Needs debunking: GOPers think they are better at protecting the country.

An in-law thinks it is an unassailable truth that the Republican Party is historically better at conducting war, protecting our country, and most especially supporting our military. I know about the underfunding and privatizing of the military that has so degraded it, along with the way the current war is being conducted. I realize they were, at best, asleep at the switch on 9/11.

I think this a myth that masquerades as conventional wisdom with the GOP, their wing nut supporters, and their lazy minded opportunistic country club set.

How can this be debunked? Is there an articulated historical trail or a cogent article?

Who had control of both houses of Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the Media in 2001?

This goes back way before 9/11. It has become an ingrained part of their subculture that they can't seem to give up. I'd like to see it refuted it in a concise and factual way. And repeated....a lot.

was blocking the investigations into those terror networks and his financier cronies who were funding them? Is the fascist agenda better at 'protecting' us or better at 'exploiting' us?

Tell them to read the BCCI report and see who was exposing terror networks and who was protecting those networks from the investigation.

Full revelations in BCCI would have STOPPED a 9-11 event and the growth of global terrorism.

Why was Poppy Bush and his administration and some powerful Dem allies BLOCKING these investigations?



Matters For Further Investigation

There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:


1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.


2. BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada. The Subcommittee has received information that remains not fully substantiated that BCCI defrauded investors, as well as some major U.S. and European financial firms, through manipulating commodities and securities markets, especially in Canada, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This alleged fraud requires further investigation in those countries.


3. BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family. The Subcommittee has not had access to BCCI records regarding India. The substantial lending by BCCI to the Indian industrialist family, the Hindujas, reported in press accounts, deserves further scrutiny, as do the press reports concerning alleged kick-backs and bribes to Indian officials.


4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.


5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.


6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.


7. BCCI's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies. A British source has told the Bank of England and British investigators that BCCI was used by numerous foreign intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI-5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the UK which could shed light on this allegation.


8. The financial dealings of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States. The Subcommittee found numerous connections among Keating and BCCI-related persons and entities, such as BCCI director Alfred Hartman; CenTrust chief David Paul and CenTrust itself; Capcom front-man Lawrence Romrell; BCCI shipping affiliate, the Gokal group and the Gokal family; and possibly Ghaith Pharaon. The ties between BCCI and Keating's financial empire require further investigation.


9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.


10. The nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of shares of other U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political figures. Political figures and members of the ruling family of various Middle Eastern countries have very substantial investments in the United States, in some cases, owning substantial shares of major U.S. banks. Given BCCI's routine use of nominees from the Middle East, and the pervasive practice of using nominees within the Middle East, further investigation may be warranted of Middle Eastern ownership of domestic U.S. financial institutions.


11. The nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI. BCCI's shareholders and front-men have made substantial investments in real estate throughout the United States, owning major office buildings in such key cities as New York and Washington, D.C. Given BCCI's pervasiveness criminality, and the role of these shareholders and front-men in the BCCI affair, a complete review of their holdings in the United States is warranted.


12. BCCI's collusion in Savings & Loan fraud in the U.S. The Subcommittee found ties between BCCI and two failed Savings and Loan institutions, CenTrust, which BCCI came to have a controlling interest in, and Caprock Savings and Loan in Texas, and as noted above, the involvement of BCCI figures with Charles Keating and his business empire. In each case, BCCI's involvement cost the U. S. taxpayers money. A comprehensive review of BCCI's account holders in the U.S. and globally might well reveal additional such cases. In addition, the issue of whether David Paul and CenTrust's political relationships were used by Paul on behalf of BCCI merits further investigation.


13. The sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et de Placements (BCP) in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others. Given BNL's links to BCCI, and Cukorova Groups' involvement through its subsidiary, Entrade, with BNL in the sales to Iraq, the swift sale of BCP to Cukorova just weeks after BCCI's closure -- prior to due diligence being conducted -- raises questions as to whether a prior relationship existed between BCCI and Cukorova, and Cukorova's intentions in making the purchase. Within the past year, Cukorova also applied to purchase a New York bank. Cukorova's actions pertaining to BCP require further investigation in Switzerland by Swiss authorities, and by the Federal Reserve New York.


14. BCCI's role in China. As noted in the chapter on BCCI's activities in foreign countries, BCCI had extensive activity in China, and the Chinese government allegedly lost $500 million when BCCI closed, mostly from government accounts. While there have been allegations that bribes and pay-offs were involved, these allegations require further investigation and detail to determine what actually happened, and who was involved.


15. The relationship between Capcom and BCCI, between Capcom and the intelligence community, and between Capcom's shareholders and U.S. telecommunications industry figures. The Subcommittee was able to interview people and review documents concerning Capcom that no other investigators had to date interviewed or reviewed. Much more needs to be done to understand what Capcom was doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and the Middle East, including whether the firm was, as has been alleged but not proven, used by the intelligence community to move funds for intelligence operations; and whether any person involved with Capcom was seeking secretly to acquire interests in the U.S. telecommunications industry.


16. The relationship of important BCCI figures and important intelligence figures to the collapse of the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank and Tetra Finance (HK) in 1983. The circumstances surrounding the collpase of these two Hong Kong banks; the Hong Kong banks' practices of using nominees, front-companies, and back-to-back financial transactions; the Hong Banks' directors having included several important BCCI figures, including Ghanim Al Mazrui, and a close associate of then CIA director William Casey; all raise the question of whether there was a relationship between these two institutions and BCCI-Hong Kong, and whether the two Hong Kong institutions were used for domestic or foreign intelligence operations.


17. BCCI's activities in Atlanta and its acquisition of the National Bank of Georgia through First American. Although the Justice Department indictments of Clark Clifford and Robert Altman cover portions of how BCCI acquired National Bank of Georgia, other important allegations regarding the possible involvement of political figures in Georgia in BCCI's activities there remain outside the indictment. These allegations, as well as the underlying facts regarding BCCI's activities in Georgia, require further investigation.


18. The relationship between BCCI and the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. BCCI and the Atlanta Branch of BNL had an extensive relationship in the United States, with the Atlanta Branch of BNL having a substantial number of accounts in BCCI's Miami offices. BNL was, according to federal indictments, a significant financial conduit for weapons to Iraq. BCCI also made loans to Iraq, although of a substantially smaller nature. Given the criminality of both institutions, and their interlocking activities, further investigation of the relationship could produce further understanding of Saddam Hussein's international network for acquiring weapons, and how Iraq evaded governmental restrictions on such weapons acquisitions.


19. The alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI. As set forth in the chapter on intelligence, numerous trails lead from BCCI to Casey, and from Casey to BCCI, and the investigation has been unable to follow any of them to the end to determine whether there was indeed a relationship, and if there was, its nature and extent. If any such relationship existed, it could have a significant impact on the findings and conclusions concerning the CIA and BCCI's role in U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during the Casey era. The investigation's work detailing the ties of BCCI to the intelligence community generally also remains far from complete, and much about these ties remains obscure and in need of further investigation.


20. Money laundering by other major international banks. Numerous BCCI officials told the Subcommittee that BCCI's money laundering was no different from activities they observed at other international banks, and provided the names of a number of prominent U.S. and European banks which they alleged engaged in money laundering. There is no question that BCCI's laundering of drug money, while pervading the institution, constituted a small component of the total money laundering taking place in international banking. Further investigation to determine which international banks are soliciting and handling drug money should be undertaken.

9/11. Sadly, these guys are pretty much insulated by Limbot and Faux against most criticism of 9/11. I witnessed the decomposition of two guys recently when I mentioned 9/11 was allowed to happen. It was pathetic, and probably not the best way to get their attention. Any mention of 9/11 is a non starter.

and what both GOP and Dem presidents should have done at the time based on the BCCI report.

Republicans don't fight wars, republicans start wars.

But, then we did that Grenada thing under Reagan, and Desert Storm with Bush. More importantly, in my view, is how these wars were conducted and ended. And really, what evidence is there that Republicans are better at war, in supporting the military, in protecting the country?

Forming a concise argument refuting the GOP myth is something we need to develop. These guys really cling to this as to why the GOP is the better party.

War is the ultimate failure of policy and diplomacy. A nation that marches to war is a nation who's leaders have failed in their appointed duty. The fact that Republicans are so very good at war (or at least pride themselves on thinking so) shows, right up front that they cannot lead, they cannot treat with other nations, and as a result, make us more insecure.

Just repeat it, that's how they learn. War is failure. Republicans are in favor of war. Therefore...

And depending on war to reach a desired policy objective is a failure of leadership and endangers our country militarily and economically.

Depending on war is a failure of leadership...a most excellent point.

Is that something you really want the Dem party to represent???

Dems have certainly been strong at conducting war. WWII, Korea, and Vietman were all largely fought under Dem presidents. So I think they have a solid history of war ability.

Nowadays, however, I'm not so sure I want to be the best at war. How about the best at saving lives, or feeding kids, or living in peace. So if you have GOP relatives who want to brag about their war-making, let them.

achieve the desired objectives. The practice of war is not going away any time soon, I would much rather have someone like Clark in charge than a Bush, a Cheney or a Rumsfeld. Just think what might have happened if the GOP was in charge in 1941. So many of the big money people here had financial ties to the Nazis. Or so I have read.

So incompetence, mismanagement and corruption during the present war might be valid talking points. And then there is the cronyism thing. The GOP seem to have a faux macho, romanticized thing about "war". They don't want to deal with the nasty realities it produces. That is why I really believe it is better to have pragmatic Democrats or progressives in charge. And I really believe Ike would not be a Republican today.

There are ways to conduct war and there are ways to not. We are living with the results of the "not".

Wilson prosecuted and brought WW1 to a successful close. Republicans fought against US participation the entire time to protect their industrial manufacturer patrons.

FDR saved the country from economic ruin by using Keynesian economics, which "supply siders " opposed vigorously, and still do to this day. He then successfully prosecuted WW2, over the objections of republicans, who were representing their industrial and banking patrons who were profiting mightily from Hitler's war machine. Many noteworthy Republicans were pro-fascist in the 30's. Google "silvershirt movement"

After that, the War machine and its rabid anti communist (which later morphed into anti-liberal , and then, anti moslem) offshoot had its grip on the American body politic. "wars" since WW2 have been about trumped up notions to create war machine profit. Even Gulf war one was avoidable.

Republicans have ALWAYS supported the profiteers over all else. Not much security there. In fact, how secure is this country when we are cutting domestic funding for security so we can fund war?

:applause: All in a nice little package. :applause:

put them all in one place. and that should nip it in the bud.

They would be the ones to support the trashing of the Constitution for an illusory sense of security.

Remember the lies that Clinton “gutted the military”?

Without even going into all the bragging Cheney did in the early 90’s about how “he” was responsible for the biggest cuts to the military; Wolfowitz wrote to the judge in the Libby trial claiming that Libby helped cut close to 40% of troops. And those on the Fringe will still lie and claim the “most” cuts were made under Clinton (Clinton only continued to implement the plan Sec. Def. Cheney pit together); the facts show different.

The “DoD PERSONNEL & PROCUREMENT STATISTICS: Personnel & Procurement Reports and Data Files” , (and links from it) as the source for the below numbers.
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/Pubs.htm#m01
On September 30, 1990 the start of Bush 41’s first budget year, there were 2,046,144 Active military personnel.

On, September 30, 1993 the start of Clinton’s first budget year, there were 1,705,103 Active military personnel.

On September 30, 2001, Clinton’s last budget year, there were 1,385,116 Active military personnel

Do the math; the “most” troops were cut when Cheney was Sec. Def.


The next lie from the Fringe is “how safe we are under Bush” (Contrary to claims from the Fringe, there have been American civilians killed by al-Qaeda after 9-11).

In an 8 year period under Clinton we had a grant total of around 35 Americans killed by al-Qaeda; and that included the military personnel on the U.S.S. Cole. A record so good that when Clinton and Clarke went to the Republicans on the Hill to get more $ and tools to fight terrorism; they were told to take a flying fuck.

In just one year, not including his 9-11 fuck-up or troops he sent to their deaths in Iraq, Bush’s record is abysmal. (Total deaths in the 8 year period under Clinton from foreign terrorists including the al-Qaeda 35; is under 80)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181.html
The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.

Although only half of the incidents resulted in loss of life, more than 14,600 noncombatants were killed, a majority of them in Iraq alone and 80 percent in the Near East and South Asia. American nonmilitary deaths totaled 56. . .


The next lie from the Fringe is that being in Iraq is hurting al-Qaeda.

A Deputy CIA director is on the record publicly stating that the CIA has found that in 2004 “Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President” when bin Laden released a tape just before the 2004 elections, knowing it would give Bush a bump, and hopefully helping Bush win the election so we would stay in Iraq?

The CIA’s Deputy Associate Director for Intelligence is also on the record publicly stating that the CIA has found that our invasion and occupation of Iraq “were serving al-Qaeda's strategic goals”?

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has released an internal al-Qaeda document that was captured in Iraq, and have verified the messages authenticity, that ‘our presence in Iraq was in al-Qaeda best interest’? And that another captured internal document shows that al-Qaeda’s biggest fear was that we would pull out of Iraq?

Military and intelligence professionals have all told Congress in testimony under oath that al-Qaeda is settling down comfortably in Pakistan. The CIA’s report that documents how our presence in Iraq has become a big money maker for al-Qaeda and that money is flowing into Pakistan to al-Qaeda because of Iraq.

And the last 2 National Intelligence Estimates, the unanimous conclusion of ALL our Intelligence Agencies have concluded that us being in Iraq is giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda.

The administrations attempt to demonize the insurgency, which is comprised of Iraqi’s who just want us out of their country, and make it appear to be the central front in the war on terror was as great a mistake as disbanding the Iraqi army.

:applause:
To sum up, if I may:

So Cheney supports the downsizing and privatization (from Josh Marshall today) of the military, while conspiring with PNAC to start rolling America as Empire into place.

Republicans refuse to fight terrorism in the 90's, and I believe Trent Lott had been especially vocal about that, leaving us open to an increase in attacks. And we shall not forget Reagan insisting on placing the Marines in barracks in Lebanon over the protest of the military. I'm sure to his great dismay. And dare I say Republicans have colluded in underfunding the military. Was this on purpose? And to what end?

And al Qaeda was not in Iraq before our invasion, and now they have a foot hold. We are growing the terrorist threat.

Note: Some of the DoD links may have changed since I originally compiled this list. Yes, yes I know I should update them.


Who the ‘Commanders on the ground’ say we are fighting in Iraq

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1432
Q: General, Martha Raddatz from ABC News. If I could follow up on Jim's question. You said it's something you always have to be aware of. What kind of evidence are you seeing that this is happening? Is it getting worse, the Iraqi /Iraqi violence against one another? What do you do that? The assassinations there, are they getting worse? And also, if you wouldn't mind talking about foreign fighters, what you're seeing. Is that declining? Who they are?

Odierno: Yeah, a couple things. First, I think, again, it's not getting worse. But again, I think it's sometimes it's almost posturing because they see where Iraq is heading. So we are seeing a bit of Sunni-on-Shi'a violence. We are seeing a bit of Turkish- Kurdish discussions now, which is good -- not violence. We are also, I believe, in a phase now where the foreign fighters are trying to become organized within Iraq. So it's important that we conduct interdiction operations in order to keep that from happening.

I believe the insurgency has not maintained itself as long as they wished. And I'm not quite sure the foreign fighter-al Qaeda links that are, I believe, trying to get in the country have properly organized themselves yet. But I believe they are going to try to organize and they will try to recruit probably what's left of the former regime elements to join together. But I've not seen that as of yet. But I believe that's a potential threat in the future.

Q: You believe al Qaeda foreign fighters are trying to organize outside and get in? You have evidence of that?

Odierno: I think we have some reports that they are trying to infiltrate into Iraq and organize themselves in order to conduct operations against coalition forces. We have no specific evidence yet. We have not had any specific contact in my area of operation with al Qaeda. But we do believe that they are trying to organize and then try to conduct attacks. Our job is to try to, again, interdict that and I think we've been fairly successful so far. But we have to work that very hard. And we are looking for that very carefully every day.


http://www.defenselink.mil/srch/docView?c=A3B245203F9EBEC5FC8C306E4AAF152F&dk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenselink.mil%2Ftranscripts%2F2004%2Ftr20040224-0490.html&q=insurgency+%3Cand%3E+fighters+%3Cand%3E+foreign&p=Simple
Q: Lee Keath from the Associated Press. The list that the military put out last week of the suspected members of the cells, with the rewards for the members of the insurgency cells – that seems to be mostly old Saddam or former Saddam figures, Saddam regime figures. Are there any suspected Zarqawi associates on that list or foreign fighters in general?

And do you have a sense of -- just as a second part, do you have a sense of who Zarqawi's associates are?

Kimmitt: Well, if you take a look at the third tier of the people that we have on that list, the 50,000 group, there are some that we suspect of having foreign affiliation and internal affiliation as well, people that we suspect of carrying on operations.

With regards to Zarqawi and his associates, we said very many times that we believe that Zarqawi has come to this country and that not only does he have a group of associates around him, but he also is reaching out to other disenfranchised organizations, extremist organizations, terrorist organizations. We don't believe that he came into this country with a huge infrastructure, but is trying to develop that infrastructure here.


http://www.defenselink.mil/srch/docView?c=A3B245203F9EBEC5FC8C306E4AAF152F&dk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenselink.mil%2Ftranscripts%2F2004%2Ftr20040202-1222.html&q=insurgency+%3Cand%3E+fighters+%3Cand%3E+foreign&p=Simple
Q Jen Aybran from Reuters. Can you talk a bit about the foreign insurgents in Baghdad? What sense do you get? Is there an increase? And also, is there much cooperation between former regime elements and foreign?

GEN. DEMPSEY: I can talk definitively about the presence as we know it. And as far as their cooperation, I'll tell you that's the number-one question on my intelligence requirements list. The question I ask my intelligence officer every morning is what evidence, if any, exists that the former regime is cooperating with or has even potentially ceded the lead to foreign influences. I don't know the answer to that.

But I'll tell you what we have seen. Until three days ago, we had captured a total of 19 foreigners in the city of Baghdad, out of several thousand individuals that we captured. So it -- I would not have characterized that particular number as a significant part of the fight. We very clearly still are fighting, as the principal enemy, the former regime and its structures.

Now I just mentioned in the last 72 hours we've picked up three foreigners. And then you add that to the earlier question about the particular nature of the VBIED at the front gate here and the attack up in Erbil, and I think it causes us to try figure out exactly what is occurring here. I don't know the answer to that yet. I'll just tell you that I am alert to that. And we have -- as we build this indigenous Iraqi security network, that is a question we hope they will help us answer as well.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/n09262004_2004092602.html
. . . While the resistance continues, Abizaid said he thinks there are fewer than 1,000 foreign fighters in Iraq, adding that the primary problem in Iraq is former regime elements fighting against the government. He said those elements are trying everything in their power to upend the election process. . .


http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/905101761.html?dids=905101761:905101761&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+1%2C+2005&author=Mark+Mazzetti&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=THE+WORLD
The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East. . .


http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/RegionNF.asp?ArticleID=168406
. . . Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary people would take up arms against the US military because "they're offended by our presence".

In an interview with Gulf News, he said: "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could ." . . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/n09262004_2004092602.html
. . . While the resistance continues, Abizaid said he thinks there are fewer than 1,000 foreign fighters in Iraq, adding that the primary problem in Iraq is former regime elements fighting against the government. He said those elements are trying everything in their power to upend the election process. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/srch/docView?c=A3B245203F9EBEC5FC8C306E4AAF152F&dk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenselink.mil%2Ftranscripts%2F2005%2Ftr20050701-3241.html&q=insurgency+%3Cand%3E+fighters+%3Cand%3E+foreign&p=Simple
. . . GEN. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I'll give you a yardstick to measure there. Since about November '04, we have had a total of 90 foreign fighters detained. In addition to that number, the majority of the suicide vehicle bombs and the suicide bombers -- we believe there are strong indications that the majority of them are foreign fighters. So looking at that number, we have a little over 150 foreign fighters since November that we have seen in Multinational Forces Northwest. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/srch/docView?c=A3B245203F9EBEC5FC8C306E4AAF152F&dk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenselink.mil%2Ftranscripts%2F2005%2Ftr20050621-3081.html&q=insurgency+%3Cand%3E+fighters+%3Cand%3E+foreign&p=Simple
. . . GEN. VINES: Good question, Bret. Good to talk to you.

There are four broad groups, I think, within this insurgency, and the insurgency, quite honestly, is quite narrow. The level of support for violence is pretty narrow. The jihadists or the Zarqawi elements -- sometimes referred to the al Qaeda and associated movements here in country – that number is not very large, but it is very violent. It has access to some technical capability, and it uses foreign fighters, historically, primarily to murder other Iraqis. It brings in foreigners, and they kill themselves and others, sometimes in vehicles, sometimes with -- they'll put a vest on and detonate it among a group. And it's -- so foreigners that are brought in typically do things that Iraqis won't do to each other. That's the history of them. . .


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/20051223_3740.html
. . . "In fact, in Iraq, less coalition at this point in time, is better. Less is better because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation, it doesn't work the culture of dependency, it doesn't lengthen the time for Iraqi forces to be self-reliant, and it doesn't expose coalition forces to risk" . . .