Defense Secretary Mark Esper Says He ‘Didn’t See’ Evidence Of Embassy Attacks

WIthin that timeframe(72 hours or less), the preparation would probably be advanced to where even if the terrorist were killed, the operation would still theoretically be a go. One of the big problems is that we're way too soft in this insurgency war. We won't defeat radical Jihad, until we destroy the Jihadist organizations. And destroy what roots them in their sectarian societies.

"Win the war, unilaterally"-what we said in WW2. What we say today: "Fight the war, passively because we wouldn't want to upset them."

Screw that. The enemy combatants attacked us on 9/11 and have refused even remotely slightly to indicate any such peace or acceptance of the US way of living. When the enemy declares peace, I will declare peace as well. As long as the enemy is armed, I want our men and women, our brethren armed to the teeth.

 

I think the discussion should not be whether this killing was justified or not, the discussion should be whether the US should be in the business of assassinating foreign officials AT ALL, outside of declared war.

I had an interesting conversation with my 10 year old daughter a couple of nights ago. I normally don't like to talk to my kids about politics, but this originated from a presentation at her elementary school about how to talk to your small children about scary current world events. The take home message was that we should tell them that they are safe and have nothing to worry about. REALLY? WE HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT? OH YEAH, WE DON'T BECAUSE IRAN HAS NEVER ATTACKED THE US HOMELAND, AND PROBABLY CAN'T. So, why again are we risking going to war?

Second, while WE may have nothing to worry about, since we are as usual shielded from the consequence of war, the same doesn't hold for children living in countries that we routinely drone. My daughter said she would be terrified if there was the prospect of other countries droning the US. Now, how is it that we can't think about how people in the ME feel about the implications of the decades of wars that we have waged in their backyard, where we have no business to be?

This seemed perfectly clear to my daughter as a blatant double standard. Why is this so difficult for normal people to understand? Because the consequences are across the ocean for people different than us. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

I can find evidence for all manner of crazy sh!t, doesn't make it true. I know nuance is tough for a jarhead to grasp so I'll leave it there.

 

If a threat were imminent I don't see how taking out their top brass would avert it. Again, would killing Eisenhower have averted D-day? Of course not.

 

It's amazing how raw emotion can so easily cloud sound reason.

 

The international and domestic big money interests that rule the Establishment elite politicians and bureaucrats.

It's a pay to play system - if you play (along with the Establishment) you get paid - and everyone knows it - heck we even joke about how corrupt Washington is - with respect to influence peddling.

It is tough to make it up the chain very far without being beholden to special interests - in particular at least a few big money interests - and most succumb.

It is not some star chamber or "cabal" - there are many interests and they often compete and conflict. These are the "Hot button issues" Abortion, Gay Marriage, Immigration and so on. The money does not care about those issues - if you want to find the devil you have to look not at what the Establishment disagrees on - but on what it agree's on..

Sure from time to time you get a lone voice calling out criminal acts - drug price fixing for example/ Oligopolism - anti competitive practices.

Everyone then points and says "LOOK LOOK - we have freedom of speech in this nation - what a good system we have". That lone voice is then quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take.

It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed.

Every a tax law or regulation comes up - the Oligopoly is at the table - and perhaps has a right to be there. The problem is that the fellow who is supposed to be protecting the interests of the people - is either in the pocket of or influenced by the Oligopoly.

The Oligopoly does not win every table but - over time - table after table - the rules of the game get skewed in favor of the Oligopoly.

Its a pay to play system - be it a lobbyist position to that General/Bureaucrat that maintained policy that was favorable to the Military Industrial Complex - or a seat on some Board of directors - many ways to get paid.

Would you be the one to run against a herd of stampeding bulls ? Shoot the goose laying the golden egg ? Is it even politically expedient to run against the herd ?

Regardless of what your answer is - the majority will not run against the herd. It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed.

The interests that own the MIC are the same that own the Healthcare and Insurance Oligopolies - they own the Energy companies and of course the Banks .. and so on.

They also own the MSM - and so the Establishment narrative is supported by the Media - what ever that narrative may be. Once again - if you follow the herd - if you play - you will rise - if not -- it is difficult.

Our intelligence agencies are now - since 2013 -legally allowed to disseminate propaganda domestically - not that this was not happening before - just now it is officially " State Sponsored Propaganda". - and the MSM dutifully touts this propaganda - and perhaps more importantly - does not question certain "necessary illusions" and false narratives.

If you want an interesting google search - look up "Propaganda Edward Bernay's" - a relative of Freud - he rebranded the term propaganda (due to negative connotations with the Nazi's) to "Public Relations" - which is now a multi multi Billion dollar industry.

 

Agree, but I hope you are not comparing this trash to Ike, in deeds or personal attributes......

It might not have stopped an attack, but it might have made the second brass think seriously about the possible cost..

 

I certainly wouldn't put him in the same echelon but sounds like an apt comparison from the Iranian perspective. Anyway, no serious military operation grinds to a halt if they lose a general. That is a justification for idiots.

 

Ok, let's find out.

Can you find evidence of someone being quoted as saying they saw "no evidence"?

 

Can you state with certainty, when dealing with humans, that something is imminent? One can, honestly, only offer degrees of probability not certainty.

Words of Estimative Probability

This classic piece on the need for precision in intelligence judgments was originally classified Confidential and published in the Fall 1964 number of Studies in Intelligence. Although Sherman Kent's efforts to quantify what were essentially qualitative judgments did not prevail, the essay's general theme remains important today.

The briefing officer was reporting a photoreconnaissance mission.(1) Pointing to the map, he made three statements:

1. "And at this location there is a new airfield. [He could have located it to the second on a larger map.] Its longest runway is 10,000 feet."
2. "It is almost certainly a military airfield."
3. "The terrain is such that the Blanks could easily lengthen the runways, otherwise improve the facilities, and incorporate this field into their system of strategic staging bases. It is possible that they will." Or, more daringly, "It would be logical for them to do this and sooner or later they probably will."

The above are typical of three kinds of statements which populate the literature of all substantive intelligence. The first is as close as one can come to a statement of indisputable fact. It describes something knowable and known with a high degree of certainty. The reconnaissance aircraft's position was known with precision and its camera reproduced almost exactly what was there.


Estimative Uncertainty
The second is a judgment or estimate. It describes something which is knowable in terms of the human understanding but not precisely known by the man who is talking about it. There is strong evidence to sustain his judgment: the only aircraft on the field are military aircraft, many are parked in revetted hardstands, the support area has all the characteristics of similar known military installations, and so on. Convincing as it is, this evidence is circumstantial. It cannot justify a flat assertion that this is a military airfield. It makes the case, say, 90 percent of the way. And some sort of verbal qualifier is necessary to show that the case is a 90-percenter, not a 100. This is why the briefer said "almost certainly."

The third statement is another judgment or estimate, this one made almost without any evidence direct or indirect. It may be an estimate of something that no man alive can know, for the Blanks may not yet have made up their minds whether to lengthen the runways and build up the base. Still the logic of the situation as it appears to the briefer permits him to launch himself into the area of the literally unknowable and make this estimate. He can use possible to indicate that runway extension is neither certain nor impossible, or he can be bolder and use probably to designate more precisely a degree of likelihood, a lower one than he had attached to his estimate regarding the character of the airfield.



https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...tional-estimates-collected-essays/6words.html