Dilbert_X wrote:
So the experience of someone who was there, intimately involved in portions of it, knows a bit more about it than you or the media outlets do.
But you claim, based on your involvement in the minutiae of the planning, to know exactly what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell etc were thinking, their plans, their motivations, their strategies etc - which is clearly non-sensical.
I've never claimed any such thing. I've claimed that I know what the objectives for OIF were, what the weight of effort was, what the priorities were...all from a military perspective. You're the only one who has claimed to know the inner workings of those peoples' minds.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Nor will you accept they had any agenda other than that which they stated publicly.
Its extrapolation of experience well beyond its real value - which is what I'm criticising here.
I would accept that if there was any concrete proof of it. But there isn't. You'll accept what you read on faith, without filters of any sort to account for possible bias, yet you won't accept first-hand accounts that are contrary to your preconceptions or what you've read. That's what I'm criticizing here.
Dilbert_X wrote:
You claim also that the 'intel' was fact and must be taken at face value, because people in intel work have 'experience', when you have no idea how much was falsified, distorted, lost, misinterpreted etc,
That is a ludicrous statement. I've never said the "'intel' was fact". What I
have said is that the intel, based on the type used, is generally objective in nature and the assessments made based on that intel are objective in nature. I further explained that intel doesn't tell you
exactly what is happening...it only provides
reflections of what is happening and the analytical piece is the determination of what those reflections actually mean. If someone is purposefully providing a reflection/signature of something that isn't actually happening, the analyst really has no way (nor any reason) to know that what they are seeing is contrived, absent any other intel alluding to that. That was the case with the pre-war Iraq intel, as verified after the invasion by multiple sources of intel that were not available prior to the invasion because they were internal Iraqi documents/leaders/etc.
I certainly have a better idea how much was "falsified, distorted, lost, misinterpreted etc" than you do, as I looked at the same intel before it was presented publicly...as well as intel that never made it to the public sphere.
Dilbert_X wrote:
and won't accept the idea that people with 'experience' make mistakes because they are too arrogant to realise how dumb they are and think 'experience' makes up for a basic lack of wit.
Who ever said mistakes weren't made? The only thing I've contended is that intel wasn't manufactured by those who have the responsibility to produce intel. If it was misportrayed or not properly caveated by the highest leadership in the land, the TSgt who analyzed the image, the Maj who approved the report, and the civilian who presented it to that leadership are not at fault. Those people can't control Tenet, Cheney, Bush, or anyone else above them. Your implication was that, from the bottom up, the intel was manufactured to meet a political goal. That is patently untrue, and I have explained,
ad nauseum, based on first-hand experience, how it could
not be true, yet--because it is contrary to your preconceptions based on what you've read--you say differently.
You're wrong on that topic. There's no two ways about it.
