Ted Koppel Tells Shocking Truth About Iraq and War on Terror

[Henry Hawk]

Ted Koppel Tells Shocking Truth About Iraq and War on Terror
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 11, 2007 - 13:55.


Former "Nightline" anchor Ted Koppel was one of Tim Russert's guests on Sunday's "Meet the Press." As amazing as it might seem, he made some truly shocking and compelling statements about the Iraq war and the war on terror that virtually no Democrat or media member is willing to accept or report:

• First, Koppel made it clear that America's premature departure from Iraq would turn the entire Persian Gulf region into a battlefield between Sunnis and Shia, "something the United States cannot allow to happen"

• Second, he said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the war on terror that "has been going on for the past 24 years" starting when "the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon" in 1983

• Finally, he stated that America's departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of when it occurs, will not represent the end of this battle, but, instead, that it is just "going to be a different war" after that point.

Here are the shocking excerpts in chronological order:
Koppel: I made a little note here of something that Ambassador Khalilzad said to you a moment ago. He said, "The region will not be stable until Iraq is stabilized." It's the one thing nobody talks about. Everyone is concerned about the United States being in the middle of a civil war inside Iraq. But they forget about the fact that if U.S. troops were to pull out of Iraq, that civil war could become a regional war between Sunnis and Shia. And the region, just in case anyone has forgotten, is the Persian Gulf, where we get most of our oil, and, I've talked about this before, natural gas. So, the idea of pulling out of there and letting the region, letting the national civil war expand into a regional civil war, something the United States cannot allow to happen.
   
Amazing. For those interested, I wrote an article about this very subject in November. I must say I find it extraordinary that any major media figure is coming out so strongly and making such a declaration, especially on such a popular Sunday talk show.
Yet, the best was still to come, as a little later on in the discussion, Russert asked Koppel a very telling question:
Ted Koppel, you are tonight airing on the Discovery Channel a special called "Our Children's Children's War," the "long war" as you call it repeatedly, that this war on terror is much more than just Iraq, and it's going to go on for a long time.
Amazing. Did Tim Russert just accidentally admit that the war in Iraq is indeed a part of the war on terror? Shocking. Yet, not close to as shocking as Koppel's answer:
It could go on, I mean, Gen. Abizaid with whom I spoke talked into terms of generations. And, if you think about two things, that's not so hard to imagine. Number one, the Cold War after all, lasted 50 years. Uh, we didn't know it when we began it. We didn't know it, we didn't know how long it was going to be when we were in the middle of it. But, it lasted half a century.
If you look back at the elements of the war against terrorism, that war was going on, and has been going on for the past 24 years. We just didn't connect the dots. 24 years ago, the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. That was 1983, 241 Americans killed. In the interim between then and now you had two attacks on the World Trade Center, you had the blowing up of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, you had the attempt to blow up the U.S.S. Cole, you had the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in East Africa. This war's already been going on for 24 years; we were just a little bit slow to recognize it.   
Amazing. How many members of the Democrat Party or their media minions are willing to make such a claim? While you ponder that question, here was the third extraordinary statement by Koppel:
I see a lot of wishful thinking going on here in Washington right now. I mean when Congress talks about, first of all, setting these these milestones. And, the irony is if the Iraqis successfully meet the milestones, the implication is we stay. If they fail to meet the milestones we leave. That doesn't make any sense at all. It ought to be the other way around. If they fail, we stay because they need us. If they succeed, we can start to pull out again.
So, I, I have this feeling that on the one hand, the Democrats are making a great deal of hay out of saying we have to get out of Iraq, and indeed we do at some point or another. But the notion that the war will be over when we pull out of Iraq, and even when we pull out of Afghanistan, you heard what Gen. Abizaid had to say, it's not going to be over. It's going to be a different war, but the war continues.
Wow. Shocking stuff that you won't hear from most of the left, and virtually all of the media who are calling for troop withdrawals.
Bravo, Ted. Nicely done.

[followsthewolf]

Iraq was stable before we went there.

[Henry Hawk]

other than the fact he was killing about a half a thousands of his own people, developing antrhax, and chemical weapons, and his disire to obtain nukes....i guess that is stable..

[followsthewolf]

have it your way, henry

[Henry Hawk]

have it your way, henry

you don't believe that?

[followsthewolf]

The situation in Iraq, divided as it is among 3 religious factions who HATE each other, has always been fighting within itself.

Hussein came along and, because he was the most vicious, meanest, most psychotic bully on the block, was able to slaughter, butcher, and torture his way into power, and kept everyone in line pretty much by simply killing those who opposed him.

And, get this, WE HELPED HIM, both to facilitate the slaughter of those within his borders, and the war he was constantly having with Iran.

So, did he actually have WMD's? None have been found that I am aware of.

Did he desire to obtain nukes? Probably, but so have a dozen other countries who are MUCH further along in the development of nuclear weapons. We haven't done such a bang-up job keeping nukes out of the hands of other whackos, have we?

Those people hate each other because of RELIGIOUS differences, Henry.

How do you suppose our intervention in their internal religious wars is going to possibly help?

Kind of like seeing people going through a divorce. If you become involved, only one outcome is certain. Both of them are going to dislike you. Either because you didn't help enough or did too much for one side or another.

[Henry Hawk]

We clearly see this situation through different glasses.....

the point to my topic is....I think that Ted's comments, the thre bullet points, are so vital and true....

[followsthewolf]

There is some truth in what Koppel says.

The problem is that we have gotten to the point where we have strained our military resources to a VERY thin level.

We didn't need to rush into a war that expended our resources to this extent.

We have to learn to fight intelligently, not through the common conventional tactics we were used to using before.

Did we learn nothing from Vietnam?

[bevis]

if we are going to stay in iraq until it is stable, than we are NEVER leaving!  the middle hasn't been stable since the ottoman empire, and even then was filled with unrest and dissent.

ted koppel reads the news for a living and this is what happens when he isn't reading.  sounds like what he is saying is we have to have military forces in the middle east to ensure that we can access the oil and natural gas.  well, that is exactly correct.  so we are fighting in iraq for oil and natural gas.  which is exactly what the iranians and al-quaeda and all the other terrorists are claiming.  did ted mention anything about the right of self-determination and the fact that maybe allowing an industrial economy to emerge in the region might jeapordize our "right" to those resources more than any amount of terrorism?  and blowing stuff up real good is a great way to keep that economy from emerging?  

btw, ted owes is career to state sponsored terrorism, as "nightline"  was originally a temporary show to follow the hostage crisis in iran.  and in late night tv, if you an get a hundred people to watch, you are a superstar.

[Henry Hawk]

There is some truth in what Koppel says.

The problem is that we have gotten to the point where we have strained our military resources to a VERY thin level.

We didn't need to rush into a war that expended our resources to this extent.

We have to learn to fight intelligently, not through the common conventional tactics we were used to using before.

Did we learn nothing from Vietnam?

Well, mistakes happen.....I still trust our top military pesonel, this was not an anticpated outcome, obviously....that does not change the dynamics of the final outcome....we have never fought an enemey like this before.....we have to, walk away from this on OUR terms...not the Al qada terms...this war started 24 years ago....there about.....this President, escalated it to a head, where we can permantly damage the militants who have wagered war on the United States, and whose hope are for the destruction of us....

the latest surge appears to have a positive effect at the time being.....but the constant screaming of us to pull out, NOW, underminds our military..

[bevis]

...but the constant screaming of us to pull out, NOW, underminds our military...

[bevis]

oops.  kind of negates any point i might wish to make when i can't even post correctly.

[followsthewolf]

oops.  kind of negates any point i might wish to make when i can't even post correctly.

Hang in there. We've all done it.

[bevis]

.....but the constant screaming of us to pull out, NOW, underminds our military...

i fail to see how honestly voicing an opinion undermines our military.  this government is supposed to be responsive to the will of all the people.  how are you supposed to disagree?  is george bush a genius?  has he found the ultimate way to quash dissent?  you just start a war for any reason, and then say "oops, well we are there now, so if you disagree you are undermining the troops".  brilliant!!!

that doesn't fly.  and in fact, it is truly un-American.

[Henry Hawk]

i fail to see how honestly voicing an opinion undermines our military.  this government is supposed to be responsive to the will of all the people.  how are you supposed to disagree?  is george bush a genius?  has he found the ultimate way to quash dissent?  you just start a war for any reason, and then say "oops, well we are there now, so if you disagree you are undermining the troops".  brilliant!!!

that doesn't fly.  and in fact, it is truly un-American.

this war was started by the president, congress and the united nations......period.

i want a leader not a group of people seeking political favor...to lead this country

the same people that voted for the war, now, are saying pull out....and act as if it was all, the presidents fault....I don't buy that at all....

and yes, telling the enemy to wait us out, until 2008, then we will pull our guys home IS underminding the troops....

ps.....i have done some pretty raunchy posting myself....