Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why did the US military allow Al Qaeda into Iraq? Why didn't they secure the borders?

I have asked this question before and get the response ..."Well it isn't the US job to secure Iraqi borders it's the Iraqis responsibility."

#1. We disbanded their existing system and as the occupiers it WAS/IS our responsibility!

#2. We are still there under the premise that we are training the Iraqi military and police forces so they can defend themselves .....So if they are so weak...that even more points to the fact that it was our sole responsibility to keep foreign militias from gaining access to the country!

Al Qaeda didn't DID NOT exist in Iraq until we let them in!

Does this seem pretty messed up to anyone else here?

Update:

kristin: That is a falsehood!

Find one piece of evidence that states that! You can't because it doesn't exist!

Update 2:

vegaswoman: OK!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A478...

The US has known about this since the 90's!

Update 3:

jim h: Why do you ask of me what the Commander-In-Chief hasn't been required to do???

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Rumsfeld has been a lightning rod since the war began in March 2003.

    He was blamed for committing too few U.S. troops and for underestimating the strength of the insurgency.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12313869... - Page 2

    At minute 5:41 in the Video below the Narrator and a Soldier from the invasion force Have this to say "After hearing so much from Washington about just how dangerous Saddam was, the total lack of resistance of the Iraqi military, in and around Baghdad comes as a real surprise." "The resistance that we had wasn't very high at all"

    It has been stated by the top generals in Iraq that Bush/Rumsfeld sent in half the necessary troops to A) Take the Country of Iraq B) Secure it borders from Insurgents (Iranians-Al-Qaeda)

    Something that people fail to realize (Kristin) is there are two things going on in Iraq. There is sectarian violence. This has probably been going on as soon as Saddam's Minority Bathe (Sunni) Party was taken out which caused the Sunnis to loose their position and Shiite wanted to get revenge for being oppressed for so many years in the government (Winners Justice), this was most likely what Kristin’s boyfriend experienced in Iraq early on. The rest of the Violence that targets more of the US troops is the Iranian insurgents that we failed to keep out by not securing the Borders. The thing people also fail to understand is the difference in Ideologies of Saddam and his secular military regime and Al-Qaeda and Iran's Ideology. Just because they live in that part of the world doesn't mean they have the same goals or ideologies. Saddam's Secular state was as much at odds with Al-Qaeda and Iran as the U.S. was. Al-Qaeda and Iran have a radical Theological based Ideology and leadership. Saddam was Iraq's supreme ruler and Military leader. He did not answer to Religious Leaders like Iran, and what Al-Qaeda bases their movement on.

    Saddam was a Power hungry Ruler, who would not want to relinquish control to rogue elements like Al-Qaeda.

    A 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq; findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.

    Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.

    But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:

    1) had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

    2) was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

    3) and was not a terrorist threat to America.

    "We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated

    There was also a British Undercover Operative operating in Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 who found out that one of the Goals of Al-Qaeda was to draw us into Iraq where they could achieve several goal, some of these goals were.

    1) Remove Saddam Hussein, who was dividing faction in the region. (Different Political and Ideological Structure than other countries in the region -Iran and Syria) - Also he was a buffer in the region and had been at war with Iran for decades

    2) Draw US forces into the Country so that US personnel could be more easily killed.

    3) Insight Muslims in the region to Jihad

    By all accounts they were successful. We bit, hook line and sinker. We removed the Only Buffer in the region and have united the region into a singular ideology. Even the new Iraqi Government is closer to the Iranian government than it was Under Saddam (Iranians Vote as well). We allowed Al-Qaeda and Iranians into Iraq to Kill U.S. Personnel.

    It amounts to poor leadership, poor planning and is a complete disservice to our troops. http://www.ifilm.com/video/2658807.

    Locutus - How does "Saddam was a Sunni you know" have anything to do with Al-Qaeda. All Al-Qaeda members aren't Sunni. Iran arms them and they are predominently Shiite. Sunni does nto neccessarily mean Al-Qaeda.

    Source(s): http://www.ifilm.com/video/2677531 - Minute 5:41
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Sarcastically speaking , the U.S. can't even secure their own borders.

    But to address your question , consider the following. To the east , Iraq's border stretches some 600+ miles (Iran) , perhaps 700+ miles to the south/southwest , (Kuwait & Saudi Arabia) , roughly 100 miles to the west (Jordan) , and finally 525+ miles to the north/northwest (Syria & Turkey). It would have been an ominous task to try and secure such an extensive expanse of land and would have required a unilateral effort. Unilateral to include whom? Which nations would join the U.S. in such an undertaking?

    Note the neighboring countries along these borders, and then add to that those trustworthy Russians lying further north , just waiting. This region is one of unrest and instability, and unfortunately, many countries surrounding Iraq have agendas and are contributing in numerous ways to perpetuate the fiasco there.

    The Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, have cells and training camps scattered throughout this region and now , like a bunch of starving rats , they're coming out of their holes to feast. I liken them to the Kamikazi (suicide) pilots of World War II. They are blindly driven by their sick ideologies to the destruction of all , and even themselves. So how does anyone stop hordes of creatures with demented minds , bent on disruption , and promoting it in every conceivable fashion they can? Most strategies in dealing with them fail because conventional methods are useless against their kind of mentality and methodology. To deal with an enemy such as they are , you have to think like them , eat , sleep , and smell like them , and then use the same tactics they do , more or less giving them a taste of their own medicine, But Western Culture prohibits that kind of mentality because it wouldn't be humanitarian.

    Your question , a tough one indeed , wasn't answered I'm sure. But , did anyone , could anyone , foresee what was to come , at the onset of this whole Iraq ordeal? Before you answer that , always remember one thing , hindsight is 20-20. Camelot , this was not , is not .

  • 1 decade ago

    One thing for certain, you will not get a satisfactory response from a neo con on this question. It was our responsibility to secure the Iraq borders once we started that war and once again Bush and Rumsfeld dropped the ball and screwed up big time. But then again, didn't Rummy and Cheney both say that this war would be over in six months? What incompetent fools they are. Some of the responses from the right on this thread are down right hilarious. Wither Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war started has absolutely nothing to do with securing the borders. Get real people.

  • AZRAEL
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Al Qaeda has MANY names !!We did not as you assert'let 'em in". Iraq has been in a state of conflict since the turn of the century 2000 yrs. ago !! As for 'securing" their borders, take a look at an atlas, figure out the sq.km. size of the country and divide that by the number of personnel we have in our military !! One fact you probably do not know is that for every troop at a front there are 5 or more in the non combatant positions to support that 1 troop !! We are spread way to thin(Worldwide) to take on any more BS countries and their problems!! 55,000 died in 'Nam and for what ? I was there with the 5th Marines and trust me when I say LOOK at the overall pic.!! 26 mo. in Hades is not a picnic !! Our troops are in Iraq for 1 reason only OIL !! Bring 'em home and let the S'hites and Sunnis etc. have their patch of sand. The whole damned country is not worth the life of a single US troop !!Period -- END QUOTE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Source(s): Too many lame people in this country who don't HAVE A CLUE !!!!!!!!!
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Our government does things like send our troops out over there without proper ammunition and armor and you're wondering why the troops can't secure the Iraq border? They might as well be running around in red Chrysler convertibles.

    How does anyone secure borders or secure anything in that country with the type of incredible mayhem, chaos and lack of adequate military logistics support occuring everyday in that country?

    We only see what they want us to see on the evening news in the U.S.A. I suspect it's much different and worse.

    Source(s): common sense
  • 1 decade ago

    But YOU cant say anything about that !!! That is questioning your supreme leaders and your god george w bush ! How dare you ! You have the correct way of thinking though if we lived in a democratic country .Hey KIRSTEN he DOES HAVE HIS STORY CORRECT attacks didnt start till the fall of Baghdad and worked their way to Baghdad from the iran border and your still a american sheep!

  • 1 decade ago

    Securing borders is something the US is NOT adept at doing.. Time to run off to home depot, I need to find some homies to build a fence.

    Source(s): Im in southern california fool.
  • 1 decade ago

    Blame the military? That is your answer. We can't even let liberals let us protect our borders because they don't want to step on the "rights" of "illegal aliens". Back to the point though. You are also under the impression that Al Qaeda are the only extremists we are fighting right now. Regardless if they were there they are now and they are coming from both Syria and Iran. Maybe you should go over their and give that midget president in Iran and maybe he will help us out.

  • 1 decade ago

    No one really believes the US military planners used any type of common sense what so ever.

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Quada wasn't there. NOW, the entire nation is a mess, and the USA foolishly still has no plan for victory.

  • 1 decade ago

    The US military cannot secure the borders in US and how can they do it in Iraq that had countries friendly to terrorists like Iran and Syria.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.