Comments on: DoD Report on Captured Iraqi Documents

By: Mark Eichelaub

Mark Eichelaub — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:40:08 +0000

Burning feet, you should probably not admit you haven’t even read the entire report and making assumptions about it before you start calling other people “cherry pickers.”

By: art

art — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:00:37 +0000

After reading the report, there was enough smoke for a battery of long toms.

By: BurningFeet

BurningFeet — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:35:12 +0000

Just got started with the Executive Summary, as it appears this is prime cherry picking territory for OIF apologists. (See Richard Perle's appearance on Charlie Rose). What have we here?

By creating historical narrative of the events surrounding OIF, interviewing captured prisoners, and reviewing translations of enemy documents and media archives...

For this paper, the JAWP Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) research team screened more than 600,000 original captured documents I and several thousand hours of audio and video footage archived in a US Department of Defense (DOD) database called Harmony. As of August 2006, only 15 percent of the captured documents have English translations.

So, this is a study of 90,000 translations and 510,000 titles? The analysts were not fluent in Arabic? Groan.

A deep sense of unease settles over the reader.

By: Mark Eichenlaub

Mark Eichenlaub — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:36:35 +0000

You can argue the case for war all you want. The report isn’t about that. By the way, have you read it?

By: Make It Stop

Make It Stop — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:58:57 +0000

Mark,

If there were any strong arguments to be made for the war — as opposed to the half-truths and fabrications that were actually used — why did everything they cite turn out to be false?

Number two, in and of itself, analyzing former threats to this country is a fine academic exercise.

But to do so — post hoc — as an attempt to palliate a disastrous war of choice, is pretty outrageous (not to mention an intellectually spurious endeavor).

Anyone can dream up any number of lunatic “What if?” scenarios based on all sorts of unevaluated intelligence, but they cannot pass muster as a casus belli.

That’s why the Europeans didn’t see Iraq as an imminent threat.

By: Mark Eichenlaub

Mark Eichenlaub — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:19:32 +0000

Make it stop,
Well when this topic is only looked at through the blinders of being against or for the war than yes you will see only what you want to see. I think there are strong arguments to be made in both directions.

Regardless of whether or not you support the war why is it an unworthy cause of analyzing a former threat to this country? Why are people opposed to the war so unnerved when Saddam’s support for terrorism is brought up and run for the hills and refuse to discuss the topic?

By: Make It Stop

Make It Stop — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:15:08 +0000

# Mark Eichenlaub Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am

I am working on a big piece on this for http://www.regimeofterror.com if you are interested in my thoughts on it focusing on the portions that mention Saddam ordering his men and outside groups to attack Americans.

Well Mark, I’m glad you cleared this up. Lots of us were beginning to think that the invasion was a foolish move.

BTW, back in 2003 were you terrified (any more so than usual, that is) that Saddam was going to attack Americans? Do you know what an “imminent threat” is?

By: George Smith

George Smith — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:39:32 +0000

They were too cool for Shul.

By: Gregg Your

Gregg Your — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:50:46 +0000

The report has been posted. You can access all five volumes of the study at http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/pa032008.html

By: Mark Eichenlaub

Mark Eichenlaub — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:42:11 +0000

Steve,
This is one of the most even handed analysis of the report I’ve seen and this is all I write about and read about.