Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Nor can I agree that the sort of border infiltration that terrorists attempt was wholly prevented under Saddam's regime.
|
Well there you go again. Why? |
Well, for starters, you say Saddam had 640 guards as opposed to our 18,000 - now maybe I'm being naive, but I think our guys are a little better equipped, and definitely more loyal (Hines certainly seems very disparaging of them in the article you linked), and yet we don't have the borders locked down.
Corruption seems to run rampant in dictatorships. I'm betting under Saddam, with the right money greasing the right palms, or telling the right lies to the the right people, smuggling would be ridiculously easy. Do you think Saddam knew about every single illicit deal going across his borders? Especially with seperate agencies for customs and for border police? I can't even conceive it, though I bet Saddam thought it was all under control, as long as the money kept coming in.
It would seem to me, that what has happened is that our invasion has created new destinations for existing black markets. Now that Saddam isn't the number one buyer, we've got all these different actors. And it's certainly a lot more chaotic, but I just can't believe the border is actually more permeable under (however many there alredy were plus) 18,000 American/Iraqi guards than under 640 of Saddam's guards.
That is what we're talking about here right? Sealing the border against smuggling of money and arms, right? I suppose that deserves some clarification. If we're talking about stopping fighters from crossing the border, then I would like to ask you one more time if you think the 5-10% figure is incorrect when talking about the foreign makeup of the insurgency? I've heard that figure several times, and have yet to hear it actively disputed, but then I'm not caiming to be an expert on the Mideast.