All right, fuck it: Iraq!

[greyorm]

Oh goody! I can rant now...wrote this up last night in response to the post on the "religion" thread.

"Smoke and mirrors by people with ulterior agendas"? The irrefutable fact of the matter is that Bush lied to the American people about there being an "imminent threat" from Iraq, distorted facts about the ties it held to terrorist organizations, and promised us that he had unquestionable evidence that Iraq had and/or was developing WMDs. We went into war based on falsehoods used to whip up hysteria and fear, not to liberate Iraq or its people from a brutal regime.

Oh, and Markus, sorry, but a simple web search turned up quotes showing when and who used that and similar phrases ("imminent" ie: immediate, soon, near-by, coming down the pipe, etc). Regardless, the whole "oh, he didn't say imminent" argument is a dodge of the real issues, anyways, an attempt to put a distracting spin on the issue via a semantical smokescreen. Because, all things considered, whatever exact words the president or his administration used, he made a case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America at any time, through the hands of terrorists, and that we needed to perform a pre-emptive strike to prevent that from occurring. (Unless you'd now like to argue that the Bush administration never called this action a pre-emptive strike?)

I pointed out the problems with the "evidence" when it was all first going down, and I can repeat it now in light of advisors crawling out of the woodwork with said evidence of manipulation of intelligence by the president's office, with the addendum, "I bloody told you so."

Ulterior motives? You bet! As one of those "rabble rousers" villified in your defense of the action taken, I don't like the abuse of power displayed by our current administration in pursuit of it's personal goals.

I can't belive Bush isn't answering to a Congressional tribunal right now, especially given we had to listen endlessly to crap about Clinton SCREWING AN INTERN! I mean, seriously, what gives? Manipulating intelligence to coerce the country into war is less of an offense than adultery, which only affects a couple people's private lives?

So, yeah, I have an ulterior motive: accountability.

Red herring? I don't think so.

Yes, the world's better off without Hussein. Yes, the man was a vile dictator committing terrible atrocities against his own people. Yes, he would have sooner seen America burn than not.

But before I allow anyone to make that argument in defense of the war, I point out that 1) that wasn't the reason we were given for going to war 2) if that's the case, we'd damn well better invade North Korea, liberate Tibet, and take out Cuba NOW. Among a half-a-dozen other actions we should take if we're going to play world-liberator. Seriously, those saying how it is a "moral" issue because Hussein was evil and posed a threat to the world order had best just put their dicks on the chopping block, push for a massive military campaign against all the evils of the world, or shut up about it.

Plus, I'm with Ethan: "He lied, but everyone in office does, and we don't do much about it usually, so that makes it ok" is also a pile of steaming dog crap.

I also have to laugh at the ridiculous idea that because you elect someone into office, it's OK for them to lie, steal, distort facts, and otherwise behave dishonorably because they were elected! (And BTW, I didn't vote for him, so I have every right to complain about his behavior in office.)

And you only mention the American casulaties of the war. Very sad.

Finally, I don't like the fact that we're spending gobs of money on this situation we've created overseas when our own economy has been in a nose-dive for the past couple of years, and I don't see any damn aid packages for Americans being rushed through Congress.

[montag]

b) he sold the war saying, "the threat from Iraq to the United States was "imminent," (as Rumself himself said on the air a little over a year ago)

I would like to spike Montag's dare.  Here you go:http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp?Phrase=immediate+threat

Big difference! Especially since that Rumsfeld quote essentially called Saddam the biggest menace out there, which was arguably true, but a far cry from "imminent threat" a technical term which allows for an attack in keeping with int. law. (If they'd gone for that, all that UN business would have been unnecessary. All that hassle to find Saddam in violation of resolution damn-forgot-the-number (1448?) would have been unnecessary.)
As I said, it's nitpicking, but in this case crucial nitpicking ;)

edit: here's probably the most comprehensive debate on the issue, http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000830.html#000830 going back several posts by both sides, check it out if you like

[Christopher Weeks]

I really couldn't disagree with Ralph more.

I think That Man (Bush, not Ralph) should be dragged out onto Pennsylvania Avenue by the hair and stoned to death.

But I'm not picking on That Man.  I think that's true of every president we've had while I was alive, and maybe every president.  For whatever reason, presidents are bad men.  

What we basically had is a vile tyrannical dictator who attempts genocide on his own people. He'd had WMDs before, he'd demonstrated he's willing to use them, he'd demonstrated that he continued to try an obtain them, he had ties to terrorist organizations that he certainly would have provided them to and who would certainly have used them.

Does it matter to anyone that the government of the US (over time) would fail this sort of a test if held to these standards?

Hussein is a bad man too, but who really thinks he's worse than the people pulling our strings?  If we left Bush in office as long as Hussein, I wonder how they'd compare.  In the time that Hussein has had to perpetrate evil in the middle east (with out help), how much evil has the US perpetrated in Latin America?  

April 15th is looming near.  I'm not going to litterally write a check because it was handled for me -- transparently, every two weeks all year.  But as I confront the numbers and the forms, I wonder how many deaths I'm buying.  How many children here in the US and around the world will grow up without a father because of my thousands of dollars?  How many don't get to grow up at all?  What is my level of personal responsibility for continuing to prop up our corrupt and vile system?  I keep asking myself if my country is a net positive force in the universe or a negative one and I'm just not sure.

Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Markus,

You'll have to forgive my addled brain.  Please spell out the difference for me.

Better yet, if you're willing, let's take "imminent" off the table if you wish.

Rumsfeld said two years ago, Iraq was an "immediate threat" -- which clearly implies the US was in danger NOW.  Exactly what is being argued here?  I'm at a loss.

With respect,

Christopher

PS Just checked out your link.  Good site -- however, I'm not arguing the technicalities of imminent.  My concern has been about the "selling" of the war.  Rumsfeld's language in the quote I offered makes it clear that the biggest threat to the US came from Sadam... Clearly not true.  The biggest threat came from nationless terrorist organizations based in Afganistan...  You know, the ones who launched a successful attack on our nation.   We can mire down into thesaurus debates, but that's not my point.  My point is, how did the administration frame the need to go to war through the press and to the people.  "Immediate threat" may technically not be "imminent" but when when people need to know their leaders are doing something to protect their kids, its more than enough to confound the meaning in the imaginations of most people.  Polls showed conclusively, and still do -- that a majority of Americans think Sadam had ties to the 9-11 attacks.  There was a lot of confusion rushing out of the media outlets and the administration (which is why I laugh whenver I hear about the "liberal media."  It was Rush and Co. who helped simply peddle lies for the adminstration, and they're media, too.  So, again, you want to take imminent off the table.  Fine.  Rumself said Sadam was the biggest immediate threat.  This was either a lie or self-willed ignorance -- or a terrifying incompetence.  On all counts, bad news.

[Rich Forest]

Christopher,

I think Markus is talking about the legal terminology--international law apparently treats "imminent" as a technical term that, if I'm reading Markus right, would have allowed the U.S. to make a claim that the invasion was legal under U.N. law.

Markus, tell me if I'm right on this.

So you're not really arguing about anything, I think, except that you're using "imminent" in it's non-technical sense, as a synonym of "immediate," while Markus is really focused on the legal implications tied to the technical usage of "imminent threat."

Rich

[Christopher Kubasik]

Rich,

I typed up my PS when you were posting.

Yes, I think your right about this.

He's talking law.  I'm talking PR.  Both are vital elements of statecraft.  But we are talking different things.

Thanks,

Christopher

[Anonymous]

"Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use them himself or transfer them to Al-Qaeda, and somehow the Al-Quaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on US forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300 or 3000 people dead, but 30000, or 100000... human beings."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.  There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

"The Iraqui regime is a threat of unique urgency....  t has developed weapons of mass death."

Messrs Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.

"A week...", "unique urgency...", "no doubt".  Just like Blair was lying to us, your guys were lying to you.

Now, you guys are lucky - cos you didn't vote for him the first time.  We at least have to shoulder some responsibility for the way our PM is acting.

[Gordon C. Landis]

As long as we're indulging, here's an absurd connection that I consider telling, even though it's absurd: remember the last days of the 2000 election?  Remember the (not actually important and almost certainly timed-for-effect) "revelation" of Mr. Bush's drunk driving arrest?  Remember his EXPLANATION for why he hadn't revealed it?  He didn't want to set a bad example for his daughters.  He thought they'd be better off not knowing that daddy was arrested.

Yes, it's a huge stretch.  To tell you the truth, I'm not a big fan of judging a politician based on what you can glean of his or her "moral character" - look at the issues, see where they stand, compare to your stance, and vote accordingly.  But . . .

Bush is a man who believes it's OK to lie if that lie serves a greater good.  More importantly (since I can imagine instances of "lie" and "greater good" in which I agree with that belief), his judgement about the lies that are OK and the greater goods that justify 'em is WAY off of how I'd see it.  Going into Iraq virtually unilaterally, and using questionable tactics to convince enough of the American public that unilateral action is OK - the man, and his administration, have done more damage in those acts than can be justified by the obvious good of removing Saddam.

As a confession - I have buddies in Iraq right now.  One of my oldest friends was going to be home in January, but will now be there for another year (mostly voluntarily, best as I can tell from his email).  I've got mixed feelings on what we do now - how to "finish the job," or disengage, or begin sharing the load . . . very mixed feelings.

But the manner in which we got to where we're at seems to me an entirely worthy subject of inquiry, and the people who went about bringing us here are quite reasonable targets of scrutiny.  And I don't like what I see, not one little bit.

Gordon

[montag]

@Chris
it's not entirely about law, though that is a major part of it. Rich's got it right, in that "imminent threat" is sufficient grounds for pre-emptive* war, the kind of war you are allowed to start if your enemy is moving his troops to your border. Pre-ventive* war OTOH, which is based on the assumption that the enemy might attack is insufficient grounds for starting a war (by int. law, that is; not that people have spent much time pondering these distinctions in the past ;) *e.g. this link (sorry, couldn't find a better source in a hurry)
IIRC it was John Kerry (some Dem anyway) who first introduced the phrase "imminent threat" into the debate, while the Bush admin had gone to great lengths to avoid the particular phrase. Since a lot of people came to believe Bush & Co. actually used that phrase and I believe in speaking up even on behalf of the scoundrel when he is wronged I've tried to set the record straight on that one.
Now, for the larger question of intent. This is kind of hard for me, since I believe the Bush admin is guilty as hell of lying to the American people and the world. Anyway, here's the positive side, as best as I can argue it: Bush & Co. repeatedly stressed that – in this new situation with 9-11 and all that – that the traditional doctrine of preemption=good, prevention=bad did no longer work. They said, yes, that guy is not threatening us right now, but he got the WMD (an intel fuckup which in turn can be argued endlessly about, but suffice it to say that the Bush admin very probably wasn't the only part in this which failed the American people) and sooner or later we will have to deal with him. They did not say "the threat is upon us" (i.e. imminent) but said "this threat is the kind of threat that passes right through the imminent phase, the kind of threat that goes from a vague possibility on the radar screens of the CIA to catastrophe quicker than we can stop it" ... "and this is why we need to do something about it now". So, from that perspective, the _absence_ of "imminence" is actually the crucial element in the admin's case for war.
This argument, about "what to do about rogue states which might hand WMD to terrorists" has IMHO not yet been addressed by the international community, and while I'm not a fan of the approach Bush and the Neoconservatives favour, I have to admit it beats sitting around and waiting (FWIW, clear guidelines have been suggested by some int. strategy org., don't remember which one that was right now. best solution IMO). Anyway, claiming Bush et al. spoke of an "imminent threat" kind of sidesteps this issue, could be said to deliberately miss their point and attributes hidden meaning to their words which (a) doesn't sit quite so well with their other words and deeds and (b) is mindreading, i.e. entails the claim that one is able to accurately infer what Bush et al. "really" meant. The later is fine for private opinion, but unsuitable for any other debate except the one about whose mindreading-fu is better. ;)
Hope that clears it up a bit.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Markus,

Thanks.

As stated, I've taken "imminent" off the table.  Doesn't matter to me as a word.  Really doesn't.  

Look at the Rumsfeld quote I linked to.  Look at a couple of the quotes a Guest posted three posts up.  For those US citizens who watch Meet the Press, read newspapers, watch clips on the evening news, talk to co-workers at the water coolers... such words speak as if Iraq was a problem that had to be dealth with immediately, because Sadam a) had the resources, b) wanted to use them against us, c) could use them at any second and well might, d) might well be selling his stuff to Al Quida.  In the court of public opinion, not the court of law, this mean, this guys ass had to be put on the spike *now.*

None of these points was true.  (More than a "fuck up," by the way, though  it did cut across agencies and people.  Driving it was very much a systematic distortion of intel by White House officials who broke protocol and created new chanels of gaining and interpretting information within the Pentagon and the CIA as they searched for info that would support a war against Iraq and ignored intel that didn't serve their agenda.)

I understand your point about the absence of imminence being a reason to go to war with Iraq -- since we didnt' want to get caught off guard in this "new"world of danger.  And if: Sadam's infrastructure hadn't been destroyed by ten years of bombing and sanctions, if he actually had a weapons program in place, if there was a shred of real eveidence he had such systems in place, if the adminstration had let the inspectors finish their job instead of forcing them out by means of war so the question was left hanging in the air, if Sadam and bin Ladin would have been anything but enemies, if Sadam could have delivered such weapons to the US, if Sadam had one frickin' reason to bring down the rain of US might on his head! -- the war might make sense.  But, of course, not one of those ifs bears any resemblence to reality.

The truth is, as O'Neil, Clark as well as folks from the Pentagon, intelligence agencies and others have noted, Bush had a jones for Iraq even before 9-11.  

And here's my big, big problem.  There were threats out there that had to be dealth with in a new way.  There really are.  Al Quida's not going to be bringing grievences to the UN before launching another attack against us!

But Bush's response in attacking Iraq -- usless to dealing with the actual problems facing this nation, threatening our stakes in the middle east, tossing resources away from the real issues at hand, built on arguments that are specious at best -- completely ignored these real problems.  

So, please, let's let the scoundral defend himself.  In a world full of threats right now, shouldn't he be going after the one that matters most?  And if Iraq wasn't the one that mattered most, what in god's name are we doing there instead of going after the actual threats?

Christopher

[montag]

Hi Christopher
(I hope you don't mind me continuing this debate, I love that stuff)

I'm right with you as far as the court of public opinion is concerned, but as the advocatus diaboli I have to point out what the right usually points out on this matter, namely that e.g. Kerry's (I know, I really should check who it was) use of the phrase "imminent threat" and warnings against the Iraqi threat by e.g. Clinton, Gore etc. did certainly cement that impression. IIRC, before the inspectors went in, lots of people had good reason to expect "bad stuff" from Saddam and between that and the point where a retreat would have made the US "loose face" (a stupid, but unfortunately not irrelevant aspect in int. politics) there wasn't really a lot of room.

On the intel stuff I tend to agree with you, but I think it was a bad case of Groupthink (roughly: faulty decision making based on valuing group coherence (i.e. the neoconservatives and the "old guard") over incongruent or contradictory evidence/opinions).

As to "why Iraq", and "does it make a sensible first step in the WoT", I find myself nodding in agreement with you and would like to add the over a decade old dream of "remaking the middle east" and the issue of "finding a new – territorial – enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union" to the list of reasons.
At this point, I'm thinking Iraq was simply the best response they could come up with, domino theory of democracy sounds cool on paper and heck, if it works out after all it will be a major accomplishment. That doesn't make it a good policy in my book, but looking at the whole thing, I see (i) spin, but a plausible line of reasoning (the "imminent" stuff I talked about above) (ii) incompetence in managing intel, might call it bad management (iii) an admin that choose to do what is easy and easily sold instead of doing the hard stuff, like tackle Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea. Points one and three are par for the course of every administration I'm aware of, worldwide (doesn't excuse it of course). Point two is hard to tell and IMO the best ground for calling this admin "unfit for office", but really, all I see are "stupid white men" (damn that serial liar Moore for coming up with such an apt phrase).

[Valamir]

As to "why Iraq", and "does it make a sensible first step in the WoT", I find myself nodding in agreement with you and would like to add the over a decade old dream of "remaking the middle east" and the issue of "finding a new – territorial – enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union" to the list of reasons.

There's actually some very very good reasons for why Iraq.  But I don't think the general populace would find them very paletteable.

First, if one is looking to undergo the first major land invasion since the armed services got some notable doctrinal and organizational overhauls following Desert Storm, you don't go pick a fight with the biggest baddest threat in the neighborhood.  

You want to test out your fancy new hardware, you want to test out your fancy new operational theorems...so you pick a target that's enough of a threat to be a good test bed, but not enough of a threat to actually be dangerous.  Iraq fits that bill nicely.  North Korea and Pakistan do not.


Second, you want to test out you allies, quite honestly.  You don't want to committ to a major confrontation with a major enemy without knowing if the old cold war alliances will make the transition to a new strategic objective.  Again.  You pick an enemy you know you can defeat alone if you have to.


Third, you want to send a message to the world.  No the message isn't the one that people like to promote about.  The message isn't to those people.  The message is to the people who will understand it.  It is the simplest message of all.  Fuck with us and we have the power to crush you and dismantle your government.  To send that message you pick a target who is powerful enough to impress by dismantling, but not so powerful enough to actually cause us any trouble.


My experience with friends at various levels of the DoD, Pentagon, and various think tanks indicate to me that THESE are the sorts of questions that were far more important in the decision making process than WMDs or the like.

I don't have to guess what most posters to this thread will think of them as reasons.

[quozl]

There's actually some very very good reasons for why Iraq.

It's because Iraq is right in the middle of Bush's dartboard.

[Christopher Weeks]

I know that I already got my chance to spout off earlier, but I think the reasons for "why Iraq" are pretty clear, pretty different from what has so far been expressed, and pretty logical.  But evil as hell.

We spent lots of time and money building up the Iraqi army to doink with the Iranian army.  Over decades, we twisted their entire structure of governance into a military-machine.  It was to our "advantage" because of the "danger" presented by Iran.  (Imagine their gall to nationalize the British oil resources in their country!)  In 1988 the Iran-Iraq war finally drew to a close and Iraq had an army capable of destablizing American interests across the Middle East.  So our guys looked for a good way to downsize them.  And our wish came true when Hussein asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait.  Once we gave him the green light, he moved on them and like a crazed weasle, we turned on him.  We downsized his army.  A decade of inhumane sanctions later, after deciding that the Iraqi military remains a menace, we've decided to downsize it more effectively.  

I mean, really, if we were so opposed to Saddam Hussein, the man, why wouldn't we have assassinated him in '91?

We opened Pandora's Box and this was the only way to close it quickly.  And yeah, like Ralph pointed out...it's only 600 Americans dead...no biggie.  Oh, and countless thousands of Iraqis...I mean, if you count them as people.

Chris

[Gordon C. Landis]

I don't have to guess what most posters to this thread will think of them as reasons.

I'm not "most posters", I'm just me, and I can't be sure exactly what it is that you're guessing folks would think, so - here it is:

It's perfectly reasonable to want to know the results of those tests and to want to establish that message, as part of national policy.  That a unilateral invasion of Iraq was seen as a reasonable means to persue those goals - that the risks involved were seen to be outweighed by the benefits - looks to me like a big, BIG misjudgement.  For many reasons.  I don't like it when my government makes those kinds of mistakes.

Folks can disagee about what they think is a mistake, and/or about what is a reasonable risk, and/or about what's acceptable as part of national policy.  If you were expecting disagreement about what's acceptable - you aren't getting it from me.  But I STRONGLY disagree that what we did was worth the risk.  In fact, I think the risk-assesment step (regarding Iraq, and possibly other things) was poisoned by the current administration from day one.  The essential attitude of speaking truth to power was compromised due to (among other things) a purely political agenda, and that's a very, VERY bad thing.  Not that you can keep politics entirely out of the equation (history, Spanish-American War, etc.), but  - I find the practices of Bush and friends in this area to be egregious.

Gordon