Bush has said so on more than one occasion on TV.

And these morons want to repeat our success in Iraq in Iran and Syria as well, yes this country will be destroyed if we continue to launch wars on based on the paranoid rantings of crazed neocons. 2.5 trillion dollars peed away in Iraq, and a generation of crippled American teenagers. If these people have their way we will be at war indefinetly, look at John Mccain he wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT SAYS IRAQ HAD NO OPERATIONAL LINK TO AQ, OUR OWN GOVERNMENT SAID IRAQ HAD NO WMD PROGRAM. AND BEFORE THE WAR SADDAM HAD LET THE INSPECTORS BACK INTO THE COUNTRY AND THE UN STATED THAT THEY HAD UNFETTERED ACCESS TO HUNDREDS OF SITES AND THAT THEY HAD FOUND NOTHING. IF YOU WANT YOUR KIDS GONADS BLOWN OFF TO SECURE BUSH'S LEGACY OR TO WIN A WAR FOR EXXON'S PROFITS GO RIGHT AHEAD, I WOULDN'T LIFT A FINGER TO SUPPORT THIS POLICY AND I WILL FIGHT IT TILL THE DAY THE LAST AMERICAN SOLDIER LEAVES THAT COUNTRY. THE WARMONGERS, CONSERVATIVES, AND BUSH SUPPORTERS HAVE STABBED THIS COUNTRY IN THE BACK. THEY AREN'T PATRIOTS, JUST BLOOD THIRSTY SAVAGES AND BIGOTS, WHO RAP THEMSELVES IN THE FLAG TO COVER THEIR OWN BLOOD LUST AND HATRED.

==From 1981 to 2001 there were more than 7,000 terrorist attacks worldwide.==

Well, there are a lot more today.

==Neither President Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, nor Bush 2 did anything to provoke these attacks.==

All of these Presidents led our policy of supporting regional murderous dictators, which did much to foment terrorism, and Reagan actually gave lots of money and support to Afghani mujahedin, who in fact are Taleban now. To claim that we were innocent bystanders in all of this is quite incorrect.

==You were five y.o when you came to the US;==

Rather older, I am afraid. If I came when I was five, my silly misspellings would have been much more unforgivable.

While Hollywood weaves the myth of super-efficient, all-knowing special ops units complete with dashing heroes and colgate smiles, the reality is somewhat different. I believe that their are many competing factions within the military. It is not one unified force working in close co-ordination within its many internal arms. This eventually gives the impression that the richest, most powerful military in the world is unable to get anything right. Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Too many failures outweigh the successes. Currently the world view the US military as "gung-ho airheads with expensive toys".

To improve this impression, US forces should only be used when there is a direct imminent threat to the US mainland. Mercenary companies like Blackwater should be cut out altogether (their actions amount to terrorism for the local population). Vanity wars like Iraq must never be allowed to happen again. Sending spec ops into other sovereign territories to upend governments, meddle in internal politics, is wrong, and causes endless problems further down the road. Remember the US provoked the ire of Iranians when it grossly overturned the shah in 1953. What business did the US have doing that? The result of that is Iran has been a thorn in the side ever since. Do as you would be done by.

A war with islamic extemist began in 1979 with the taking of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Iran. These attacks increased over the years: Beirut Embassy, 1983; the Pan Am jetliner that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland, 1988; first World Trade Center bombing,1993; Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, 1996; U.S. Embassy, Nairobi, Kenya, 1998; U.S. Embassy, Dares Salaam, Tanzania, 1998; USS Cole, Yemen, 2000; and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. From 1981 to 2001 there were more than 7,000 terrorist attacks worldwide. Neither President Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, nor Bush 2 did anything to provoke these attacks.

We attacked Afghanistan (actually the Taliban) because they allowed terrorists to base from their country and fly in-and-out of the airports like we are on the red-eye to Boston. Accusing us of starting this terrorst war is absurd and just plain stupid

If we were to pull our of Afghanistan or Iraq is would be a sign of weakness to the enemy. It's a sign they just have to keep pushing. It means increasing attacks on free-world countries. We could lose this war. If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive. No other free country will survive if we are defeated. Name one radical Muslim country which allows free speech, free thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights to anyone, let alone everyone, equal status or any status to women. As Al Gore explained, we can deal with it now or allow it to continue to get worse, and simply leave it for our children and grandchildren. Now do you understand the difference?

The world is in a mess...
the U.S.A. is in a mess, and
no amount of denial will ever
diminishsh the role of the United
States' own contribution to either mess!

The question is, can it be reversed?
How can the U.S.A. conduct a just
war on terrorism, when the majority
of nations including our allies
believe that we are behaving out
of character ourselves?

One nation's definition of terrorism,
when used in reverse is its own
justification for rampage!

But who cares? On to Carthage Mr. Bush!

//In all honesty, I'm not really sure why you're so eager to kill Americans -- or anyone else.\\

I'm not; but unlike you I don't see that we are responsible for terrorism. The only group that I see making money on this situation are the countries that have the oil - and the oil speculators that beef up the price when there is barely a whisper of war. Maybe they are responsible. Maybe?

//It seems like if one of us is guilty of being unsatisfied with the quantity of American blood spilled in the war of terror, it is certainly you, not me, since you're so eager to expand and ratchet up the violence based solely on the assurances of a few politicians. Ew! Who trusts politicians, anyhow?\\

Well I can't fault you with your views of the stench of politics. I disagree that we are the cause of terrorism. We have the least to gain and the most to lose by going to war - or causing a war. That was also true about WWII, as well. But we had to do what was necessary when the s#!+ finally hit the fan.

We aren't inventing an enemy as much as some groups (like int'l oil speculators) that have gained the perfect scam to gain the most profits. How much money can be made by jumping up between two groups, shoot both ways, and duck down? We are still finding that out at the gas pumps.

I'd still like to see what would happen if we could manipulate the oil volume coming out of Iraq - to double the output - and send the price of oil plummeting. Certainly, we are in a position to do just that for that expressed purpose; but no one has said anything about making it happen - to ease the effects of terrorism at the gas pumps. Which translate to a major economic threat to the entire West every time the price goes up. In essence, a vicious circle...

//Nevertheless, yes, since the US is the primary originator of terrorism, I do believe that if we abandoned the war of terror, that the levels of terrorism would decrease. Seems like simple math to me.\\

Sorry Toller, I missed the explination of the mechanics and math of how that is supposed to work.
Please explain...

//Let's see, comrade. I will see you three thousand dead American civilians and raise you 4 thousand American soldiers, several hundred American contractors, several hundred thousands dead Iraqis, 50 thousand or more dead Afghanis, and the party has just started\\

Oh boy, now we have a game of poker!
Too bad your a poor bluffer!
Haw!

//As a local expert on communism, having lived under it, I can see much danger from your type of authoritarian automatons on the American experiment//

You were five y.o when you came to the US; how many cookies did you have give up during playtime before you saw that the collective concepts work for the collective good of the party?

You are a funny guy; I appreciate this banter and it has provided quite a belly laugh! I appreciate your consideration!

==Let's see...
Over three thousand dead Americans weren't enough for you to get killed ('9/11'); and you just want to forget the whole thing because it is an inconvienience?==

Let's see, comrade. I will see you three thousand dead American civilians and raise you 4 thousand American soldiers, several hundred American contractors, several hundred thousands dead Iraqis, 50 thousand or more dead Afghanis, and the party has just started.

I doesn't appear that fake indignant mathematics are running in your favor. But perhaps for you, comrade, victory IS the struggle? Permanent revolution ringin' a bell? A little world domination, comintern-style, eh?

It is remarkable to witness the mutations and survivability of common intellectual virii for well more than a century. They always find a willing host!

I didn't say it was an inconvenience, so you should probably stick to what I actually said if you want to debate. If you're going to argue with a straw man, then you certainly don't need me.

Nevertheless, yes, since the US is the primary originator of terrorism, I do believe that if we abandoned the war of terror, that the levels of terrorism would decrease. Seems like simple math to me. It's your addition, which seems to assert that by increasing terrorism we will in fact decrease terrorism, that reeks of the neo-lib/neo-con Orwellian neo-Math.

As for your allegation that "[o]ver three thousand dead Americans weren't enough for [me] to get killed," I would have to answer that, yes that was certainly enough. Too many, of course, but I see no need to increase the misery, leastwise to extend it to the rest of the world, simply because either American intelligence elements engaged in a false flag attack here at home (9/11) or alternately (as may be your preferred explanation), a small group of the CIA's former chums turned on us because of our foreign policy and decided to bring the war home.

In all honesty, I'm not really sure why you're so eager to kill Americans -- or anyone else. It seems like if one of us is guilty of being unsatisfied with the quantity of American blood spilled in the war of terror, it is certainly you, not me, since you're so eager to expand and ratchet up the violence based solely on the assurances of a few politicians. Ew! Who trusts politicians, anyhow?

===If I were a communist - and I am not - and a party member of zeal for the downfall of capitalism; then it would be true. 'J' tells me that I am the farthest thing from a communist as he has yet seen. He had been to Russia after the fall of the Communist gov't - several years ago.===

You really don't get it, do you? People like you are are philosophically crippled, ethically challenged, morally relativistic and ideologically quite strong. You yourself said you had no real issues with propaganda, and agreed that either truth or false is acceptable for the government to influence and form public opinion in its favor. On this foundation, you can build any ideology, from communism to capitalism, yet the result is always lies and inherent authoritarianism.

===Of course you are saying that I am a 'neocon' propagandist; but I do understand both the dem/repub arguements as an independant. With this in mind, I see the repubs as the party of necessity for the future of the US; I see the dems as bringing about changes that are inherently dangerous and too costly for this government to afford without hiking taxes to the point that they are in Canada. Health care cannot be done without making it inherently corrupt - when allowing the gov't to handle it.===

Where is the so-called independance part in you self-serving false identity? You are still fighting Hillary's medical plans from 1992-the specter of socialized medicine is still haunting your Europe, if you can even get that associative reference. You are not just Republican, you are an old-fashioned authoritarian Republican - your entire modus operandi here is to whitewash Bush's egregious mistakes and hurrendous miscalculations. Come, come, comrade, lets come clean on your party status - you are a Republican commissar.

==HillBilly and their crew's claim to the White House is based upon the principle of letting criminals run a criminal gov't to make it work.==

You mean like the current President, whose senior staff were outing CIA agent, or Reagan, whose staff was negotiating with Iranians even prior to elections and selling them weapons afterwards?

It would seem the Clintons are neophites in crimes of treason, while the current authoritarian Republican government are rather old hands at it. Do you know why? Because they are like you - the ends justify the means, propaganda is OK, party loyalty above national good.

You are sewn from the same cloth and that rag is called authoritarianism and worship of power. It will certainly be thrown into the dustbin of history, but it will surely change this country for the worst in the process.

As a local expert on communism, having lived under it, I can see much danger from your type of authoritarian automatons on the American experiment. Given have a chance, your type will turn this country into a capitalism with a communist face. Oh, you will call it something else, of coarse. But it will be a country of scared sheep, willingly relinquishing their remaining rights to the ever more invasive and "protective" government (historical neccessaty, comrade), for the simple privilige of feeding on hay, blankly staring at their five minutes of hate on the tele, whuile chewing their cud.

//Now, to address your point, I would say that, yes, we should abandon the war of terror -- if our goal is extending peace and stopping terrorism. That would be the prudent thing to do\\

Let's see...
Over three thousand dead Americans weren't enough for you to get killed ('9/11'); and you just want to forget the whole thing because it is an inconvienience? Or merely the claims of terrorism automatically lines the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex? When did the enemy say they will give up and go home if we do; I missed that bit of news?
And you believe them?

But you won't believe that your country has been attacked and threatened - and it will all go away if we say 'we quit'. Is it just me, or have medications suddenly become stronger? I'm sorry; that wasn't entirely fair to the people that have a legitimate reason to be on medications. How is 'abandoning war' going to stop terrorism? Hello - we are 'warring' with them BECAUSE of terrorism. You know, the terrorism part came first? Not to be confused with the way Bill Clinton dealt with the terrorist act against the USS Cole; he just let it all go. And terrorism came back, new and improved. These people aren't going to stop - even if we give up. Do you understand what is at stake?

Please explain the mechanics of this situation:
Please explain what is their motivation to stop?
Please explain how if one group of terrorists stop, the others will do likewise?

What I am saying is that covert operations groups, military and otherwise, are actually stirring up and engaging in terrorism under false pretense in order to perpetuate the war of terror. This should hardly be controversial, as various operations from Gray Fox to Able Danger and on and on have admitted doing as much. The question is one of analyzing the institutional interest and lining it up with the open statements of intent from the agencies involved. When you do that one thing is clear: the elite have no interest in ending the so-called war on terror. It serves many purposes for them.

Now, to address your point, I would say that, yes, we should abandon the war of terror -- if our goal is extending peace and stopping terrorism. That would be the prudent thing to do.

Now, if what you want instead is to have huge so-called "defense" budgets and to project force across the world so as to kill millions, terrorize the American population, destroy non-cooperative states, expand the security state, secure resources and encircle Russia, China and India for the benefit of a narrow elite here in the US and Britain, then I would say the war of terror is your best bet.

I'm just saying, be honest about your goals (i.e., don't hide behind silly rhetoric) and most of all don't be surprised that we have expanded the security apparatus and yet we have seen an upswing in terrorism. The two go together, and not just because one group resists another asymmetrically.

Terror also spreads because the elite in the US and Britain engage in it under false pretense. With such a huge intelligence and covert apparatus, wouldn't the stranger assertion be the suggestion that the elite has these tools at their disposal and the concomitant interest in using them and that yet somehow they do NOT use them, even though they are not restrained from doing so? That would be a weird -- indeed naive -- belief.

And why wouldn't they use them? They benefit from it more than anyone else. The US elite benefits from Al Qaeda's terrorism much more than bin Laden and his cadre do (if they still exist). But, even setting that aside, we know the elite have have engaged in false flag terrorism in the past. Heck, today's Sunday Times reports on CIA/Special Ops/British Navy false flag operations carried out against Sweden with the goal of masquerading as Soviets. This went on for years. Of course, there are plenty (and more violent) other examples. This one just happened to be in the paper today.

The US is playing both sides in the war on terror.

//In fact, we should consider the possibility that the purpose of special ops and other clandestine operations are actually to perpetuate the (so-called) war on terror.\\ -BellToller

What you are claiming is we are prolonging the agony by fighting this way, and we should give up because it is futile to continue. I guess if we do it your way, we can just throw our hands up and give up now. Oh, wait a minute we can't do that either; they will still attack us - remember?

SpecOps is holding the lid on the situation. Instead of thanking them, you are dogging them. That's a shame...

If the enemy becomes desperate - and they will have to - then we will have no choice but to do likewise. It is clear that you cannot see that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. But don't complain too loudly, as you order up another double latte and a piece of pie; you still aren't in the fight yet. But that can change at any time.

The only way to finish this war is to become more aggressive and bolder than our enemy; and it will be costly to human lives. Is this what you want?
Be careful for what you ask for; you just might get your own bell rung...

I think in this case Mr. Arkin has it wrong. These chains of command are separate for a reason, not out of confusion. He seems to be confused because he assumes the point of special ops is to win the war on terror. In fact, we should consider the possibility that the purpose of special ops and other clandestine operations are actually to perpetuate the (so-called) war on terror. After all, outside of losing it, winning the GWOT is the worst outcome possible, from the perspective of the elites that run it. This war of terror must go on indefinitely, and it's special ops and the clandestine services, that will make sure that happens.

//I think you would have done just fine in the old mother russia. I dare say you would have become the "soldier of the invisible front."\\

If I were a communist - and I am not - and a party member of zeal for the downfall of capitalism; then it would be true. 'J' tells me that I am the farthest thing from a communist as he has yet seen. He had been to Russia after the fall of the Communist gov't - several years ago.

Of course you are saying that I am a 'neocon' propagandist; but I do understand both the dem/repub arguements as an independant. With this in mind, I see the repubs as the party of necessity for the future of the US; I see the dems as bringing about changes that are inherently dangerous and too costly for this government to afford without hiking taxes to the point that they are in Canada. Health care cannot be done without making it inherently corrupt - when allowing the gov't to handle it.

HillBilly and their crew's claim to the White House is based upon the principle of letting criminals run a criminal gov't to make it work. Making the condition far worse by agreeing to let this condition flow; rather than right it. Obama; well - he may be able/responsible to the office of the President - providing he is willing to compromise to get the job done. He will have a difficult and strenuous climb, and he will be motivated by the thought that he has so much to prove. That's a good motive; but it can also be a trajedy if he becomes a lame duck - which is the other possibillity. Just some thoughts. We'll see.

==Not too different from what I said, and it is precisely what I intended to point out.==

Exactly my point as well, but with an opposite sign. Right is wrong and left is right. Truth is just a commodity that can be bought and sold in an open market for the right price. Consent can be manufactured and sustained, reality can be created at will.

Carry on, comrade! The benefits of our way will surely be recognized as such by the people, when they have an opportunity to agree.

==//Your "side" is defined more by your philosophy than your ideology. Philosophy is how you understand the world to be, ideology is how you wish to organize it\\

You ignored my question; you know what I meant.==

Or you can't understand my answer.

//propaganda:

Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect.\\

Thanks.
Not too different from what I said, and it is precisely what I intended to point out. Too many times I have read people (not you) use the word as if it were a fart in the company of many people in a small place.
That is why I brought it up - that's all..

//Can you jerk your knee any faster?\\

All I said is that these Marines will have their day in court to decide; this blog is not - nor will ever be - nothing more than a court of public opinion. Thankfully, they are not going to be tried by ther 'hang 'em' judge...

//Your "side" is defined more by your philosophy than your ideology. Philosophy is how you understand the world to be, ideology is how you wish to organize it\\

You ignored my question; you know what I meant.

==You know that the word 'propaganda' has become a misnomer or an epithet - rather than a stance that a government provides to propose a concept of justification for their actions. Sure the Ruskies had their side of the story in the Cold War; and so did we. I can respect the fact that 'propaganda' is nothing more than an officailly stated position. Epithets folow the propaganda, or so I have observed...==

When in doubt what the word means, read a good dictionary.

-------------------------------------------
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

propaganda

Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect.
-------------------------------------------

I think you would have done just fine in the old mother russia. I dare say you would have become the "soldier of the invisible front."

==No; Allegedly.
Hang the incompetent American Imperialist! Is that what you are saying?They still have to have their day in court. Unless you believe you are right because you are privvy to more info than the press has discusssed...==

Can you jerk your knee any faster?

==Sure; what is your side? Or are you going to say that a side isn't important?

I partially disagree. I see either HillBilly as a socialist as much as Obama. However it is true that Bush has been much less than ultra-conservative. Roosevelt and Bush seem to have a lot in common - historically, they have followed very similar paths. But they also were both at war.
Is that the defining factor?
Perhaps...==

Your "side" is defined more by your philosophy than your ideology. Philosophy is how you understand the world to be, ideology is how you wish to organize it.

It is similar to the "ends justify the means" paradox. Most people in the hearts of hearts really don't accept this proposition. Similarly, people who want to achieve ideological ends will utilize philosophically dissonant means. I am sure cognitive psychologists write papers and do research on this subject all the time. A good example is a not-so-suprising large population study that shows unuambigiously that Republicans (a party philosophically aligned to the concept of individual freedom and responsibility) are more akin than the Democrats to support authoritarian ideological principles. At first glance this seems like a congitive dissonace, but in reality, for most people this are very comfortable philosophical/ideolgical gumbo.

You know that the word 'propaganda' has become a misnomer or an epithet - rather than a stance that a government provides to propose a concept of justification for their actions. Sure the Ruskies had their side of the story in the Cold War; and so did we. I can respect the fact that 'propaganda' is nothing more than an officailly stated position. Epithets folow the propaganda, or so I have observed...

//As an individual with a free will, when you sign up for a job, you have to play by the rules and live with the consequences. Since shooting at civilians even after being attacked is forbidden by the UCMJ, these soldiers did not live up to their obligations. Apparently.\\

No; Allegedly.
Hang the incompetent American Imperialist! Is that what you are saying?They still have to have their day in court. Unless you believe you are right because you are privvy to more info than the press has discusssed...

//This goes well to show that the philosophy of the individual is far more important than the ideology.//

Sure; what is your side? Or are you going to say that a side isn't important?

//American neoconservatives, for example, are much more akin philosophically to an old-fashioned communist (while holding to a opposite ideology), than to any actual conservative (in the classic definition of that word) would be\\

I partially disagree. I see either HillBilly as a socialist as much as Obama. However it is true that Bush has been much less than ultra-conservative. Roosevelt and Bush seem to have a lot in common - historically, they have followed very similar paths. But they also were both at war.
Is that the defining factor?
Perhaps...

==I have question for those that come down hard on the Marines that opened fired that day. What would you have done differently in the same situation?==

By all accounts, they lost their nerve after being attacked and shot up civilians all they way home. They were removed from the theater for reasons of professional incompetence.

As an individual with a free will, when you sign up for a job, you have to play by the rules and live with the consequences. Since shooting at civilians even after being attacked is forbidden by the UCMJ, these soldiers did not live up to their obligations. Apparently.

Your question is inconsequential. If I signed up for their position, then I would be expected to perform professionally under fire. Had I not done that I would expect the consequences. I strongly suspect I would not open fire on civilians while speeding back to base. I suspect I would hesitate to open fire even when it is likely a good idea, and therefore not perfrom well, either.

Being a soldier is a hard job. It is not for me unless an actual invasion of this country occured.

==They do not realize that the US must defend itself against many unseen forces that are masked by the propaganda of these same foreign powers==

In the old USSR, secret services also unofficially called themselves "fighters on the invisible front". They continuously "fought" against the many "unseen forces that are masked by the propaganda of foreign powers (USA)".

This goes well to show that the philosophy of the individual is far more important than the ideology.

American neoconservatives, for example, are much more akin philosophically to an old-fashioned communist (while holding to a opposite ideology), than to any actual conservative (in the classic definition of that word) would be.

I think that you miss the point which is that US forces make their own rules and whomever they kill is deemed to be an insurgent. That way there does not have to be accountability and the killings can go on.

How dare you question covert operations because we are obliged to regard them as being justified. If these guys are not given a free hand then they will have to take care when they kill someone. I remember the good old days when the US forces always claimed that anybody they killed was firing weapons at US forces even if this was not true. That kind of explanation made it so much easier to escape any claims about the truth.

Overtaxed:

I agree with you; but you and I are a minority on this page. Many on this page are willing to mask certain truths about the different wars/fronts (Iran and Afghanistan) in order to usher in an 'evolved' view for the US that is both unrealistic and dangerous.

These 'evolved' individuals hide behind the scenario of 'policy change' so that we can become a weaker, more vulnerable nation. They do not realize that the US must defend itself against many unseen forces that are masked by the propaganda of these same foreign powers. Maybe they will 'evolve' again - after we are attacked again; then they may be 'enlightened' by reality.
But don't hold your breath; I won't...

1) The price of crude has went up in the past several years for many reasons. One of which higher global demand, two the dollar is lossing value on the market. Must also add into the mix geopolitical factors of the middle east. Something as simple as a storm in the Gulf of Mexico gets the market fired up as well. Did you know that the price of cement has went through the roof as well in the same period of time?

2) Some throw the word terrorism around like i use love and hate. Come on folks get real ! As a nation we will never win the war by being their "friends" . We didn't win World War Two by playing nice, but instead by going for the throats of those that hit us first. We killed hundreds of thousands of Japanesse civillians when the bombs where dropped. Now,that my friend is mass murder, but it helped to end the war in the Pacific.
I have question for those that come down hard on the Marines that opened fired that day. What would you have done differently in the same situation?
3) If the shoe was on the other foot; you can rest assured that Osama would kill as many of us as possible and wouldn't give a rats behind about it. What would their media be saying about that?
4)As a nation we cann't afford not to have special operation teams fighting on our behalf. We should say thanks to those men and women instead of turning agaist them the way some do.
I would love a little feed back.

End it all, troops home, public accountability hearings, impeachment, budget cuts, like they say for Nike, 'just do it'. Spend a trillion a year on making this country energy-independent, not on tanks and machine guns. Let's use our science books for something besides door stops...

Rev-

(1)You make 'this behavoir' sound as if it is new or recent. It isn't new; these kinds of things are hundreds of years old. Only the technology has changed.

(2)The US has been engaged in clandestine activities since the days of Ben Franklin; even before the US had won its independance. Read up on what he did in France to persued the French to help us win our independance from England. Find out about 'Knowlton's Rangers' in that same war; one of the first SpecOps groups we had. George Washington, Ben Franklin, and John Jay; they were the forrunners of the American intelligencia.

(3)You would like to think that the US leaves a trail of dead bodies behind us; but that just isn't so. I'm not going to blow sunshine up your private parts and say that we have not done any. Get the movie perceptions out of your head, and you may have a chance to understand.

(4)SpecOps work at the most critical juncture of what may be at stake. These people are pro's and are fully briefed to the implications of their actions. This is done so that the op may be carried out without unnecessary loss of life or property. The reason these things are done is to make sure pivotal actions create pivotal turning points in any given situation.

(5)JFK was the president that gave the 'Green Berets' their distinguished cap; he was very impressed with their abilities and their professionalism. But we had groups like them well before JFK was born.

(6)If you wanted to know more, read Robin Moore's book 'the Green Berets'; it is an oldie but a goodie.

Some Americans need to get in the real world...,

For what I hear some of the proponents of
this kind of behavior saying is yes,
it probably happened just as it has
been reported, however, stuff happens!

I wonder if the same individuals would
be so passive or share the same sense
of intellectual detachment, if the shoe had been on the other foot?

In the meantime America's reputation continues to sink in the world!

Some Americans need to get in the real world...,

For what I hear some of the proponents of
this kind of behavior saying is yes,
it probably happened just as it has
been reported, however, stuff happens!

I wonder if the same individuals would
be so passive or share the same sense
of intellectual detachment, if the shoe had been on the other foot?

In the meantime America's reputation continues to sink in the world!

...yes...

==Many a war has been pre-empted by the use of these forces.==

Would these be any wars the names of which are recognizable by anyone or "secret" wars, that were "pre-empted" and only those "in the know" are aware of their "could have been" status?

Mr. Arkin,

You write about the SOF incident in Afghanistan: "We talk about fighting terrorism with all of the instruments at our disposal. But we don't want one of those instruments undermining, rather than assisting, the overall effort".

The problem is not one of doctrine. Joint Vision 2020 stands up the vision of full spectrum dominance to provide the United States the ability to unilaterally or in multinational combinations the ability to defeat any adversary in any situation. The problem is not even one of execution, as the special court of inquiry exists just to address these type of one of issues.

The problem is one of policy. The administration is not pursuing victory with all of the capability at our disposal. We let this GWOT affair stretch to the right to our own peril.

Lonewolf:

And how you feel if you knew that foreign entities were in this country raising money with illegal drug sales - right now - to help arm our enemies to kill those same US troops that you loathe so much? Do you think our enemies are playing by a higher standard of rules? They don't accept your 'rules of war' - I can assure you of that fact. Do you think they care about ANY rules? Don't kid yourself any longer.
Suit yourself; just don't wear a bigger lie.

Clandestine wars fought by either side are still happening as we speak - and they fought just like that. I'm sure it offends your sensibillities to know this, but it is time that you got the big picture, instead of the one that you like because it makes you look popular.
Good Luck with that...

ah, yes!! jalalbad again. home of the very first clandestine u.s. prison in central asia. hard to imagine that spec. ops forces would still be waging an entirely lawless war in that area nearly 6 years later. the inexcusable slaughtering of civilians in that same area, the same area where the lawlessness of the cia's illegal and immoral detention of muslim aid workers and those subjected to "bartered" rendition from pakistan is not hard to imagine considering the reality that the united states govt. and the pentagon consider themselves to be "beyond the law". that is to say, beyond any law heretofore known in internationally recognized legal forums. george bush and his nazi henchmen have made a fine mess of what once was a set of standards in a sense of morality based international law. as we have all seen, killing innocent civilians, no matter where on this earth it might happen, phases the neo-nazis in washington d.c. not one twit. what is truly sad about the situation is that no matter who you and i may have cast a vote for whether it be republican or democrat; well they are all complicit in this "newly legalized" form of genocide. where have our elected representatives gone? they are all hiding under the wings of corporate america. those same corporate thugs who recently have made the mafia seem small time. and where are all of us in all of this immoral mess? we are left with a choice: hit the streets and fight back while voting these spineless thugs out of office or sit back and pay the price in several forms. the first of which is the prospect of virtual poverty while continuing to finance this endless hundred years war. the next is by subjecting our children and granchildren to a life of military servitude. and i am sure those who are even remotely intelligent can add to this list....

//The truth is that if you have to resort to Special Ops types of tactics, you're probably losing the battle. It's a tactic born of desperation.\\

That is so far from the truth.
Many a war has been pre-empted by the use of these forces.
Nothing desperate about it - in fact SpecOps are the most strategic moves that we make.
It is obvious to me, that you simply don't know what you are talking about...

There is a fine line between a legitimate military need to use Special Ops, and just plain using terrorism. We in the U.S. don't understand how often we cross it.)Paulie

EXACTLY PAULIE, WHAT THESE PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE IS THAT THIS TYPE OF THINKING WHERE THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS IS SHORTSIGHTED. EVERY DICTATOR, MASS MURDER AND TOTALITARIAN IN HISTORY BELIEVED THAT HE WAS FURTHERING A GREAT CAUSE IN WHICH THE ENDS JUSTIFIED THE MEANS. LYING TO THE WORLD, KIDNAPPING PEOPLE, TORTURING THEM, RECKLESSLY SLAUGHTERING CIVILIANS; WILL ONLY CREATE MORE AND MORE ENEMIES INTO THE FUTURE. Basically AQ believes the same theory, that their ends justify their means, so like I said the neocons in this country who publicly favor preemptively nuking mecca and other immoral activities are just the American terrorists. They want to rule through fear and coercion, just like AQ does. The only difference is that AQ doesn't have the luxury of high tech weapons so they turn to suicide bombing tactics. THE FAR RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY IS ACTUALLY QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FAR RIGHT IN ISLAMIC SOCIETY, AND UNFORTUNATELY THE EXTREMES OF BOTH SOCIETIES ARE PUSHING THE DEBATE. IF THE FAR RIGHT HAD ABSOLUTE POWER IN THIS COUNTRY AND WHERE NOT BOUND BY 200 YEARS OF SECULARISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, COURTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT HOW FAST WOULD THEY TURN US INTO THE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN?

We shouldn't be polyannish about some "rules of war." On the other hand there is an irritating tendency to look at Special Ops as some sort of cool, heroic fantasy, like "The Unit" television show.

The truth is that if you have to resort to Special Ops types of tactics, you're probably losing the battle. It's a tactic born of desperation. (That these operations were employed extensively in Vietnam was cited here, it should also be pointed out that we were forced to withdraw from Vietnam, ultimately because no government friendly to the U.S. was ever considered legitimate by the Vietnamese people.)

All war is brutal, and these types of operations can be especially thuggish in nature. When such tactics are used against the U.S. they are considered terrorism. Consider how you would feel if the Taliban rocketed the home of the commander of the Marine Special Ops units, killing his wife, children and several neighbors. Pretty ugly eh?

How about when the CIA hires mercenaries, local or from out of the region, to preform military operations and assassinations? You can guess how that looks to the Afghans, and we ourselves have imprisoned for years and denied legitimate combatant status to the very same types of fighters in Guantanamo.

There is a fine line between a legitimate military need to use Special Ops, and just plain using terrorism. We in the U.S. don't understand how often we cross it.

//These forces are so secretive, and so cocksure about their importance, it's difficult to gauge their true impact. But it's clear that, in some fundamental ways, special operations (and their non-military covert counterpart in the CIA) play by their own rules - sometimes to the detriment of conventional military forces and our ongoing war efforts.\\

If they weren't so sure of what they had to do - they wouldn't do it. Do you ever listen to yourself Bill? Military actions are not done to be scrutinized and criticized; they are done to get their job done. Are you so unhappy about the fact that the world can turn and the sun can rise without a debate about it? If these forces of ours didn't do what they must, then everybody would have a reason to complain. Can one really guage their importance of their impact? Well, you would if they were unsuccessful. And when they are successful, they make harder for the enemy to extend their reach and strength - that could possibly reach out and harm us here if they didn't do their jobs with efficiency.

Why should you care if the CIA should get the job done by whatever means is available - especially if their actions permit them to be the ones that can go home once their job is done and a small part of the enemy is defeated? These are your tax dollars at work. Its NOT detrimental to our overall effort or to our own forces; only friendly fire incidents can be guilty of that - much rarer now than it has been historically. It is so sad to hear people criticize the US military/CIA that do so much - from people that can only stand on the sidelines and attempt to humilliate them as they do their jobs. It is so tragic that it doesn't even have the chance to funny or stupid.

That money is much better spent dealing with our foes - than anti-gun legislation plans by the neofacist HillBilly team. They need a good dose of electro-shock therapy and some sit down and shut up prophylaxisis treatment. But not to worry; if by chance they should make it to the White House, they will face the same thing Bush does and be forced to make the same decisions that he did. Then ALL the evolved neodems can have a shut up and sit down treatment - too.

6 years after we supposedly won and secured Afghanistan we still have a skeletal force in Afghanistan and we still haven't captured Osama, Omar, or Al Zawari; the senior leadership of those responsible for attacking us. Bush shirked his duty and stabbed the victims of 9-11 in the back by expending the vast majority of our resources in opening up Iraq for his corporate robber baron friends. I guess it is just another convenient coincidence that in the last 4 years since the Iraq invasion that American oil companies have recorded the largest profits in the history of global business. Bush cares more about money and power than getting justice for the victims of 9-11. The proof is in the pudding; 175,000 troops in Iraq, 30,000 in Afghanistan. What does Bush care more about Exxon's profits or getting the people who killed 3,000 Americans. You people that think bush is patriotic and loves America must have hit every branch of the stupid tree on your way down. He cares more about the people that pay him; defense contractors, pharmaceuticals, oil companies, and the Israel lobby.

Don't flatter yourself Farzad; it wasn't me that was impersonating you. I have better things to do with my time than do that. As usual, you are FOS, so be happy trolling along...)Plainfacto

I DIDN'T ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING ACCEPT THAT YOU WANT THE IRAQIS TO PAY FOR US SHOCKING AND AWING THEM. I DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE PRETENDING TO BE ME, DON'T FLATTER YOURSELF, AND IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A JIBE AT ME, AT LEAST TAKE TIME TO READ THE LINE I MENTION YOUR NAME IN. I COULD CARE LESS WHO THE FAKE FARZAD IS, HE IS JUST ANOTHER BRAINLESS BIGOT OF A CONSERVATIVE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HIS IDENTITY IS, THE ONLY REASON I RESPOND IS TO ILLUMINATE THE COWARDICE, IMMORALITY, BIGOTRY, AND COMPLETE LACK OF SUBSTANCE AND IDEAS EMANATING FROM THE FOUL STENCH THAT IS THE AMERICAN RIGHT. Not one of you has shown me a fact based argument that makes any sense, maybe with exception of Frank, and I don't even think he is really part of the far right. He seems to have read a book on occasion not written by hateful talk radio righty. In short, I don't care to talk to you because you have nothing to offer but your wild unsubstantiated theories based on nothing but your own preconceived notions.

Dear Soldiers Mom:

These kind of things have happened in any war you may name.
There were more episodes of 'friendly fire' in Vietnam than we have done in the last ten years combined. It does happen, it just happens less than it used to.

Just look what happened yesterday in Gazhni.
Special Forces targeted a home, gave NO advance warning to ANYONE, (Can't trust the Afghanis-- might alert the Taliban) and attacked at 0300 with Apaches and bombed the gate to the compound. Gazhni police figured it was Taliban and responded & engaged. U.S. Special Forces thought they were being attacked by Taliban & killed 8 Gazhni police officers & 1 civilian. No report of any Taliban kill or capture (Guess they were gone anyway.)
OH, MY BAD! Thought you were Taliban.
This doesn't cut it. Have you any idea what it takes to recruit 8 officers who are going to respond at 0300? On Afghani wages?
Listen, Special Forces, Delta Forces, Whomever: Half of Humint is knowing who you can trust to alert before a raid, & you ain't got it. So co-ordinate, or litigate.
So sorry to see you go. Hope ya learned somethin'.

Clearly there is a save yourself siege
mentality that has taken hold
with the overseas American
military - and can you
blame them?

Military personnel know that factually,
they do not have the support of
the government (not even
the President - he's
simply using these
kids).

Military personnel know that many of
the American people do not support
the President's sheannanigans, even
though we respect them - it's not necessarily their fault that
have been placed in such
appalling but voidable
circumstances.

Having said that some of them
wanted to be there before,
and voted for a ticket
that would get them
there!

In the interim, what do we do about the Republican-style 'Secret Operations'
which are Supporting and
undermining the war
against terrorism that
is taking place on
this blog?

Someone must have learned their battle tactics from the no-holds barred Republican Administration in DC;
fortunately, they have only
employed identity theft
at this time!

What's next, renditions of American bloggers, or will the Marines be
deployed?

Don't flatter yourself Farzad; it wasn't me that was impersonating you. I have better things to do with my time than do that. As usual, you are FOS, so be happy trolling along...

I love it your fool of a president has bankrupted our treasury, crippled a generation of American soldiers, and sullied our name but you don't get worked up about that. Instead you come in here and pretend that you are me, so that you can smear me. Because you haven't been able to respond with any facts, substance, or logic to my arguments. Instead you resort to racist epithets and neocon dirty tricks. YOU ARE ONLY SHOWING THE WORLD HOW BIGOTED AND COMPLETELY MORALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT YOU ARE. IF YOU ARE A REAL MAN, COME OUT, IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND ESTABLISH YOUR OWN RECORD ON THE WEBSITE. INSTEAD, JUST LIKE A COWARDLY NEOCON YOU TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT.

It is clear that we have killed thousands of innocent men, woman, and children as a result of George Bush's war of Terror. Bush is a bigger terrorist and mass murder than Osama and Ahmadinejad combined. At least he is good at something. Wow what an effective strategy to win hearts and minds, slaughter innocent people and then act like they had it coming. What is the saying "kill them all and let god sort it out." It isn't a good idea to turn millions of tribalistic people against us by wrongfully killing and crippling their family members, but I guess that is just too much of a common sense approach for neocons. The neocons think that the Iraqis should be grateful that we shocked and awed them. Those ungrateful Iraqis, hell Plainfacto takes it a step further and thinks we should bill them for our services of invasion and slaughter.

I hope you aren't hoping that I will reveal these workings. Absolutely No Way. Why don't you ask Farzad - or fake Farzad - actually; they are both Fakirs! Ha ha ha ha hah!

Hey, who is "fake" here? My birth certificate gives me at least some right to post under this name.

Colonel Nickolson is the kind of military leader we can all be proud of. He deserves to become a Brigadier General. He is compassionate and wise - I know because my son was under his command in Afghanistan for one year.

FAKE FARZAD: STOP POSTING!