>>>>>>I think you might be surprised in that. I don't think my view is a lot different form the average view here. We look at the US in a very different way since the republicans came to power. some links:
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not surprised with news like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/97278/dutch_intelligence:_u.s._strike_on_iran_likely_'within_weeks'/
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like the imperialistic Dutch were subverting and sabotaging a foreign country without the sanction of the EU or UN. tsk tsk. <s>
>>>
>>>imperialistic?
>>>
>>>As a raised american you should know that intelligence agencies do not need any resolutions. They operate in processes a step before resolutions are made up. We do not know what the AIVD exactly was doing there, so before drawing any conlcusion...
>>
>>I am just surprised that a culture as morally superior and evolved as that of the Netherlands would use espionage to interfere in the internal affairs of the Islamic Repubic. Perhaps they are in the pay of Royal Dutch Shell, the Royal Family, to subvert Iran and reestablish the Dutch Empire ?
>>
>>( this is tongue in cheek, Walter. I complete approve of any EU country doing anything it can to subvert the Iranians in their atomic designs or support for Hezbollah. But I would assume your personal politics would find the idea abhorent.)
>
>If we only had done this right in the case of iraq, then we never had to invade to search for none existing WMD and connections to al-qaida. intelligence is important in avoiding mass conflicts. However I'm convinced that the intelligence information was deliberately ignored because it did not fit into the geopolitical strategy.

And I think a strong case can be made that you are correct.

But in terms of intelligence analysis, it is a little greyer than that. Intelligence - however good - seldom offers complete information. it is always a matter of choosing how to interpret it. Intelligence on Iraq was extremely limited - so much so that Saddam's officer corps undoubtedly believed they had chemical and biological weapons at their disposal, right up until the invasion itself. President Clinton mentioned them publicly as a problem during his term, and there was no record of their destruction (perhaps because rather than being destroyed they were relocated or perhaps because they never were there in the first place in the quantities that Saddam had declared)

Choosing which intelligence to accept or ignore, especially when the information is limited, is always a problem. In this case the administration had adopted the 1% thresh hold - i.e. if there was *any* chance of a threat, react as if the threat was certain, the idea being if you are going to be wrong, it is better to be wrong one way than another.

But I completely agree that extensive intelligence is the best way to prevent conflict and other nasty surprises.

It is also worth noting that in Bob Woodward's new book he says targeted assassination was more important than the increase in troop levels in the success of "the surge" I do not find that surprising.

Always better to use a laser scalpel than a meat ax.