The Main Questions About Iraq

[Herb Schaffler]

August 26, 2008

Did the Surge Work?

The Big Questions About Iraq

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Will Iraq disintegrate if the United States withdraws its combat troops?
The US and Iraq are close to agreeing a security accord under which the US would pull its combat troops out of Iraqi cities, towns and villages on June 30, 2009 and out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. This will only happen if a joint Iraqi-American ministerial committee agrees that security in Iraq has improved to the point where the half million strong Iraqi security forces can take over. Other aspects of the draft agreement show that the government of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is increasingly confident of its own military and political strength. The accord now close to being agreed is very different from the one the US proposed as recently as March which would simply have continued the US occupation, much as it has been under the UN mandate which runs out at the end of the year. The main point about the agreement, if it is implemented as expected, is that the US will cease to be the predominant military power in Iraq from next summer for the first time since the US-led coalition overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Will Iraq be able to hold together as US troops depart?
Yes it will, but not because the three main Iraqi communities love each other. The Shia are coming out the winners and this was always inevitable once the US had decided to overthrow the predominantly Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein. The Shia are 60 per cent of the Iraqi population and the Sunni |Arabs and the Kurds are each about 20 per cent. Mr Maliki leads a Shia-Kurdish government in which the most powerful element is the Shia religious parties. The insurgency in which 4,300 US soldiers were killed and 30,000 were wounded was a rebellion of the Sunni community. This was the war to which the world paid most attention. But there was a second savage civil war between the Sunni and Shia which the Shia won decisively. They now control most of the government and the army. On the ground they hold at least three quarters of Baghdad after fierce fighting in the capital in 2005-7. The Sunni are now too weak to set up a separate canton. The Kurds need to remain part of Iraq, however much they may yearn for independence, because otherwise they face invasion by Turkey. The central government is becoming increasingly assertive against the Kurds, particularly over the issue of who holds Kirkuk and the right to award contracts for oil exploration and exploitation.
Does this mean that the Surge worked and the US has won in Iraq?
This is mostly propaganda. The Surge was the increase in US troop levels by 30,000 men from February 2007 and more aggressive tactics by the US army under the command of General David Petraeus. But even prior to this it was clear that the Sunni community was being driven out of large parts of Iraq, above all greater Baghdad. There was also a backlash against al Qaida in Iraq which had overplayed its hand by declaring the Islamic State of Iraq in late 2006. It has sought to marginalise or kill hostile Sunni tribal leaders. It killed or mutilated anybody who failed to obey its extreme fundamentalist Islamic beliefs. Hairdressers were shot dead for giving un- Islamic haircuts. But, above, all the Sunni could see that al-Qaida’s brutal and bloody use of enormous vehicle born bombs against the Shia had provoked a devastating reaction. Sunni nationalist insurgents had no choice but to end their guerrilla war against the US and seek US support and aid. There are now 103,000 members of al-Sahwa or the Awakening Movement who are paid for by the US. US military fatalities are down to only 18 so far this month. But the fall in violence is only partly to do with the actions of the US. It is a great mistake to imagine that the US makes all the political weather in Iraq. The main reason for the end of the Sunni insurgency against the US forces is the defeat of the Sunni by the Shia in the battle for Baghdad.
Is al-Qaida in Iraq finished?
It is much weaker than it was. It has lost its old bastions in Anbar province to the west and in much of Baghdad. But it is a mistake to think that it is wholly eliminated. The grim evidence for this is carefully planned assassinations of Awakening Movement members, usually by suicide bombers, that would require good intelligence and organization. Al Qaida clearly still has the capacity of launching massive suicide bombs against Shia civilian targets. Crowded street markets are very difficult to protect.
Surely life in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq is getting better?
It certainly is improving but there is a misconception outside Iraq about what this means. At the height of the Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict some 3,000 people were being murdered every month. In July this figure was down to just over 900 according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry which is better but scarcely a return to normal life. Baghdad is still the most dangerous city in the world. Sunni and Shia seldom visit each other’s districts. The best barometer for the real state of security in Iraq is the ability of the 4.7 million refugees inside and outside the country to go home. This is about one in six Iraqis who have lost the places in which they used to live. Often they live in miserable conditions in Jordan, Syria or other parts of Iraq but it is still too dangerous, despite all the talk of conditions improving Iraq, for them to reclaim their houses.
Where does Iran stand in all this?
This is the most misunderstood element in the Iraq crisis. The present Iraqi government had two main allies: The US and Iran. Their dispute is over who should have influence over that government. Iran has played a crucial role in the success of the so-called Surge. The Iraqi army fought poorly against the militiamen of the Mehdi Army in March and April. It was Iran that mediated a ceasefire on the Baghdad government’s terms. It was Iran which pressured the Mehdi Army leader Muqtada al-Sadr to call his men off the streets. A prime reason why Iraq is not going to disintegrate is that Iran does not want it to.
So the departure of US troops from Iraq will not mean a renewed civil war?
No. The main civil war is over. The Shia won and the Sunni lost. But the Sunni minority in Baghdad look vulnerable without American protection. The Iraqi army is increasingly moving against the Sunni Awakening Movement in Anbar and elsewhere.
Patrick Cockburn is the Ihe author of "[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. .

[nohil-billy]

Interesting thoughts, but by no means unbiased. Patrick Coburn is a socialist who was against the invasion in the first place and has questioned the Bush administration's every move.

He intimates that the success of the surge was merely a coincidence as the Sunni were getting ready to switch sides anyways. This assumption is only correct if one also acknowledges that it was the additional manpower provided by the surge that gave the Sunnis' the confidence that they wouldn't suffer severe repercussions for opposing al-Qaida. A fact Mr. Cockburn doesn't acknowledge.

It doesn't bother me when somebody is against the war, but it's somewhat irritating that after snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, the nay-sayers are now in denial and looking for a way to avoid giving credit where credit is due.

Mr. Cockburn is entitled to his opinion, and the state of affairs in Iraq are subjective at best, but his piece is rather self-serving as he attempts to make all of his prognostications look correct. Which they're not.

If you're interested in what else Mr. Cockburn has to say though, a complete archive of his articles is available at the extreme left website, Alternet.com.

The following is just for balance sake.

Dems in Denial Over Iraq Recovery
by Donald Lambro

WASHINGTON -- The significant decline of violence in Iraq is well documented: fewer insurgent attacks, far less roadside bombs, fewer U.S. casualties and little or no sectarian warfare.

Last week, a series of reports by U.S. military officials in Iraq revealed the dramatic changes that have taken place there. A 55-percent drop in attacks since the surge offensive began nine months ago. Overall violence in key areas of Iraq has dropped to its lowest levels since the summer of 2005. Iraqi civilian casualties have also fallen, a staggering 60-percent drop since June, down 75 percent in Baghdad alone.

Life in much of Iraq has begun to return to what passes for near normal, though the war is far from over. Yet it is clear that the American military surge -- begun earlier this year -- is responsible for the changes taking place in this embattled nation that has become ground zero in the global war on terrorism.

The pessimists and defeatists who declared the surge doomed and prophesied that we were digging ourselves into a deeper hole have been proven wrong. The story of Iraq at this point is that terrorists have been killed, captured or driven out of territory retaken and cleansed by American and Iraqi forces -- a coalition that has stabilized much of the country.

But statistics are one thing, and the response of the Iraqi people is quite another. The most dramatic sign of improvement in Iraq can be seen in the number of Iraqi refugees who fled the violence at the height of the war and are now returning home in increasing numbers. Most of these returning Iraqis do so with the knowledge that their land is still a dangerous place, that the war is not over and that al-Qaeda killers still have the power to strike.

But there is a sense that the tide has turned in the Iraqis' favor, at least for now. There is renewed hope for their country's future, hope that Iraq will one day be united and safe. Hope can be a very powerful ally to a people beset by war, imparting a strength that can overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges, hardships and grief. And little by little we are beginning to see a rebirth of hope in Iraq.

Perhaps the most important change to emerge from Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency has been his efforts to cement nationalist alliances with Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders who have turned against their common al-Qaeda enemy.

One of the most interesting trends that has followed in the wake of the offensive has been a growing confidence among many Iraqis, a feeling that they are responsible for their country's destiny, that they must fight back when threatened by the thugs and killers in their midst.

When a bullet fired from a trucking convoy struck a young girl in the foot in a busy commercial area in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood last week, a group of Iraqis attacked the suspected assailants, hurling rocks at them as they hid in the truck. "I love my country. I want stability to be regained," said one of the men who helped take the stricken high school student to the hospital, as reported in the Washington Post.

It turned out the suspects were not responsible for the shooting, but the incident revealed a newfound courage among common Iraqi citizens, a realization that they must defend themselves when help is not available. "We did this because each of those men will kill 30 more people," one of the Iraqis said, according to the Post.
You would never know that anything had changed for the better in Iraq if you were listening to the Senate Democrats this month. They refused to even acknowledge that the situation in Iraq had vastly improved.

Indeed, despite all of the evidence proving that President Bush's surge has been successful, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is still pushing legislation to set a timetable for the quick withdrawal of all U.S. forces.

Reid and his cohorts do not want to see a successful conclusion to the war in Iraq. They want a political issue that will fire up their party's anti-war base in the 2008 election.

But Bush, Petraeus and the Republicans are seeking something very different. They want to achieve enough progress there, and buy enough time, to allow the Iraqi military to take over the defense of their country so that we can start bringing our men and women home.

As of last week, the surge was working better than anyone could have possibly predicted and the Democrats' political exploitation of the war as a campaign issue was losing.
Look for the first contingent of U.S. forces to begin coming home by the end of the year at the earliest -- early next year at the latest.

WASHINGTON -- The significant decline of violence in Iraq is well documented: fewer insurgent attacks, far less roadside bombs, fewer U.S. casualties and little or no sectarian warfare.

Last week, a series of reports by U.S. military officials in Iraq revealed the dramatic changes that have taken place there. A 55-percent drop in attacks since the surge offensive began nine months ago. Overall violence in key areas of Iraq has dropped to its lowest levels since the summer of 2005. Iraqi civilian casualties have also fallen, a staggering 60-percent drop since June, down 75 percent in Baghdad alone.

Life in much of Iraq has begun to return to what passes for near normal, though the war is far from over. Yet it is clear that the American military surge -- begun earlier this year -- is responsible for the changes taking place in this embattled nation that has become ground zero in the global war on terrorism.
The pessimists and defeatists who declared the surge doomed and prophesied that we were digging ourselves into a deeper hole have been proven wrong. The story of Iraq at this point is that terrorists have been killed, captured or driven out of territory retaken and cleansed by American and Iraqi forces -- a coalition that has stabilized much of the country.

But statistics are one thing, and the response of the Iraqi people is quite another. The most dramatic sign of improvement in Iraq can be seen in the number of Iraqi refugees who fled the violence at the height of the war and are now returning home in increasing numbers. Most of these returning Iraqis do so with the knowledge that their land is still a dangerous place, that the war is not over and that al-Qaeda killers still have the power to strike.
But there is a sense that the tide has turned in the Iraqis' favor, at least for now. There is renewed hope for their country's future, hope that Iraq will one day be united and safe. Hope can be a very powerful ally to a people beset by war, imparting a strength that can overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges, hardships and grief. And little by little we are beginning to see a rebirth of hope in Iraq.

Perhaps the most important change to emerge from Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency has been his efforts to cement nationalist alliances with Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders who have turned against their common al-Qaeda enemy.

One of the most interesting trends that has followed in the wake of the offensive has been a growing confidence among many Iraqis, a feeling that they are responsible for their country's destiny, that they must fight back when threatened by the thugs and killers in their midst.
When a bullet fired from a trucking convoy struck a young girl in the foot in a busy commercial area in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood last week, a group of Iraqis attacked the suspected assailants, hurling rocks at them as they hid in the truck. "I love my country. I want stability to be regained," said one of the men who helped take the stricken high school student to the hospital, as reported in the Washington Post.

It turned out the suspects were not responsible for the shooting, but the incident revealed a newfound courage among common Iraqi citizens, a realization that they must defend themselves when help is not available. "We did this because each of those men will kill 30 more people," one of the Iraqis said, according to the Post.
You would never know that anything had changed for the better in Iraq if you were listening to the Senate Democrats this month. They refused to even acknowledge that the situation in Iraq had vastly improved.

Indeed, despite all of the evidence proving that President Bush's surge has been successful, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is still pushing legislation to set a timetable for the quick withdrawal of all U.S. forces.

Reid and his cohorts do not want to see a successful conclusion to the war in Iraq. They want a political issue that will fire up their party's anti-war base in the 2008 election.
But Bush, Petraeus and the Republicans are seeking something very different. They want to achieve enough progress there, and buy enough time, to allow the Iraqi military to take over the defense of their country so that we can start bringing our men and women home.

As of last week, the surge was working better than anyone could have possibly predicted and the Democrats' political exploitation of the war as a campaign issue was losing.

Look for the first contingent of U.S. forces to begin coming home by the end of the year at the earliest -- early next year at the latest.


PS. The Iraq war and the surge have all but disappeared as a Democratic talking point. As is normal in Democratic circles, If it's working, don't mention it!

[Herb Schaffler]

The supporters of the Iraq war are making a big deal out of the surge, but in doing so, they're ignoring all the death and destruction that have gone and the issue of whether or not it was really necessary and the possible long term consequences of it. Like Justin Raimondo said, "It's like putting whipped cream over a pile of fertilizer."

[nohil-billy]

The death and destruction as well as the possible long term consequences were all taken into consideration well before the invasion began, Herb.

Like I said in my last post, anti-war people don't bother me. Going to war is a subjective decision and people will always disagree on whether or not it's necessary. What bothers me are the smug, anti-war, body counters who are so vain as to believe that they, and they alone, thought the whole thing through.

The passivist, anti-war solutions to Saddam Hussein's atrocities are the true whipped cream on the fertilizer.

[Herb Schaffler]

"What bothers me are the smug, anti-war, body counters who are so vain as to believe that they, and they alone, thought the whole thing through."

Many did think the whole thing through, and the results that they predicted did come true.

"The passivist, anti-war solutions to Saddam Hussein's atrocities are the true whipped cream on the fertilizer."

There are tyrants all over the world. Is it our responsibility to overthrow them all? How many of our young soldiers would have to die in these never ending wars? How much would it end up costing us? Could we afford it? Besides, that's not the real reason we went to war in Iraq. The real reason was because the neocons thought they were doing Israel a favor even though the Israelis didn't really have any fear of Iraq. Israel only feared Iran. The neocons were able to get the support for the war from Sharon only after they pointed out that it would be the first part of a three part plan that would include Iran and Syria. In fact, American Jews are more opposed to the war in Iraq than the general American public. A February, 2007 Gallup Poll showed that 77% opposed the war in Iraq compared to 52% of the general public.

British author and consultant on Middle East affairs Patrick Seale stated that: "Righ-wing Jewish neocons - and most prominent necons are right-wing Jews - tend to be pro-Israel zeasots who believe that American and Israeli interests are inseparable (much to the alarm of liberal, pro-peace Jews, whether in America, Europe or Israel itself). Friends of Ariel Sharon's Likud, they shey tend to loathe Arabs and Muslims. For them, the cause of liberating Iraq had little to do with the well-bing of Iraqis...What they wished for was an improvement in Israel's military and strategic environment."

[nohil-billy]

"Many did think the whole thing through, and the results that they predicted did come true."

You missed the point Herb. A thorough risk assessment is done before going to war. Damage, casualties, response, cost, etc... Most of the time the predictions are wrong, or lets say, a little too optimistic, but it's all taken into consideration. So for people like Patrick Cockburn or Herb Schaffler to insinuate five years down the line that none of this was taken into consideration is absurd, and to insult the hard work of our fighting men and women by down playing the positive affects of the surge is even more absurd, or should I say a little too pessimistic.

"There are tyrants all over the world. Is it our responsibility to overthrow them all? How many..."

This is such a lame and tired cop out Herb. You do what you can do and hope for a positive effect. Whatever the opposite of "collateral damage" is Herb, I believe that's what happened when Libya stopped and turned it's nuclear program over to us. I also believe it had an effect on Europe as we watched one anti-American administration after another fall to their conservative counterparts.

As for the anti-Jew, neocon, zionist thing you keep railing against? What can I say Herb. You've proved to me throughout the "Liberty Incident" exchange that you have a closed mind to reason as far as the Jewish people are concerned. With or without proof, they are guilty of all atrocities as charged.

Personally, I think the Jewish people are extremely intelligent to pull off all the things you accuse them of, extremely tough to have lasted 60 years while surrounded by their enemies, and extremely savvy to have amassed the fortune that you say they have. These must indeed be God's chosen people and I'm glad we're on their side.

[Herb Schaffler]

The opponents of the war said it would be a quagmire. Many supporters of the war said it would be a cake walk. The opponents of the war said Iran would become a stronger hedgemon as a result of the Shiites taking control of Iraq. The neocons believed they could take care of Iran after they took care of Iraq, but now they realize what a mistake it would be to take on Iran. The whole war has turned out to be a fiasco. Too many Bushites can't bring themselves to admit it yet.

"to insult the hard work of our fighting men and women by down playing the positive affects of the surge is even more absurd"

A strawman if I ever saw one. I've never criticized our fighting men and women except when they commit atrocities. It is the policies of their sociopathic and pro-Israel leaders that I'm opposed to and the way they deluded them into believing that the war in Iraq was part of a greater war on terrorism.

"You do what you can do and hope for a positive effect."

I'll answer that in two parts. First, from a pragmatic standpoint, it's easy to point out beneficial aspects of the war while overlooking the much greater negative aspects of it such as an estimated total cost of 3 trillion dollars, over 4000 American young men and women killed in the prime of their lives for what, the neocons' rearranging the Middle East for what they see to be in Israel's interest? Tens of thousands of young Americans permanently crippled physically and mentally? Over 100,000 Iraqis dead which will fuel more terrorism against the US and hurting our image all over the world. Regarding Europe's turning to more conservative leadership, do you not think that could be due to a chronicly high rate of unemployment of over 10% in Europe and a losing of their soveregnty due to the European Union. Polls in Europe show the people there to have the greatest disdain for our country.

"As for the anti-Jew, neocon, zionist thing you keep railing against?"

Nohil-billy, how would you like me to call you a racist because you're opposed to Obama? Can't a person be opposed to the policies of the neocons and the Likuds without being ant-Jew? I see that tactic as just a means to shut off all debate.

"What can I say Herb. You've proved to me throughout the "Liberty Incident" exchange that you have a closed mind to reason as far as the Jewish people are concerned."

It's just the opposite, nohil-billy. It's you that are closed minded that you would rather believe the Israeli government who has every reason in the world to cover up their crime than to believe 9 American servicemen and a foreign source who personally saw transcripts of intercepts or heard the intercepts themselves where the Israelis clearly knew they were attacking an American ship. Add to that an Israeli who had taken part in the attack who personally contacted the author of "The Liberty Incident" to tell him he knew the ship was American, but refused to attack it. He was punished when he got back to base.

"extremely tough to have lasted 60 years while surrounded by their enemies, and extremely savvy to have amassed the fortune that you say they have. These must indeed be God's chosen people and I'm glad we're on their side."

They received a hell of a lot of support from us, they didn't do it on their own. We give them 3 billion dollars a year, have supplied them with weaponry, and they have nukes. No supernatural explanation needed.

[nohil-billy]

This is turning into a they said, they said thing. I said that war is a subjective decision. One that you and I would certainly not agree on. But I do disagree when the accomplishments of the 30,000 troops that the anti-war folk are so worried about are minimalized by the likes of Patrick Cockburn. Especially knowing his socialist, anti-American leanings. You never criticize the troops directly but it amounts to the same thing.

Case in point. I never said you hated Jews or were anti-semitic. I said that you had a closed mind to reason as far as Jewish people are concerned.

Many people polled say they have nothing against blacks but would have a hard time voting for one. How do you read that?

As for the 9 American serviceman and a foreign source that saw the transcripts. These people all served in different locations and it doesn't raise a red flag with you that none of these people can come up with a copy? And doesn't it bother you that one of them, Gotcher, lied about his employment with a security agency after his military service? And doesn't it bother you that there were three different stories regarding the visual communications utilizing flashing light? All of this on top of everybody and his uncle staring at the American Flag as shells were raining down on them.

Do you belive that it's not possible for 10 cops to back each other when one commits an act of police brutality? Do you believe it's not possible for a whole operating team to notice nothing unusual when a patient dies undergoing routine surgery. And yet you believe that it's not possible for ten mid-ranking officers to get together and lie about seeing paperwork that none of them can produce.

Johnny Cochran wouldn't have wanted you on OJ's jury. He convinced twelve people that a whole police department conspired to frame OJ.

[Herb Schaffler]

"As for the 9 American serviceman and a foreign source that saw the transcripts. These people all served in different locations and it doesn't raise a red flag with you that none of these people can come up with a copy?"

How in the world would these people be able to get hold of classified material? Get real! You believe that all 10 of these people are making this up or have bad memories. That's not the type of thing that people would misremember. I certainly wouldn't. They have no reason to lie, but the Israeli government has plenty of reason to lie.

"And doesn't it bother you that one of them, Gotcher, lied about his employment with a security agency after his military service?"

So, because he lied about something unrelated, it means he's probably lying about this. Yeah, right! A. J. Cristol has also been caught in lies that have been related to the Liberty incident, so why should you consider him such a reliable source? He is nothing but a shill for Israel.

"And doesn't it bother you that there were three different stories regarding the visual communications utilizing flashing light?"

People can be mistaken about certain details, but it's hard to believe that people 10 independent people could have been mistaken about the dramatic nature of those transcripts and intercepts. It's so obvious that you're obfuscating and that you just can't bring yourself to believe that Israel could be guilty of such a crime. You differ from most Israelis. A poll taken in Israel shortly after the incident showed 70% of Israelis believed their government deliberately and knowingly attacked an American ship.

"Do you belive that it's not possible for 10 cops to back each other when one commits an act of police brutality?"

You're really stretching now with that apples and oranges argument. There's no comparison. Those men didn't even know each other and had no reason to lie or independently make up those stories.

"Do you believe it's not possible for a whole operating team to notice nothing unusual when a patient dies undergoing routine surgery."

That hardly compares with seeing transcripts of communications intercepts where Israeli pilots identified the target they were attacking as American. That's something that would be hard to miss.

"And yet you believe that it's not possible for ten mid-ranking officers to get together and lie about seeing paperwork that none of them can produce."

As I said, they did not get together. You're creating a case for yourself out of thin air. And as I said, of course they can't produce the material, nobody can as it's classified. The US government is trying to protect the reputation of the Israeli government.

"Johnny Cochran wouldn't have wanted you on OJ's jury. He convinced twelve people that a whole police department conspired to frame OJ."

The only one here who is entertaining a conspiracy theory is you. You think these 10 independent men, one of them a foreigner, with no previous contact or later contact all got together to cook up a story. What would have been their motivation? You're in denial, nohil-billy.

[nohil-billy]

How in the world would these people be able to get hold of classified material?

Again Herb, from personal experience, which doesn't seem to mean anything to you. I was a 2nd Class Signalman in the Navy with a confidential clearance. Yet there wasn't a space on the ship, confidential, secret, or top secret that I couldn't gain access to. And being in the same division as the Radiomen, I spent countless hours in the "Secret" radio shack reading messages as they came across the teletype. On any given day I might have read as many messages as the captain. As for getting a copy? There was a copy machine right there. Now think about it Herb. Every line officer onboard ship has at least a Secret clearance. Most have Top Secret. If I could get this information, so could they.

So, because he lied about something unrelated, it means he's probably lying about this.

He said that he saw the information while working for that security agency. It's entirely related

A. J. Cristol has also been caught in lies that have been related to the Liberty incident, so why should you consider him such a reliable source? He is nothing but a shill for Israel.

If A. J. Cristol has lied, please show me the proof so I can agree with you about something as far as this incident is concerned. Everybody that disagrees with Cristol has called him a shill for Israel and Cristol is aware of these accusations and denies any bias. If you can show me proof that he belongs to any pro-Israeli organization I would definately take it into consideration.

People can be mistaken about certain details.

Not this one Herb. The Isralei's claim that they sent an AA (identify yourself) to the Liberty and got an AA in return. This response is not according to regulation but again, from 5 years experience as a signalman, I've seen this response used and have been ordered to respond that way myself. By responding this way, you are telling the other ship that you want to know who he is first. During peacetime, this tactic will either result in the other ship identifying itself first, or neither ship identifying itself and both continuing on their merry way. But I would never recommend this tactic when sailing off the coast of a country at war after just being attacked by air.

Now Capt. McGonagle claimed that the the Liberty could not reply to the AA because the signal lights had no power due to the attack. This explanation sounds absolutely plausible until you get to what James Innes said.

James Innes, in his book, says that the signalman sent "We are the USS Liberty" over and over again. This is completely unorthodoxed and the equivalent of signing to a deaf person that is looking the other way. Procedure was so totally ignored that I doubt even the most poorly trained signalman would have done it.

So I have to go by gut feeling with this information Herb, and since James Ennes and the Israeli's both said that the Liberty replied, I have to assume that they did. It would make sense for the captain to deny replying at all because if he ignored procedure by replying with an AA, he's responsible for his ship being torpedoed. Ennes on the other hand, admitted replying but covered up the disregard for procedure by using the feeble excuse of sending plain language.

it's hard to believe that people 10 independent people could have been mistaken about the dramatic nature of those transcripts and intercepts.

These people all came out of the woodwork at different times over the years Herb. Gotcher was already debunked so we're down to nine. I don't know all of their stories.

The only one here who is entertaining a conspiracy theory is you. You think these 10 independent men, one of them a foreigner, with no previous contact or later contact all got together to cook up a story. What would have been their motivation? You're in denial, nohil-billy.

Yes Herb, I am saying it is a conspiracy, but on a very small scale. There are just too many things that don't make sense. I've looked at all of the evidence on both sides and have come to the conclusion that there is no tangible, concrete, evidence to prove that it was done on purpose.

As in the case of massive conspiracies such as the JFK assassination and 9/11, hundreds, maybe even thousands of people would have to be in on this if it were a cover-up. Just give me a little something to hang my hat on Herb!!!

Trust everybody, but always cut the cards. Mark Twain