An exercise in defeat

[sirs]

CIA exercise reveals consequences of defeat
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 21, 2006

    The CIA this month conducted a simulation of how the Iraq war affects the global jihadist movement, and one conclusion was that a U.S. loss would embolden al Qaeda to expand its ranks of terrorists as well as pick new strategic targets, according to sources familiar with the two-day exercise.
    CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield confirmed to The Washington Times yesterday that the simulation took place in Northern Virginia. He declined to discuss its findings, saying that a final report is not finished and that the report will not be the intelligence community's official view. It will, however, be circulated within the community and possibly to U.S. policy-makers.
    The exercise involved 75 CIA analysts and outside specialists. It was conducted by the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis, within the agency's Counterterrorism Center.
    A source familiar with the simulation said it was a "red team" exercise in which participants played the role of global jihadists and war-gamed how the U.S. involvement in Iraq will influence their terror movement.

    Although it takes no policy positions, the simulation's key finding appears to bolster Mr. Bush's contention that a U.S. loss in Iraq will have far-reaching ramifications.

    At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bush said, "A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States. Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks."
    Al Qaeda has made stopping democracy in Iraq a top priority, according to U.S. military officials. It has recruited hundreds of suicide bombers to come to Iraq and inflict mass casualties to spur a Sunni-Shi'ite Muslim civil war. The group wants to wear down U.S. troops to the point where they will retreat. Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to turn Iraq and other Middle East countries into hard-line Islamic states, U.S. military officials say.

    One key finding from the "red team" exercise is that al Qaeda will follow past practices. Jihadists perceived the victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1988 as a seminal event that spawned the creation of al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda leaders thought that if jihadists could defeat a global power in one theater, it could bring down governments in other nations.
    Six years later, when U.S. troops left Somalia after taking casualties at the hands of al Qaeda-trained Muslim fighters, it reaffirmed its feeling of invincibility and its belief that Western powers have a low threshold for casualties. After Somalia, al Qaeda -- and like-minded jihadists -- began attacking U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf region and ultimately struck America on September 11, 2001.

    The CIA-sponsored simulation predicts that al Qaeda will view a U.S. defeat in Iraq as another jihadist victory over a superpower and one that will bring it even more terrorist recruits.
    "When we did the simulation, the ramifications were enormous," said the source, who asked not to be named. The source said al Qaeda will proclaim, "God has given us a second victory over a superpower.
    "Imagine what defeat in Iraq would do," said the source. "Al Qaeda picks new targets after it thinks it's won."

   This person expressed unhappiness that the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, devoted less than a page to what a loss in Iraq would mean for global terrorism.
    The source said he hopes the CIA report is circulated within the administration to drive home the point that the stakes are high in Iraq. Mr. Bush is set to announce early next year new strategies and tactics for winning in Iraq. He previously has dismissed proposals from Democrats to pull out all 135,000 U.S. troops now or withdraw them on a set timetable regardless of events on the ground.

    Mr. Mansfield said the Counterterrorism Center this year has sponsored 20 internal simulations, seminars and conferences using outside experts to examine issues related to the war on terror.
    He added, "We frequently reach out to experts outside of government and solicit their views on a range of matters. It is done routinely, and it is a very important aspect of our work. The simulation consisted of officers from around the intelligence community as well as outside experts."
    Such events are held, he said, "to better understand emerging threats to the United States."

Article

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that a survey such as this is meaningless and mostly a waste of the taxpayers money.

No one thinks like a jihadist in the CIA. These are the twits who predicted several kinds of WMDs.

There is not nothing that the Democrats could do that would make Juniorbush look good. He is far to obvious a fool for this to be possible.

[sirs]

I suggest that a survey such as this is meaningless and mostly a waste of the taxpayers money.

Of course you would.  It goes contrary to the left's pre-disposed conclusion of what an utter failure the war already is already supposed to be, and how as a determination of such, we must pack our bags and get out now.

No one thinks like a jihadist in the CIA. These are the twits who predicted several kinds of WMDs

But wait, I thought that was a Bush lie?  How can it be both?

[Michael Tee]

You gotta know how to read this kind of "news item," a.k.a. AIPAC plant.  For example:

  <<The CIA this month conducted a simulation of how the Iraq war affects the global jihadist movement, and one conclusion was that a U.S. loss would embolden al Qaeda to expand its ranks of terrorists . . . a final report is not finished and that the report will not be the intelligence community's official view. It will, however, be circulated within the community and possibly to U.S. policy-makers. >>

"one conclusion" means, of course, that there were others.  (which the Zionist agent who wrote this piece never mentions again)

"the report will not be the intelligence agency's official view" - - THAT'S for God-damn sure.  They got their fingers burned pretty badly expressing tailor-made bullcrap to fit the War Party's agenda once already, and they aren't gonna go down THAT road again anytime soon.  What IS the report's "official view?"  Ah, the Washington Times doesn't think that's important enough to mention.

But, gee . . . the "intelligence community?"  They're pretty smart guys aren't they?  If anybody should know what's going on in Iraq, our "intelligence community" should.  After all, they got the drop on 911 didn't they?  And only WEEKS after it all went down.  So let's see what these geniuses have to tell us poor dumb schmucks on the outside looking in.  According to the report, they "bolstered" what the "President" has been saying, things like:

<<Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States.>>

You see?  YOU SEE?  Put 75 CIA analysts and outside specialists together on a retreat for an entire weekend, don't let them watch any porno flicks before 10:30 PM, a half-hour before lights-out, and there's no telling WHAT brilliant insights they can come up with.

What else did the Yalie geniuses predict?  This one'll blow yer socks off:

    <<The CIA-sponsored simulation predicts that al Qaeda will view a U.S. defeat in Iraq as another jihadist victory over a superpower and one that will bring it even more terrorist recruits.
    <<"When we did the simulation, the ramifications were enormous," said the source, who asked not to be named. The source said al Qaeda will proclaim, "God has given us a second victory over a superpower. >>

NOW do you see why these guys earn big bucks and bonuses and pensions?  Al Qaeda's very words!  And here all this time  I thought Osama was gonna say something like, "Aw, shucks, we wuz just lucky, I guess.  It musta bin this here rabbit foot I carry next to my personal Koran 24/7."

Actually, I scanned the report of these Einsteins-at-work for one single new idea that I had not heard before from sirs, and there was none.  NOT ONE.  Zero and zip.  My conclusion, of course, was that sirs was your ideal CIA agent: he could figure all this top-secret stuff out for himself, long before the problem was even assigned to the agents, and best of all, you wouldn't have to send him off on a weekend retreat with 74 other agents, all brain-storming and war-gaming to get to the bottom of the whole thing.  The money the government could save on the rest of those "useless eaters" could probably pay for a whole minute's worth of ordnance expended in the war. 

For anyone who, quite understandably, was reluctant to waste his or her time reading through the rest of this unadulterated drivel, I reproduce the final paragraph:

 <<Mr. Mansfield said the Counterterrorism Center this year has sponsored 20 internal simulations, seminars and conferences using outside experts to examine issues related to the war on terror.
   << He added, "We frequently reach out to experts outside of government and solicit their views on a range of matters. It is done routinely, and it is a very important aspect of our work. The simulation consisted of officers from around the intelligence community as well as outside experts."
    <<Such events are held, he said, "to better understand emerging threats to the United States." >>

That sure makes ME feel better.  I was beginning to think it was some kind of racket where the fourth-rate minds that participate in these ludicrous "events" manage to manipulate the fifth-rate minds of the U.S. Congress into forking over good hard money for the kind of wisdom and advice that could probably be found for a lot less money inside a truckload of fortune cookies.

[sirs]

You gotta know how to read this kind of "news item," a.k.a. AIPAC plant.  

 

Because, what would we do without Tee, in being able to demonstrate for us all those ever present dots --> AIPAC Plant, while ignoring all facts and common sense to the contrary --> actual news and conclusions made in the news report itself, by actual intelligence gathering agencies

"one conclusion" means, of course, that there were others.  (which the Zionist agent who wrote this piece never mentions again)

 

OR that they weren't any where near as powerful a conclusion.  You know it's amazing how Tee recollects some article, somewhere, that may have referenced Kuwaiti oil slanting as some definitive provocation for Saddam to invade, yet, when it's a published article that happens to go contrary to Tee's made up mind of how evil America is, or how diabolical the "Zionists" are, well those just have to be plants, propoganda, can't be trusted.  But Saddam's say so about what Kuwait did, well, that needs to be considered absolutely credible.  I mean, he wouldn't lie

Frellin amazing........not to mention transparent

But, gee . . . the "intelligence community?"  They're pretty smart guys aren't they?  If anybody should know what's going on in Iraq, our "intelligence community" should. 

 

Should, being the operable word.  That is what they're paid to do.  doesn't make them right 100% of the time, since the vast majority of the time they're simply giving their best guesses, based on the intel they've acrued

<<Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States.>>

You see?  YOU SEE?  Put 75 CIA analysts and outside specialists together on a retreat for an entire weekend, don't let them watch any porno flicks before 10:30 PM, a half-hour before lights-out, and there's no telling WHAT brilliant insights they can come up with.

 

This is the part where Tee now also dismisses all common sense and logic as well

Actually, I scanned the report of these Einsteins-at-work for one single new idea that I had not heard before from sirs, and there was none.  NOT ONE.  Zero and zip.

 

Translation --> "my mind is a steel trap, so don't even try to confuse me with facts and common sense to the contrary.  I could get a migraine f I ever actually started to apply any rational thought into this area of debate"

[Plane]

This report matches the opinion I have formed by means of merly putting mself in the shoes of the other guy in my imagination.


I wonder how much more scientific this gameing method really is?