So. It wasn't the Surge after all.

[Aeson]

Re: Re: So. It wasn't the Surge after all.

Originally posted by Darius871
Too damned fascinating... what kind of technological solution could there be beyond run-of-the-mill Echelon-esque communication monitoring, which isn't all that revolutionary? What's the next step, a pair of "omniscience goggles" or something? WTF???

Nanobots that infiltrate the "terrorist" lobe of the brain and make you wear goofy hats and sing show tunes. (Makes you really easy to spot in certain locals...)

[Zkribbler]

I missed Woodward on 60 minutes but caught him last night on Larry King.

He attributes the U.S. success in Iraq to three things: (a) the Sunni Awakening; (b) the surge; and (c) this new intelligence method whatever it is.

At one point, Woodward compared it to the Manhattan Project, i.e. that it's a very complicated, technological break thru. But it can't be just technology because he was told (and obviously believes) that if he publishes specifics "people will die." If it were just technology, and it were discovered, it may no longer be effective, but people wouldn't die. So it's gotta be something more.

I'm guessing that we probably won't know what it is for another decade or two. It'll be fascinating to know.

[DanS]

Wow. This is a verbatim message from Bush to Petraeus in September 2007, which is in Woodward's book. This is sort of what I pieced together, but the strength with which Bush clears away the obstacles from Petraeus is amazing and, to me, tremendously heartening.

"I respect the chain of command. I know that the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon have some concerns. One is about the Army and Marine Corps and the impact of the war on them. And the second is about other contingencies and the lack of strategic response to those contingencies.

"I want Dave to know that I want him to win. That's the mission. He will have as much force as he needs for as long as he needs it.

"When he feels he wants to make further reductions, he should only make those reductions based on the conditions in Iraq that he believes justify those reductions. These two concerns that we are discussing back here in Washington -- about contingency operations and the needs of the Army and the Marine Corps -- they are not your concerns. They are my concerns.

"I do not want to change the strategy until the strategy has succeeded. I waited over three years for a successful strategy. And I'm not giving up on it prematurely. I am not reducing further unless you are convinced that we should reduce further."

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
If it were just technology, and it were discovered, it may no longer be effective, but people wouldn't die. So it's gotta be something more.

It's not that simple.
Often the technological solution is complicated and not only passive, so it could, often cost lives.

Also, the "lives cost" could be the assessed result of a lack of the the source being blown out.

You can call it speculative but if the source is blown out, hundreds of iraqis and US soldiers could die in the following months, as a result, with the US being unable to predict and prevent terrorist attacks.

It is quite clear that if the US has a really good way of getting terrorists' info, and suddenly it stops working - they lose the only advantage they have in a defensive war in foreign territory.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
I'm just kinda struggling to imagine what kind of new technique he could be talking about.

it can be tons of things.

- a new source
- a new way of decoding information
- a new method of information synthesis, that makes it more useful
- a new method of analysing, that makes better predictions
- a new concept of action to target would be attackers

it is probably a mix of all of those.

[Zkribbler]

I think it's a revolutionary high-tech was of gathering information. Kinda like bugging, only on super steroids.