Fahrenheit 9/11

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by MTXBlau@Jul 5, 2004 @ 05:23 AM

Clearest:

Before 9/11, no one was thinking about Saddam. Shortly after 9/11, Saddam is enemy #1. Almost all resources directed at getting him.

Oh? Really? Then why did President Clinton attack Iraq in 1998? He too though Saddam was a threat to the United States. Hell, he even defended Bush's push for war! Do you really think our Presidents are idiots?? Geez. Why must people always politicize /criticize a President's action. Can you really claim you know everything just because it is what you hear on the media? Does the media have access to all US Classified info?? No. There are some things that the majority of the people will never know.

For the non-believers (who seek references) see the link below.

Look at this google link.

 

[Caelestis]

So wait, that justifies skipping bin Laden and going straight for Saddam? Intelligence from a previous administration?

That still doesn't address what I was getting at earlier.

To make it clearer:

What is the justification for diverting resources from the pursuit of the leader of a recognized leader of a world-wide terror organization, who had claimed responsibility of the attacks on the USS Cole, the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, to dethroning a dictator whose connection to al qaeda was at best plausible but generally considered untenable (depending on who you ask; if we go by the 9/11 commission, then the latter)?

(...)

And, even more to the point, why just Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? Most of the assailants of 9/11, including bin Laden, are Saudis.

It's all political, and we got the short end of the stick, as did Saudi Arabia.

Clinton was offered bin Laden by foreign countries on more than one occassion, and refused to take him. I'm still dumbfounded by this move, but one can only assume it had political motivations of some sort, either in the form of human rights violations on the part of those offering him, or simply fear of reprisal by terrorist organizations.

At any rate, you certainly can't fault the Bush administration for not fixing all the failures of the previous administration, just as you can't blame the Clinton administration for Bush Sr.'s not finishing off Saddam in the Gulf War (which would have been "barbaric" as I believe the New York Times put it).

In essence, George W. Bush has been handed a presidency with a long list of problems that needed fixed, and he's not quite the political spinster that previous administrations (both republican and democratic) were. I honestly believe in my heart that he is doing all he can to fix as many problems as possible during his tenure. And to be honest, whether or not you believe his moves to be misguided is simply a matter of how skilled his PR team is (not very).

If you scrounge around for all the news you can find, as I assume you do, you'll find that there's still a lot of action going on in Afghanistan. Pat Tillman (the football player who turned down a multi-million dollar contract in favour of joining the Army Rangers) died there a while back, but for the first few weeks it was assumed to have occured in Iraq. Basically, most stories don't get official press releases by the Army for a few weeks (or longer) until after their occurance. At times like this, the press is unreliable for their coverage. Ever since the Geraldo Rivera incident, the press has pretty much been left to fend for themselves, and they're struggling to get facts. At any rate, as is always the case in the media, Iraq is the jucy story for the time being, so it's going to be the headliner at all times, until something more interesting happens. I guarantee once bin Laden is found, the focus will shift back to Afghanistan for a few weeks.

As for Saudi Arabia, they're simply cowards, but understandably so. There are terrorist schools and all sorts of similar things. Unfortunatly for Saudi Arabia, the situation wasn't cracked down upon when it first arose, and now it's impossible to remove it. Imagine what would happen if they got 80% of the terrorists arrested in one evening. The other 20% would rip the entirety of the nation apart. Even if they were to get 90% or 95%...

You can't expect a nation to understand why their own neighbors are reduced to blowing themselves up in a school, bus station, or marketplace on a daily basis... Even if your cause is noble. It's the reason I understand the actions of Iraqis who have lost those dear to them, despite my hope that I'd understand 'why' placed in a similar situation.

At any rate, the Saudi government does what it can, but it's usually very limited.

 

[Xavier]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

 

[reX dart: eskimo spy]

Originally posted by MTXBlau@Jul 5, 2004 @ 12:23 AM

And, even more to the point, why just Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? Most of the assailants of 9/11, including bin Laden, are Saudis.

I think it's largely for political reasons.

Of the two countries, we were more prepared to invade Iraq. Documents going back as far the Gulf War existed detailing methods for such an invasion. And the Clinton administration had kept them updated throughout the 90s. And of the two regimes, Saddam's was the more oppressive. There was no chance of the Iraqis bringing about change themselves. In Iran, there have been a few student-led protests aimed at regime change. Sadly, they were repressed and the whole event got zero media coverage here.

A democratic Iraq has the potential to be a huge force for good in the Middle East. Much more so than Afghanistan could be, by comparison. (And fyi, we do still have troops in Afghanistan to maintain stability in the country. We haven't forgotten about the place.) I believe that pressure from both the U.S. and Iraq, combined with support by civilians, would be enough to bring about change in Iran peacefully. And surely that is a better alternative to a U.S.-led invasion.

But however it happens, it is imperitive that something changes in Iran.

 

[ExCyber]

In essence, George W. Bush has been handed a presidency with a long list of problems that needed fixed, and he's not quite the political spinster that previous administrations (both republican and democratic) were.

That's hilarious. Okay, maybe Bush himself doesn't have the gift, but that job falls to Karl "don't roll out a new product in August" Rove, Scott McClellan et. al., and they know what they're doing in spades.

Clinton was offered bin Laden by foreign countries on more than one occassion, and refused to take him.

The main story with any kind of traction at all is the "Sudan offered to extradite bin Laden" one; the way I heard it, a self-styled "ambassador" to Sudan purported to be relaying the offer unofficially, and the administration thought he was full of crap. The 9/11 Commission has also reportedly said that they found no evidence that Sudan ever made such an offer, but I can't find a direct source on that.

 

[Sundance_2]

You know, I can't help but laugh every time I hear liberals whining about the fabled al qaeda connections.

You know where the belief in those connections originated? It certainly wasn't in the Bush administration. The connections had been stated as fact by the Clinton administration on numerous occassions.

But that probably didn't quite make it into Moore's film, did it?

A belief is a belief. I have no problem with Bush or Clinton believing that there were WMD in Iraq, when in fact there were not. But I do have a problem with people ACTING on that false intelligence, instead of allowing continued inspections and cooperating with the U.N. It's clear that Bush never really gave the inspectors a fair chance to complete thier work and constantly reminded them (and us) that war was inevitable.

Bush new excuse these days trumps the suggestion that we are supposedly better off and the world is safer now that Saddam is gone, but how? Because we've destablized Iraq? Because we've recovered no WMD? Because the war on terror has taken a side-rode since we need to spend time quelling uprisings by radical groups in Iraq instead of devoting time to Afghanistan, the nation everyone seems to have forgotten? Because we've spent 100+ billion dollars on a war effort that failed on it's initial claims? Because our relations with every non-coalition nation is in the dumpster?

 

[mtxblau]

Oh? Really? Then why did President Clinton attack Iraq in 1998? He too though Saddam was a threat to the United States.

Quoting me:

Note this isn't justifying keeping Saddam in power... however, considering all these operations were to 'get the terrorists', I think the priority should have been to get the terrorists first. Saddam being removed from power was overdue, however, the fact that Saddam has been captured for several months, and that we're still on a constant state of alert, that something, somewhere wasn't thought out correctly.

Had you missed it, I wasn't questioning that.

Why must people always politicize /criticize a President's action.

Sorry, but this is pretty asinine. This country was founded upon that basic precept: questioning our leaders. Written into our laws is the basic premise that if this government is not doing what its supposed to be doing, it should be replaced by one that is. It's part of being an educated citizen of the United States. Or is this the new republican hotness, that questioning our leaders is unpatriotic?

Can you really claim you know everything just because it is what you hear on the media? Does the media have access to all US Classified info?? No. There are some things that the majority of the people will never know.

No, I don't claim anything. Ironic that you post a link shortly after this quote, but that's neither here nor there.

Can you honestly say that the same amount of resources was/are being used to pursue bin Laden than those used to oust Hussein?

I think more effort was put into creating a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda than there was in destroying al Qaeda.

It's also clear that the U.S. troops aren't leaving the region for a long time, further limiting the ability to pursue al Qaeda in other countries (army personnel is a limited resource).

As for Saudi Arabia, they're simply cowards, but understandably so. There are terrorist schools and all sorts of similar things. Unfortunatly for Saudi Arabia, the situation wasn't cracked down upon when it first arose, and now it's impossible to remove it. Imagine what would happen if they got 80% of the terrorists arrested in one evening. The other 20% would rip the entirety of the nation apart. Even if they were to get 90% or 95%...

So the formula of invading the country and rebuilding it ala Iraq doesn't apply to Saudi Arabia? I think this alone makes a stronger case for invading Saudi Arabia than Iraq.

Clinton was offered bin Laden by foreign countries on more than one occassion, and refused to take him. I'm still dumbfounded by this move, but one can only assume it had political motivations of some sort, either in the form of human rights violations on the part of those offering him, or simply fear of reprisal by terrorist organizations.

Of all the nebulous intelligence reports, this one annoys me the most. I just finished a search on this, and this is what I came up with, from various news sources.

1. Clinton tried to have bin Laden killed several times. He placed a bounty on bin Laden's head and bombed Afghanistan in hopes of hitting bin Laden (the firing of the cruise missles is not an argued fact, it's purpose however is).

2. The Sudanese offer was on the table but Clinton didn't take it.

3. (flip side) The Sudanese offer was on the table, but the Saudis refused to help and it ultimately fell through.

4. Clinton increased the counter-terrorism budget by 400% to pursue bin Laden.

5. (flip side) Clinton did nothing but make inquiries and did nothing to pursue bin Laden, especially after the U.S.S. Cole.

A democratic Iraq has the potential to be a huge force for good in the Middle East. Much more so than Afghanistan could be, by comparison. (And fyi, we do still have troops in Afghanistan to maintain stability in the country. We haven't forgotten about the place.) I believe that pressure from both the U.S. and Iraq, combined with support by civilians, would be enough to bring about change in Iran peacefully. And surely that is a better alternative to a U.S.-led invasion.

I can't really see that happening. Iraq wasn't Iran's friend before we invaded them, and I don't think pressure from a US controlled Iraq is going to get Iran to change their ways anytime soon. This kind of theory is the same reason why the U.S. supported Israel (the domino theory), and that's yet to pan out. I think an invasion of Saudi Arabia would have been much effective - the current government isn't as uniformly hated as it was in Iraq by its neighbors.

---

If we're going to blame a previous administration for it's inaction, we best also not forget the lack of Bush Sr's aptitude for capturing Hussein. By several accounts (again, this is based on limited information, but it's all we have) Iraqi opposition fell very quickly, and Hussein and Baghdad could have been taken within 48 hours, but inexplicably failed to do so. Especially considering Desert Storm was largely funded by third parties (aka not the US).

The thing about Clinton's desire to overthrow Hussein is that Clinton cared much more than Bush about the world's opinion. Also, Clinton had no real reason to attack Iraq, whereas 9/11 was spun into a reason for invading Iraq (heck, it was supported by a majority of the U.S. in the early going). Face it, a majority of people would have popped a blood vessel if Clinton decided to unilaterally invade Iraq without a reason other than regime change. Even though the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and 9/11 was questionable (then and now), it was still a reason for regime change in Iraq (much more than Clinton had, anyway).

 

[it290]

You know where the belief in those connections originated? It certainly wasn't in the Bush administration. The connections had been stated as fact by the Clinton administration on numerous occassions.

So, it doesn't bother you at all that said connections are still stated as fact by Bush and his team? And if Bush really believed such a connection existed all along, why wouldn't he devote more resources to investigating it before 9/11?

 

[reX dart: eskimo spy]

I have yet to see the connections proven false. In fact, I continue to see many examples of the connection. If I find any of the articles, I'll link you to them.

The reason why Bush didn't devote more resources to pursuing the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is because terrorism was simply not high on anyone's list of priorities. There was no way he could have raised the political support to launch a large-scale attack on terrorist organisations and groups.

 

[Xavier]

Why didnt we attack the following countries ?

1. Korea there you guys go again what happened to exhausting deplomacy ? Talks had only been broken down for a couple months at that point not 12 years , and this will be like another member said a bloodbath .

2 Iran , Iraq I believe was to be part of the staging grounds for Iran theve been pretending to cooperate so what can you do ?

3. Saudi Arabia , an attack on this country will really be seen as a war on Islam . Anyways the monarchy cannot be directley linked . Its just the coutries way of life and ignoring the teachings going on in mosques . The more terrorist attcks happen on this land and the more the princes and kings are threatened to lose power the more attention will be payed to these nuts . ONE point lets say a bunch of American Neo-nazi go and do a large scale attack against the Saudis how much responsibility does America hold for thier actions ?

+ none of these countries had signed a cease fire / peace treaty with us

 

[it290]

I have yet to see the connections proven false. In fact, I continue to see many examples of the connection. If I find any of the articles, I'll link you to them.

The reason why Bush didn't devote more resources to pursuing the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is because terrorism was simply not high on anyone's list of priorities. There was no way he could have raised the political support to launch a large-scale attack on terrorist organisations and groups.

So you think the 9/11 commission's statement on the Al Qaida link was insufficient? Also, what reasons do you suppose Bush had for opposing and delaying the formation of the commission? Can you justify that?

Also, Bush not only did not increase anti-terrorism funding, he actually cut it. It may not have been 'high on anybody's list of priorities', but he was aware of potential attacks, including the use of airplanes.

As for countries that we did/didn't attack, what about Pakistan? Why weren't there any consequences for them leaking nuclear secrets to the North Koreans? Merely because they decided to play ball with us (and not very well, at that). BTW, I'm not saying I think we should attack/should have attacked any of the named countries; I just don't think there was any reason to go after Iraq in particular, especially if that means taking people away from tracking down Osama and his buddies.

 

[it290]

...bump. So again, do you guys really think it's preferable to be devoting the majority of our military resources to Iraq rather than tracking down Al Qaida? And how does everyone feel about the martial law powers that were just given to the new Iraqi President? I wonder if they'll use that as a tool to delay general elections...

 

[Xavier]

I believe your question is redundant as Al Qaida has come to Iraq . Its closer to all the countries that they come from .

Dont know why all they have in Afghanistan is Special Forces and a little support but thats the way they choose to do it (generals). Al Qaida would rather fight in Iraq because theres more tagets there . All the 10,000 or so troops in Afghanistan does is chase off Al Qaida and Talibahn it doesnt mess to much with the ruling warlords or claim to have total controll of the country , I would find this less offensive if I lived there though . Martial law like not being out to late ? I think its a good thing , coalition forces stopped curfews after Ramadan and as far as I know never started re-inforcing it . True troubler makers are going to come out whenever they want but...

 

[ExCyber]

Martial law like not being out to late ?

Martial law basically means that the military takes over administration of the law. In other words, the military - an organization tasked with fighting wars - effectively becomes judge, jury, and executioner. This is not generally considered to be a desirable arrangement.

 

[Xavier]

yeah i can see your point...the Iraqi military ?

But some people there need to be put in there place they been acting a fool because they know they can . Sadams not there to have thier entire village killed .

I can see it , " You messed up Meester I kill you ...your family...and while im here allready the rest of this town ."

 

[it290]

I believe your question is redundant as Al Qaida has come to Iraq . Its closer to all the countries that they come from .

It's not redundant, as the question is really 'why did we get ourselves into this when we could have been hunting down Al Qaida operatives?'. True, there are Al Qaida operatives in Iraq now, but we knew all along (even when it was assumed by many that there was a connection) that the majority were in other countries. You say there are fewer soldiers there because they don't have to maintain the whole administration of the country (which is true), but as the movie states, there are fewer soldiers there than there are policemen on the island of Manhattan. I imagine it would be very difficult to find anybody in Afghanistan with a force that size while at the same time trying to maintain a relative peace (which they also have to do- people have been killed for registering to vote). Now that the UN is there, the US presence has actually decreased, as well. Keep in mind that this country has 2-3 times more people in it than Manhattan does, is many times the size, and is full of rugged, mountainous terrain with an extensive network of underground caves.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 8, 2004 @ 12:40 AM

You say there are fewer soldiers there because they don't have to maintain the whole administration of the country (which is true), but as the movie states, there are fewer soldiers there than there are policemen on the island of Manhattan.

It has already been proven by the Media outlets that many of the things said on this movie is misrepresented (*cough*propaganda*cough*).

I think it is hilarious that it290 continually references this movie for facts.

I mean, from the start of this Movie, moore explains that the Bush administration stole the 2000 election in Florida because of "high friend" officials and Brother Gov Jeb Bush, then he attempts to make a link that the Bush family was in bed with the Saudis, and the Bin Laden family. He continues on that the President did not know what to do when the planes attacked the twin towers (he was in a Florida's classroom). Any sane person can see from the video that the President seem nervous and upset. He was being advised of what was going on at the time and that the government/military/etc were trying to find out what was going on. Seriously, what could the president have done? Would things have been differently if he had rushed to Washington, or NY? No. Last time I checked, he was not Superman.

Anyways, I can see where this thread is going so, I'm out.

Oh yeah, did you know that UFOs are in California? I was able to record one with my video recorder. But it was weird... when I tried to play the tape.. it was blank!!! aaarrrggg!!! I know. You won't believe me! But it is true!!! cuz I said so!

(note for those that actually believe ufo story: the ufo story is false!)

 

[reX dart: eskimo spy]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 5, 2004 @ 09:46 PM



So you think the 9/11 commission's statement on the Al Qaida link was insufficient? Also, what reasons do you suppose Bush had for opposing and delaying the formation of the commission? Can you justify that?

Also, Bush not only did not increase anti-terrorism funding, he actually cut it. It may not have been 'high on anybody's list of priorities', but he was aware of potential attacks, including the use of airplanes.

As for countries that we did/didn't attack, what about Pakistan? Why weren't there any consequences for them leaking nuclear secrets to the North Koreans? Merely because they decided to play ball with us (and not very well, at that). BTW, I'm not saying I think we should attack/should have attacked any of the named countries; I just don't think there was any reason to go after Iraq in particular, especially if that means taking people away from tracking down Osama and his buddies.

I admit that I didn't follow the commision very closely, as I doubted they would arrive at any meaningful conclusions. The whole thing seemed too wrapped up in its own politics to ever be productive in any way. However, from what I've heard, they only concluded that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11. I don't think they ever went so far as to claim that Iraq was not connected to Al Qaeda. And I think to only see those connected with 9/11 as our enemy is rather short-sighted. I can't imagine anyone criticizing FDR for sending troops to Europe, on the grounds that Hitler had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

All I can say is that hindsight is 20/20. I can't blame Bush for something that I wouldn't have cared about at the time. Additionally, I'm not quite sure how anti-terrorism money is spent. What exactly would this money have done to prevent 9/11? Increase airport security? Stricter border patrol perhaps? Neither of those sound very likely to me, but I'm no expert.

Then again, the question is irrelevent to my point. I don't consider it fair to hold someone responsible for not being able to predict the future. After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, I remember President Clinton saying that those responsible would be brought to justice. No one was expecting him to launch a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan, and I don't think any one can (logically) blame him for not doing so either.

Pakistan is more a threat to India than to us. At least, that's my opinion of them. They have agreed to enter into negotiations with India, and things are looking better than they once did. Still, I don't think any of the threats they pose could have been solved through invasion.

North Korea... North Korea fascinates me because of how utterly fucked up it is. It's really rather depressing. I really hope someone is able to do something to improve N. Korea, because no human being should be allowed to live the way some North Koreans are. But as you said, they are "play[ing] ball with us." I fully agree that something needs to be done about North Korea, but I don't think they take away from the threat Saddam posed.

However, removing Saddam from power has been on America's "to-do" list for quite some time. His long history of enemity with the U.S. was likely a contributing factor. It also seems that Iraq was seen as an easier opponent than North Korea. The U.S. was keen to involve the rest of Asia in their discussions with North Korea, and one might assume that the Bush administration is hoping the rest of Asia will help deal with the problem of North Korea. There's really no country near Iraq that America could have turned to for help.

But really, I could come up with theories for a long time. I simply don't know. But I do trust in Bush's decision. And I don't believe that the invasion of Iraq has reduced our efforts to find Osama. We're the biggest military power in the world. It doesn't seem like that's too much of a stretch for our resources.

Sorry for the length.

 

[it290]

It has already been proven by the Media outlets that many of the things said on this movie is misrepresented (*cough*propaganda*cough*).

etc etc...

Hmm, actually I've been drawing my facts from a number of sources, including numerous newspapers, magazines, and online news agencies. I find it odd that you would speak out to criticize my sources when you are referring to 'the Media outlets'... care to clarify what in the hell that means, exactly? As I've said, I'm pretty critical about what I read and otherwise take in. If you'd care to dispute the number of troops in Afghanistan, go right ahead. Otherwise, your claiming that I'm some kind of naive conspiracy theorist just seems petty. After all, I could just as easily fire that right back at you, since most of your statements seem to echo the Bush camp's party line. If you just want to attack me personally without actually adding anything of substance to the debate, I think you're better off just staying out of the thread, as you said.

I admit that I didn't follow the commision very closely, as I doubted they would arrive at any meaningful conclusions. The whole thing seemed too wrapped up in its own politics to ever be productive in any way. However, from what I've heard, they only concluded that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11. I don't think they ever went so far as to claim that Iraq was not connected to Al Qaeda. And I think to only see those connected with 9/11 as our enemy is rather short-sighted. I can't imagine anyone criticizing FDR for sending troops to Europe, on the grounds that Hitler had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Good point, I hadn't really thought about that. But still, the only proven links between Saddam and Al Qaida are extremely tenuous (IIRC, something to the effect that one agent stayed in Iraq for some period of time and met with a few officials).

All I can say is that hindsight is 20/20. I can't blame Bush for something that I wouldn't have cared about at the time. Additionally, I'm not quite sure how anti-terrorism money is spent. What exactly would this money have done to prevent 9/11? Increase airport security? Stricter border patrol perhaps? Neither of those sound very likely to me, but I'm no expert.

Then again, the question is irrelevent to my point. I don't consider it fair to hold someone responsible for not being able to predict the future. After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, I remember President Clinton saying that those responsible would be brought to justice. No one was expecting him to launch a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan, and I don't think any one can (logically) blame him for not doing so either.

You are certainly right about that. No one can be held responsible for not being able to predict the future. And Clinton's record certainly wasn't spotless when it came to fighting terrorism (however, I think that Administration did a somewhat better job than pre-9/11 Bush. Not by a big margin, though). I'm not saying I think Bush or his team could have prevented 9/11. He should not, however, be given all that much credit for valiantly fighting the war on terrorism. Pre-9/11, he failed to act upon intelligence briefings regarding Bin Laden, and post-9/11, he decided to concentrate on Iraq rather than terrorism.

However, removing Saddam from power has been on America's "to-do" list for quite some time. His long history of enemity with the U.S. was likely a contributing factor. It also seems that Iraq was seen as an easier opponent than North Korea. The U.S. was keen to involve the rest of Asia in their discussions with North Korea, and one might assume that the Bush administration is hoping the rest of Asia will help deal with the problem of North Korea. There's really no country near Iraq that America could have turned to for help.

True, but even if it was absolutely necessary to topple Saddam (I don't think it was, and I believe it will contribute to instability in the region for quite some time, not to mention creating more terrorists), I think there were better options than total invasion, such as assassination. Had we supported the Shiite uprisings after the Gulf War, the whole thing could have been achieved with much less blood spilled.

But really, I could come up with theories for a long time. I simply don't know. But I do trust in Bush's decision. And I don't believe that the invasion of Iraq has reduced our efforts to find Osama. We're the biggest military power in the world. It doesn't seem like that's too much of a stretch for our resources.

Well, it is a stretch. Invading and occupying a country is just about the most expensive thing you can do, even for a country like the US. True, the percentage of our economy devoted to the Iraq war is small compared to WWII, but that's to be expected. Even if you don't think that the Iraq war has taken resources away from the search for Bin Laden and Al Qaida (although it has -- troops have been moved from Afghanistan to Iraq), if we have more resources at our disposal, why aren't they on the ground looking for Al Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Sorry for the length.

Not at all, I enjoy the debate.

 

[Xavier]

Well i dont think the resources have been strained that much theres nearly 2 million people in the Us Military 100,000 plus a couple in Iraq hasnt made as much of a strain as the press reports . The people in Afghanistan are highley trained at blending in reconing and smoking out the enemy , im not sure basic infantry artillery or tankers logistics or engineers are needed to badley there especially after a foot was put in the door and troops were safeyy on the ground . BTW most of these type people are only pulled from Afghanistan for a month or two to go to Iraq then there sent back ..poor souls . Pat Tillmans a perfect example he was in Iraq only for a few months then shipped back .