Why do Gail Collins and company think they have any right to offer any damned advice on the construction and contents of the Iraqi constitution.
If they had their way, there would be no Iraqi Constitution, and they have waged their own holy war against Operation Iraqi Freedom since day one.
The nerve of these people.
ckrisz
Who employs Judith Miller?
smijer
Ditto what ckrisz said…
And this:
… probably not… but the spin-free way to say this is that, if “they” (those among the NYT staff who may have tried to remind the peeps about reasons that existed not to go directly to war) had their way – just like if I had gotten my way – there wouldn’t be an Iraqi Constitution emerging from the middle of a bloody war and its ensuing chaos, forced on the Iraqis by foreigners. Instead, the Iraqi Constitution, when it came, would be coming the way our own did… or perhaps the way post-Apartheid S. Africa’s did… or India’s… coming from the will of the people set smartly and decisively against their erstwhile oppressors…
People smart enough to do that should be smart enough to put together a Constitution without the aid and kibitzing of the NY Times.
smijer
P.S. Ok that wasn’t exactly the “spin free” way of putting it.. the spin-free way of putting it would have been, if “they” had their way, the Iraqi Constitution wouldn’t have been coming as a result of American military action…
I still like my way better.
P.P.S. Was the advice in the NY Times sensible, or not? That’s really the only question… any other question, including whether they supported the war or not, is some sort of ad hominem fallacy.
DougJ
“Why do Gail Collins and company think they have any right to offer any damned advice on the construction and contents of the Iraqi constitution?”
Because they think they know best about everything, whether it’s what form of the story of creation should be taught in public schoos, what kind of budget deficit we should have, or who should be allowed to arm themselves.
Don Surber
Chutzpah is the exact word.
“they have waged their own holy war against Operation Iraqi Freedom since day one.”
Absolutely. And I’ll tell you another thing: Where were these “antiwar” types when we were bombing Bosnia? What possible threat to the United States did the former Yugoslavian president pose to the United States? Where was the UN authorization?
Tractarian
Why does the NY Times hate America?
Nash
Why do Gail Collins and company think they have any right to offer any damned advice…
Because they are Americans. Because they haven’t succumbed to the hypocrisy of the Cole Handbook of The Rules of Debate #32 that prohibit all Americans other than John Cole from commenting in any way or making suggestions about something they have previously opposed.
Because they are Americans. Any other foolish rhetorical questions you need help with?
Tim F
What nerve indeed.
Thank god only the competent people are allowed to have an opinion.
Don Surber
Nash: We’re Americans too and we have every right to point out what a phony, hypocritical editorial page the New York Times has become.
I get tired of the lectures on Americanism from the left anytime I point out their failings.
Who the hell is she? Come on? What gives her any credibility on the issue?
A year-plus ago NYT said June 30 was too early to hand over the government. We did it June 28. This winter we were told Jan. 30 was too early and no one would vote. 8 1/2 million people did.
So screw the NYT. It has the right to blather — and I have the right to call it what it is: C R A P
Don’t question my patriotism, bub
(With all due respect. You seem like a wonderful person)
AEPT
Republicans opposed the creation of Social Security, what right do they have now to try alter it. If it were up the them, we wouldn’t have any Social Security. (of course that seems to still be the ultimate end).
it’s a bogus argument
gratefulcub
So which is is:
1) It doesn’t matter now if we should have gone or not. All that matters now is that we are there, and everyone needs to come together to create the best possible solution.
2) If you opposed the war, STFU!
I have been told over the past year and a half that it was #1, I guess I heard wrong.
How about, the people against the war understood the predictable results a little better, that is why they opposed the war. Maybe, just maybe, the opinions of these people could be reasonable and their voice should be considered.
Or, we can continue to let the flower and candy cakewalk crowd tell us what should be done, since they have proven time and time again that they understand the situation so very well.
It doesn’t really matter now, the war is almost over, we see the light, we are turning a corner, they are in their last throes, they are deadenders, the constitution will change everything…….FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!!!
pmm
Smijer, I’m interested in exactly how or when the Iraqis would have been able to peacefully transition to a constitutional government without an American-led invasion. Post-Saddam? Post-Uday? Post-Qusay? And would it really have been less-bloody than OIF? In what scenario would there be less chance of a civil war, genocide, or occupation by Iraq’s neighbors out of actually legitimate concerns regarding stability and the welfare of their ethnic/religious brethren than an American-led invasion?
I can understand (if not agree with) most anti-war arguments that suggest OIF was a mistake–but the idea that the Iraqi people could’ve liberated themselves had we not rushed things is mind-boggling.
gratefulcub
I was defending the antiwar crowd as a whole, not the NYTimes per say. And not everyone on the anti war side of course. Just making note that many that opposed the war have the right to an opinion now, and should be listened to.
Tim F
pmm, your assumption that we invaded Iraq solely to liberate an oppressed people puts you in a tiny minority of the American people, both before and after. It smells of convenience that you’ve forgotten all about ‘imminent danger’ and now want us to talk about nothing but the well-being of the Iraqi people.
That is dishonest. At least in 2002 we were a nation at war who couldn’t afford to toss our entire spare military capacity into a humanitarian adventure. It is grossly dishonest to claim that the anti-war arguments had anything to do with the best way to liberate the Iraqi people. They did not. The anti-war arguments concerned whether Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent threat to America’s safety, and we were right. He did not.
Nash
Who the hell is she? Come on? What gives her any credibility on the issue?
As we both know, that is the actual issue that John is raising. I simply can’t pass the chance to poke a finger in someone’s eye when they attempt to make a point, even a valid point, in a completely silly fashion.
I also hoot at baseball players who swing and miss at a pitch in the dirt. It’s the same thing.
However, on the larger “hypocrisy” issue, Mr. Cole is himself amongst the largest of those pots that love to call the kettle black. If having argued for or against something or someone truly enjoined one from ever changing one’s mind or moving on to the next phase of the discussion, Mr. Cole would be rendered mute and this blog would be muons in the ether. Being found guilty of Hypocrisy isn’t quite the “career ender” that it used to be–that’s why it’s so much fun to accuse others of it while enjoying the cheap benefits of its use yourself. I know from personal experience–I’m an accomplished hypocrite and I still get invited to perform my rhetorical bit. Who knows, it may even turn out to to be like going into rehab, an actual boost to one’s Q-rating.
And don’t fret about your patriotism, Don. I’ve examined it and found it not wanting.
demimondian
Taxpayers, John, and citizens. Voters.
Owners of the United States, just like you. Heirs to its traditions and values.
Parents and advocates for those who will be called on the pick up the pieces if the “Iraqi Constitution” goes south.
gratefulcub
Presidential news conference, March 6, 2003
Q What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament…. it’s very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won’t change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated.
Presidential address at Fort Bragg, June 28, 2005
THE PRESIDENT: Our mission in Iraq is clear. We’re hunting down the terrorists. We’re helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We’re advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.
DougJ
“Owners of the United States, just like you.”
Even if they hate the United States? As far as I’m concerned, only those who support the war now and have supported it from the beginning are worth listening to about what we should do now. The NYT were nay-sayers from the beginning — they were part of the MSM “we will lose this war” left-wing amen chorus — and our success in Iraq has put egg on their face. It’s time for them to shut up.
gratefulcub
Really, I must know….is this really DougJ? Sometimes it is easy to tell, other times it seems possible. Some fake DougJ’s are priceless, this one looks almost real.
DougJ
It’s the real me, gratefulcub. My spoofer seems to be gone for the time being as far as I can tell (though maybe he is spoofing me on some other threads I haven’t looked at).
Tim F
Ari Fleischer, July 9 2003:
mac Buckets
The NY Times (is that thing still around?) giving advice on Iraq’s Constitution? Seriously, I’d rather ask the owner of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays for advice on how to build a winning franchise…
Who is Gail Collins to comment? Well, opinions are like a$$holes… and so is Gail Collins.
This quote reminds me of what I think is the saddest part of the philosophical side of the Iraq War. I’ll never get over how the left has sold out its core values (if they ever even existed) all for a stance of partisan obstructionism. I remember when the Democrats USED to be the party of civil rights, of international human rights, of Amnesty International, and of the protection of the oppressed. You know, like way back in the Clinton Administration. Now, they are the party of “F*ck the brown-skins if they can’t overthrow their military dictator! I mean, there’s an unending supply of rocks to throw over there!” Jeff Goldstein might indicate that “it’s because of the…” well, you know…
gratefulcub
Well then….
As an anti-war lefty, or whatever name you want to give me…..
I didn’t support the war. Not because I thought we would lose, not because I hate america, or any of the other reasons you stated here or in other threads.
I opposed the war because:
– I thought Iraq was a highly sectarian region of the middle east being held together by a strongman, removing him would create a vacuum that we could not fill, and turmoil we could not control.
– I thought SH was not an imminent threat to the US. While we was a tyrant, and I do support his removal, he was in no way a threat to our country. Dictators do not give nuclear or biological weapons to terrorists. Dictators are control freaks for lack of a better word. They are not going to relinquish these weapons to terrorists that they don’t control. Additionally, al Quaeda wanted to destroy SH as well, so why would he help them?
– We didn’t need to rush, even if he was a threat, he was containable.
– There are terrorist havens around the world, Iraq was not one of them before the war.
And many others, my point is that my reasons for opposing the war had nothing to do with being a traitor, hating america, or loving terrorists. I opposed the war because I thought it wasn’t in our best interests.
Many people that opposed the war have been proven by subsequent events to understand the region very well. Some supporters of the war have been proven to have an elementary knowledge of the situation. (and the reverste is also true of course)
We have been told, ‘it doesn’t matter if we should have gone to iraq, it just matters that we are there now, and we all need to come together to make it work.’
We have experts on the region; people that understand the language and culture that could be very useful going forward. Why should they be shut out just because the predicted what was going to happen, instead of predicting flowers and candy?
The america that you claim to love so much, that you claim people like me hate so much, is so great because we disagree openly, not because you shut everyone out that disagrees with you. You wouldn’t want a liberal echo chamber running the country, why do you want a neo conservative echo chamber in charge?
DougJ
“I opposed the war because I thought it wasn’t in our best interests.”
Whatever your reasons were, you’ve been proved wrong by events. So you should stop yapping and support the troops and their leaders.
Tim F
It’s simply pathetic that these rightwingers want to throw us on the defensive over Iraq. We argued that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, they argued that it did. We were right, they were wrong. Now they want to pretend that we had an entirely different argument leading up to the Iraq war. We used to call that behavior dishonest.
gratefulcub
Not fair in the least to categorize the entire left like this. This wasn’t a war for liberation. “the mission is clear….disarmament.”
If I thought we were going to leave the country and region in better shape than we found it, and we could have done it without massive losses of life, I would have supported it. I supported the idea of going to Bosnia, I abhored the way in which it was done. we should have troops in the sudan today.
I never supported this war because i think the consequences for both the west and the middle east are likely to be negative.
The women of Iraq have not been liberated. Living under SH was bad, but as a women, living by sharia law under a shia strongman is going to be worse.
Defense Guy
I am glad to know that Nash will be one of those that will decry the specious chickenhawk meme so abundent in the world in the last couple of years.
Sulzberger is an absolute intellectual lightweight. He is not interested in giving an unbiased view of the world, as he feels more inclined to influence it in ways that are to his liking. He is also a surface scraper on issues, never taking the time to fully develop any train of thought. It is hardly surprising then that this kind of crap will appear in his newspaper.
As to the idea that the Iraqis would have been free on their own eventually anyway, perhaps so, and whats a few more years/decades of rape rooms and plastic shredders between friends anyway? Who are we to stop the enrichment of UN officials on the backs of Iraqi’s anyway?
demimondian
When shaving with a blade, it is very important to do a full pass over your beard in the direction of the grain of the hair. Otherwise, the blade will tend to force the hairs up into the follicles, which causes infection and inflamation. Not an attractive vista for someone who is close enough to, say, kiss you. (I assume that trolls kiss one another, but I am, in no way, wedded to that opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong.)
SomeCallMeTim
Is this a joke, John? I can’t tell, and everyone else seems to assume you’re serious.
DougJ – can we assume that when, as a nation, we decide to end our warlette in Iraq, you’ll STFU? About everything? Assuming Iraq isn’t particularly democratic and peaceful when we leave, of course.
DougJ
TimF, if there were no terrorists in Iraq, then who is setting off all those bombs? What’s going on there now proves that Iraq was a threat.
And if there were no WMD, why did the libruls get so upset about about the unprotected weapons dumps?
Iraq is free now. You libruls said it never would be. You said that we would never topple Saddam. You said that Iraq was some kind of paradise under Saddam. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Agreed.
I’m a Republican (Goldwater wing, meaning I’m no longer welcome under the “big tent”) who supported the war. I still do support the war, but there’s serious problems with the rebuilding efforts.
Am I allowed to say as much, or is that the opinion of a traitor?
John, love the site, but your aim is off here.
DougJ
“but there’s serious problems with the rebuilding efforts.”
You’ve been listening to too much of the left-wing MSM’s propaganda campaign. The rebuilding effort is going better than anyone expected. Freedom is messy. Things go wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s Japan, German, Bosnia, or Iraq. But note that Iraq is light years ahead of those others when it comes to progress hapenning quickly.
Defense Guy
DougJ
If at this point in history, they still need to be told the facts about Saddam, you can bet that they don’t really care to listen to you when you list them. The facts are at this point a mere incovienance in the hatred of Bush and/or America or in the way in which this administration has conducted this war.
Understand that this is the new way of war in the US and has helped in our losing record in modern time. The only good wars that these folks could agree on would have been lost too if this had been the way we supported them. A D-Day like loss of life under these new rules, would probably cause rioting in the streets.
neil
Is this an example of the Little Red Hen method of coalition building?
The little red hen said, “Who will help me justify the war?”
“Not I,” said little Gail Collins.
“Then I will do it myself,” said the little red hen. And she planted the intelligence without any help at all.
The little red hen said, “Who will help me imply a connection between Saddam and 9/11?”
“Not I,” said little Gerhard Schroder.
“Then I will do it myself,” said the little red hen. And she spread innuendo without any help at all.
The little red hen said, “Who will help me bomb Fallujah?”
“Not I,” said little Jacques Chirac.
“Then I will do it myself,” said the little red hen. And she leveled the city without any help at all.
The elections took place and it was time to write the constitution. The little red hen asked, “Who will help me guarantee the rights of the people?”
“I will!” said little Gail Collins.
“I will!” said little Kofi Annan.
“I will!” said little Ayatollah Khamenei.
“No you won’t! I will do it myself!” yelled the little red hen.
*any similarity between this story and reality were probably a coincidence
gratefulcub
Don’t know why i waste my time, but…
No terrorist BEFORE the war
Because those weapons are being used to kill our troops
Don’t have a clue who said that
always knew that would be easy
Living in a war zone under foreign occupation is not free.
as I noted above, to think iraq is going to be free, disregards the fact that the women of iraq don’t have a promising looking future in the short term at least
Tim F
Def Guy (and, if he’s serious, Doug),
Show me the terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. List for me the WMDs that were not already being monitored by the UN. Bush can’t do it but I’m confident that with your awesome powers of Googling, you can.
DougJ
DefenseGuy, I swear these libruls talk about Saddam Hussein like he was Mother Theresa. And then they talk about what has quite possibly been the most successful nation-building exercise ever as if it were some kind of a disaster. We’re YEARS ahead of the orignial schedule for rebuilding. At one time, we were looking at a 12-year schedule and now it looks like we may be out by next spring.
Iraq has been a spectacular success. Millions of people who were once tortured and enslaved are now free. Saddam and his Al Qaeda cohorts are out of power. The United States is safer. Freedom is on the march.
DougJ
“No terrorist BEFORE the war”
Then where did the come from?
neil
Syria
DougJ
Neil, well that’s just another reason why we should invade Syria. That’s another aspect of Iraq that you libruls overlook, that we can use it as a base of operations in the war against terror.
Would you rather that Syrians are fighting our soldiers on the battlfefield or killing civilians on the streets of our cities?
gratefulcub
Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Some are Iraqis that never thought of blowing themselves up before this war.
The insurgents are primarily Iraqi, the terrorists are not.
And, why wasn’t iraq on the list of terrorist nations in our government before the war?
Defense Guy
Tim F
I think you missed my point. I have learned that to even make the attempt is pointless now. It is all there in the historical record for you to look up. You have to be willing to be objective first.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
No, I’ve been listening to everyone’s propaganda campaign, left and right. After mulling over the varied facts and opinions, I’ve made up my own mind.
DougJ, I am not some easily-swayed sheep. So don’t dismiss me as such.
DougJ
Gold Star, sorry if I offended you, but you should try listening to, say, Fox, rather than CNN. You’d hear there’s a lot of good news in Iraq that isn’t making it onto the Communist News Network.
DougJ
“You have to be willing to be objective first.”
You can lead a librul to the truth but you cannot make him think.
Defense Guy
A little over the top perhaps? No one here has made that claim, so why even add it to the discussion?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
DougJ, what makes you think I don’t watch Fox?
Stop… making… assumptions.
Biff
Now, they are the party of “F*ck the brown-skins if they can’t overthrow their military dictator!
I see. So on the one hand, opposing the war proves that liberals don’t care about Iraqis. On the other, if liberals try to give suggestions on how to rebuild Iraq, they should STFU. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The only choice is to blindly support whatever the administration is doing, even if it’s a colossal failure and gets thousands of people killed. Glad we got that straight.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Fine, Defense Guy. No one is using the word traitor.
Here.
DougJ
Gold Star, if you watched Fox and listened to Rush a little, you’d hear more about all the good news. And you’d realize that while there are a few problems here and there with reconstruction, by any reasonble measure, the rebuilding is going spectactularly well.
mac Buckets
Dude, I blockquoted the post. And let’s not be coy — you and I have both seen the same “Iraqis should’ve overthrown Saddam themselves if they wanted freedom so bad” meme hundreds of times before. Of course it doesn’t apply to every single left-leaning person — you can’t all be self-deluded hypocrites!
It’s irrelevant that this wasn’t intended to be a strict nation-building exercise. Liberating Iraq was mentioned by Bush in EVERY pre-war speech as one of several reasons why Saddam needed to go. Hell, Clinton passed the Iraqi Liberation Act five years previous to establish liberation of Iraq as our national policy. You’d think the left would at least pretend to back up Clinton’s policy (even when it’s inconvenient for their current “obstruction mode”).
DougJ
“The only choice is to blindly support whatever the administration is doing, even if it’s a colossal failure and gets thousands of people killed.”
We’re not asking for BLIND support, but support, yes. You need to support your leaders when you’re at war.
But more than that, all I want is an open-mindedness to the facts. The fact that Saddam was a murdering tyrant, that the Iraqis are already better off than they were under Saddam, that things are getting better there day-by-day, and that rebuilding is going better than anyone could have expected.
gratefulcub
Some of us gave up cable news a while ago, and I can’t even tell you who the MSM anchors are anymore.
People, smart educated people, wrote many good books on the subject of the Middle East, American Foreign policy, etc. newspapers still serve a purpose. The internet provides the ability to see different points of view.
Put it all together, and it is possible to be informed about what is going on in the world. Fox has a certain amount of propoganda, CNN is trash (were da white woman at), and is MSNBC still on the air?
Talking heads talk, nothing more.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
DougJ, I watch Fox.
(But I don’t listen to Rush, because I hold him in the same contempt as Michael Moore.)
Really, aren’t you just the flip side of a war opponent telling someone if they only listened to NPR, they’d come around to how poorly this is going?
The problem isn’t what media sources I tap to form an opinion, OK?
Defense Guy
Gold Star for Robot Boy
I don’t think that having criticisms about the way the war is being waged rises to the level of treason. I would assume you agree. I do believe that unfounded criticism or over the top rhetoric can put our troops at risk as their well being is at least partially dependent on the public’s willingness to support them and the cause they are fighting for. Do you agree?
DougJ
“Fox has a certain amount of propoganda”
I guess you call fair reporting “propaganda” then.
I agree the internet is a great tool for learning about issues. But you should be aware that a lot of the left-wing sites are nothing more than propaganda outlets for the loony left.
Tim F
So says the guy with a militaristic codpeice for a handle. “Objective” is quite obviously in the eye of the beholder.
Your “point” is that Saddam has been a bad boy and had to be contained before he caused more mayhem. Correct me if I’m wrong about that. Integral to that point is that Saddam had the capacity to cause mayhem, which would require either WMDs or a connection with terrorism. Anybody with a handle like yours should be aware that Saddam’s 2002 conventional army was a pale shadow of its 1990 self. Not a threat to anybody but Kurds.
So your “point” depends on there beign a threat from Saddam, which there was not. My “point” is that in the absence of a threat there are better uses to which our military can be put. For you to argue against that makes you not a conservative but the very opposite of everything the word ‘conservative’ used to stand for.
gratefulcub
Agreed, a hundred times over. Michael moore isn’t unbiased. Kos has an agenda. Atrios has an agenda. They are activists. George Soros has an agenda. Noam Chomsky is not unbiased.
I see the activism and agendas on the left. I am not blind.
But to actually tell us that what we need is a little more Rush and Fox in our life, makes me doubt that you are able to be as ‘fair and balanced.’
DougJ
“So your “point” depends on there beign a threat from Saddam, which there was not.’
So you’d be happier if Saddam’s torture chambers were still open, if he was still working an A-bomb, if he was still devloping anthrax, if he was still gassing his own people.
Well, we tried things your way under Clinton. We let terrorists roam free, killing without fear of reprisal. It’s time to try something else, something a little more, er, musucular.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Absolutely.
Absolutely – as long as this belief cuts both ways. Otherwise, it’s “my way or the highway.”
Assume calling a person “having criticisms about the way the war is being waged” a traitor is over the top. Can that not also put troops at risk, by stifling informed debate?
rilkefan
I assume John was stirring up the ants with this post…
DougJ
“Assume calling a person “having criticisms about the way the war is being waged” a traitor is over the top. Can that not also put troops at risk, by stifling informed debate?”
There’s a time for debate and a time to STFU and get behind our troops. We had plenty of time for debate before the war, plenty of time for the loony left to make its claims about what a good guy Saddam was, about how we would lose the war, about how the Iraqi people weren’t ready for freedom. Well, they lost that debate and it’s time for them to shut up.
John Cole
Rilkefan-
I was up late, had insomnia, and was cranky.
It does piss me off that the paper that was singing Vietnam and Quagmire on the third day of the war would now be writing haughty and condescending op-ed pieces.
mac Buckets
Obviously not enough to want 80% them to have, you know, rights and majority rule and stuff. Not in the old-school-liberal/Amnesty International/human rights style, no.
No, if liberals who oppose Bush, and so (parenthetically) opposed the war, indicating that they didn’t care about the human rights of Iraqis, now give their unsolicited opinions on what rights Iraqis should have and what form those rights should take, they run the risk of being told to STFU.
I realize that the left, in lieu of actual ideas, runs on pure whine-ahol, but when Collins takes the opportunity to whine at both ends (that we shouldn’t have given Iraqis their rights, and then that “Iraqis should have the following rights”), without so much as an ironic facial tic, someone’s got to call bullshit.
Or she could go on record as selling out her “old-school-liberal” core beliefs, but come on… we all know that she’ll recover them as soon as a Democrat is in the White House and wants to fight the next Milosevic or Saddam.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
I didn’t agree with any of those arguments from the left. Do I still have to STFU?
Also, your point would hold more water if the left wasn’t being told to STFU before the first bomb fell.
gratefulcub
So, if Hillary Clinton invades britain for being too capitalistic, and things are going poorly, and everyone knows we shouldn’t be there, we should all STFU and get behind the troops instead of having a conversation?
your way provides a situation that allows perpetual war, our way allows us to fight a war and change course when it is needed.
Another Jeff
Wow, this post has over 60 comments and the “Plame Flame” has less than ten.
gratefulcub
If you didn’t listen to so much rush, you might realize that the only people saying this are on the right, and attributing it to the left. Fictitious strawmen are created on both sides equally, this one was created by the right.
DougJ
“your way provides a situation that allows perpetual war”
Unfortunately, the war against terror IS a perpetual war, at least as far the eye can see. There are people out there who hate us and want to kill us and we have to get to them before they get to us. They’re in places like Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. It will take multiple conflicts to flush them out. This may occupy us militarily for ten or more years. But it is something we must do to remain safe and free. The phrase “perpetual war” sends a chill up the spine, make no mistake, but this isn’t a war we chose to fight, it is one we must fight.
mac Buckets
LOL! Come on, Don. You know exactly where they were. They know exactly where they were, but they aren’t telling. The queue to kiss Bubba’s ample posterior was mighty long in the Bosnia/Kosovo/Iraq years! We didn’t need no steenking UN approval back then to attack a government that was no threat to us!
This is why it’s transparent to anyone who is paying attention that the war is, to the left, a 95% partisan issue (I’ll give them the 5% “clueless pacifist” discount to the full total, on account of those four pacifist students at Ohio State who heckled Clinton one time).
Defense Guy
Tim F
Shall I assume that since you have moved your ‘argument’ into personal characterizations that you have nothing of substance to add, or is it that you are just an angry jerk who wants to show to the world the ‘depth’ of his ability to think?
Biff
Obviously not enough to want 80% them to have, you know, rights and majority rule and stuff. Not in the old-school-liberal/Amnesty International/human rights style, no.
I apologize in advance if I’m violating any posting rules by saying this, but your comment is so unbelievably stupid that I’m amazed you can manage to turn your computer on to post it.
When making any decision, there are costs and benefits to consider. If I think the costs outweigh the benefits, it doesn’t mean I think the benefits are worthless. Giving Iraqis “freedom” (whatever that turns out to be) is worthwhile. Doing it at the cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of American and Iraqi lives is not.
Right now, hundreds of thousands of people are dying in Darfur. Do you support sending American troops over there to end the genocide? If not, can I accuse you of not caring about those people? Same goes for Zimbabwe, Burma, the Congo, etc. Aren’t you objectively pro-Mugabe?
Do you think maybe, just maybe, the reason some (not all) Democrats supported the interventions in Bosnia and Haiti, and the war in Kosovo, is because we were able to do a lot of good at a low cost in casualties?
Do you think maybe, just maybe, the reason Gail Collins opposed the war but makes suggestions about the reconstruction is because she simultaneously wants Iraqis to live, and, now that the war is on, wants the best for them?
Can you pull your partisan head out of your ass long enough to give two seconds’ worth of thought to your opponents’ positions?
gratefulcub
What you just described is a ‘clash of civilizations.’ Not Alabama vs. Ny. The ‘next world war’ has been predicted as a clash of civilizations between the west, ME, asia, Africa, South America…..some combination, almost always being one of them against the West.
I am aware that there are people in all of those places that would like to kill us. I agree that we need to deal with it, and now. But, fighting all of those places militarily is something I don’t think any of us want.
We can’t do it one by one, nation by nation. When we invade our next ME country, the rest will get the picture. We are coming for you, maybe not next, but eventually. The governments of those places will cozy up to us quickly, but the populace will not see it the same way. The entire region, eventually stretching into Central Asia will become destabilized. We will have a world wide guerrilla war on our hands. The west will probably unite at that point, since they can’t avoid the wars reprecussions.
I know this seems like a doomsday prediction, but if we start invading multiple muslim nations, things will get hairy very quickly.
It may come to this, but I think we should slow down and start looking for alternatives.
We aren’t fighting nations, and governments. Saudis are terrorists, yet our governments have a very tight realpolitick relationship. Same with Egypt, Jordan, Uzbekistan, etc. We are fighting criminals, not nations. We need to discuss openly what our next steps should be and what our approach to changing the world for the better. Overthrowing the house of Saud would not defeat the terrorist of SA.
We are turning rogue states into failed states. rogue states can be dealt with. They have leaders that want to maintain power. They can be threatened with annihilation. Pakistan will never launch a nuclear strike against the US. If we invade pakistan and depose the government, it becomes a failed state instead of rogue. Failed states are havens for terrorists. If terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons, they won’t hesitate. They don’t fear retribution. No amount of muscle flexing can deter an enemy that is willing, almost hoping to die for he cause as the individual terrorists are.
Defense Guy
You bet.
Here is where it starts to get sticky. It is what we are willing to describe as ‘informed debate’, which can cause so much of the friction. I am very much for the use of constructive criticism when all sides know and agree to the objective. If you cannot even bring yourself (not you personally) to admit that the war once started must be won, then it is going to devolve into no one really listening to each other anyway. If the criticisms contain no mention of how to improve the situation, then at best it is half helpful and at worst is a potential fatal distraction.
Past 2 years into this war and the largest area of argument still seems to be whether this idea was a good one or not. Does that seem inherently helpful to the troops on the ground?
pmm
TimF wrote:
TimF, I’m not sure why you attribute these views to me, as I don’t think I’ve made this argument anywhere on Balloon-Juice. In this thread, I thought Smijer’s ideal anti-war solution–that Iraq could somehow have gotten the opportunities of the past year without an American-led invasion isn’t realistic.
Defense Guy
What makes you comforable being the one to say which people are worth shedding our blood over. Why is it that the Bosnians or the Europeans and Chinese under tyranny of WW2 are worth a far higher cost in American lives, but the Iraqi’s are not. In short, can you recommend a formula for us to use in the future to save us from these questions in the future?
It is sort of funny that the standard Democrat position had been one that indicated that all human freedom is worth fighting for and how easily it has been for some to shed it.
DougJ
“The governments of those places will cozy up to us quickly, but the populace will not see it the same way. The entire region, eventually stretching into Central Asia will become destabilized. We will have a world wide guerrilla war on our hands.”
Bring it on.
Mike
Can someone please tell these stoopid Iraqis that the American media and the left really truly believes everything is a disaster. They might not have gotten the meme. A summary of Iraqi Stats per the archconservatives over at the Brookings Institute. Of course, it goes without saying, that *really* they do support the Iraqi people, it’s just, well, you know…
Kimmitt
Because invading Iraq still wasn’t a good risk, but now that we’re there, we should try to be doing the best we can?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Irresponsible.
gratefulcub
Really? Even if there is another option? Even if we can protect ourselves without having to fight a world war in which millions will die, millions of other lives will be destroyed? A war that will last our lifetime? As opposed to war as a last resort, your idea is ‘bring it on’?
I guess you aren’t one of the ‘culture of life’ conservatives.
LaurenceB
I enjoy reading John Cole regularly (I’ve even hit the Paypal button), but I have to say this is his worst post ever. Is he serious in suggesting that those who opposed the war should somehow not be allowed to opine on how our nation behaves in the aftermath? I certainly hope not. This seems like an indefensible position.
gratefulcub
Not what this war was fought for.
If it was, we need to go back and knock off all the dictators of the world that are as bad or worse the SH was to his people. SH was a nasty man, but he wasn’t without company. Other people like him are considered allies.
The argument seems to be: you didn’t think Iraq was a threat? Why do you hate the iraqis and why don’t you want them to be free?
DougJ
“Even if there is another option?”
I really don’t think there is one. We can’t let another 9/11 happen. No one wants to have to fight the world-wide war you describe, but it may be what we have to do to stop another 9/11.
And I’m not so sure that what you say is true about how the populace will react. A lot of them will embrace freedom and democracy IMHO.
Defense Guy
gratefulcub
You realize that giving the people of Europe back their right to run their own countries was not the reason we fought that war, right?
John Cole
LaurenceB- I told you, I was cranky.
Biff
What makes you comforable being the one to say which people are worth shedding our blood over.
Precisely the same things that make you comfortable doing the same, DG: the fact that we’re Americans, have friends in the armed forces, and have a basic moral concern for human life.
Why is it that the Bosnians or the Europeans and Chinese under tyranny of WW2 are worth a far higher cost in American lives, but the Iraqi’s are not.
Are you actually under the impression that we lost more servicemen in Bosnia than in Iraq?
As for WW2, do you actually think we entered that war as a humanitarian gesture towards Europeans and Asians? We fought that war because we (correctly) perceived fascism to be a long-term threat to America.
In short, can you recommend a formula for us to use in the future to save us from these questions in the future?
No. Neither can you. And so when we disagree, it should not be an excuse to say the other side “doesn’t care about freedom” or should STFU about any aspect of policy.
gratefulcub
Defense Guy,
Got it. We fought the world wars of this century for american interests. The freeing europe and china meme was added just as the liberation of iraq has been added.
My point is, don’t accuse me (not saying you did) of not caring about freedom, democracy or human rights because I didn’t support this war. Liberating Iraqis had very little to do with why we fought this war, hence, my opposition had nothing to do with me not wanting to liberate the iraqis.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Agreed.
Also agreed.
Past 2 years into this war and the largest area of argument still seems to be whether this idea was a good one or not. Does that seem inherently helpful to the troops on the ground?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Whoops – blew that coding.
gratefulcub
That’s why he has taken up too much of my time this week too.
Nash
I am glad to know that Nash will be one of those that will decry the specious chickenhawk meme so abundent in the world in the last couple of years.
Actually, Defense Guy, I heartily approve of frequent repetition of the Republican apologists are chickenhawks meme, if for no other reason than it obviously chaps your ass so much. I’ve noticed that you guys complain most about those things that hit you close to home. So, I’m more than happy to support people who say Republican apologists are chickenhawks. What is particularly fun is how broadly the yellow stripe can be painted on the Republican apologists who are chickenhawks, even if not precisely fair in specific cases; we have learned well from you how it’s completely beside the point whether overbroad generalizations are in all cases true. If it squirms when it’s kicked, I say kick it again.
No succor from these quarters. Operation Yellow Elephant, which describes how Republican apologists are chickenhawks, should proceed full apace.
pmm
As for the fact that those of us who support the war were wrong to claim that Iraq was an imminent threat, I ask you to please show where the administration made that argument. Here’s the relevant text from the State of the Union speech:
I know that OIF opponents have argued that, speeches notwithstanding, the administration implied that the threat was imminent, since the administration argued that it was done waiting. This is not totally unfair, but it requires that we can never act unless a threat is imminent, since there’s no way to know when the shift occurs except after-the-fact. Either that, or your demanding a quality of intelligence that apparently hasn’t existed since ULTRA was useful.
For a counterpoint, look at North Korea today. It’s pretty much too late once a rogue state gets nukes. Our options in North Korea are limited today precisely because it is an imminent threat–for South Korea and potentially Japan, if not the United States itself.
More to the point, I ask what war opponents would have done differently in March 2003? Keeping in mind that we didn’t know what we know now, what could we have done to resolve the situation? The UN inspectors wanted more time to inspect, but they were complaining that they couldn’t actually clear Iraq due to noncompliance. Would you have lifted or maintained sanctions? Would you have maintained the troop buildup on the Arabian penninsula that was instrumental in getting Hussein to allow in inspections? For how long? On what do you base your timelines? The Duelfer report itself noted that Iraq was prepared to restart their WMD program once the opportunity presented itself:
Even if intransigent members of the UN security council had done an about-face and supported an eventual invasion because we “played by the rules”, how would that have made a difference given that the main rationale for UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq were concerning its WMD situation?
pmm
I ask these questions not to encourage war opponents to STFU, but because I honestly don’t understand how you can argue that there was a better way to pursue our national interests, given what we knew at the time.
Defense Guy
Nash
You do what you feel is necessary, but you have just shown to everyone who is paying attention that you will abandon your ‘principles’ if the cause suits you. Not really all that surprising. Just don’t expect anyone to take your arguments seriously.
Nash
You never will take anything I’ve argued seriously, DG, nor have you in the past. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m talking over your head, to the less credulous people behind you. It’s called “being used as an example,” DG.
But you go on thinking I’m shattered to learn I can’t possibly reach you. Yes, that is a good place for you to continue to be.
Defense Guy
There are others who would disagree with how you are defining me Nash. Some of them would even be considered ‘on your side’. Whatever the f**k that means.
So I am an example you are making? Your arrogance is astounding. Hope that hate keeps you warm at night, because from here it just makes you look unreasonable and easily ignorable.
carpeicthus
What do they think they are, an Op/Ed page?
Sillliness abounds.
Tim F
pmm,
Your post regarding how best to liberate he Iraqis depends on the assumption that liberating the Iraqis was the primary concern of the war’s opponents, or its supporters. If that was not the primary concern then the question of Iraqi liberty is an irrelevant point. An exercise as bloody as a war can’t be justified by its serendipitous side-effects.
Ari Fleischer seems to have believed that the war had specific goals:
Call me crazy for assuming that the President’s Press Secretary speaks for the President. If he did speak for the president then the president was wrong.
Defense Guy,
When you write people off in advance of a reply they might take it as an invitation to snap back.
Now as I see it your point is that Saddam was a dangerous enough leader that he needed to be contained. History of bad actions and so on. Rather than specifically saying so you declared wearily that liberals are too chunderheaded to waste it on, so you’ll forgive me for inferring it. As I said, if I’m incorrect please correct me. If I am correct then please feel free to read through the rest of my post, or not, and reply at your leisure.
mac Buckets
Wow. Held together by a strongman? Held together? Really. Held together by a 20% minority rule and oppression of the 80% majority. And are you sure you want to stick with “strongman?” Why so afraid of the correct term, “military dictator?” Afraid it will hurt your rhetoric?
A vacuum we could not fill? Ignoring “we,” it seems well on the way to being filled (in record time) by “them,” and almost certainly with less ruthlessness, murder, and oppression than under Saddam. Did you patronizingly believe that 80% of Iraqis are like ignorant sheep, and without their dominant bellwether, they would wander aimlessly off the cliff? They really WANTED to be oppressed, didn’t they?
(I don’t discount the risk of civil war in Democratic Iraq. We had one, Britain had a few — it happens. If there wasn’t a Shiite uprising against Saddam in a few decades, I find it less than certain that there will be a Sunni uprising against a government that includes them, especially realizing that it would likely escalate into a Shia/Sunni internal war, which if Bush planned, he’s got more foresight than anyone I’ve met.)
So let’s rewrite your post:
I thought Iraq was a highly sectarian region of the middle east being brutally oppressed by a minority military dictator, removing him would create a vacuum that we could not fill because I don’t think Iraqis really can be free, and turmoil we could not control, since I think Iraq was a magical fairyland of peace and justice when Saddam and sons ran things.
Neither did Bush, but he thought we couldn’t wait until he was an imminent threat.
Neither Clinton nor Bush agreed with you. Containment was ruled a failure by Clinton in 1998, when the Iraq Liberation Act was passed.
There are not terrorist states like Iraq all over the world with leaders who have encouraged, rewarded, and perpetrated terrorist acts against the US and its allies, and who at least bluffed at having WMD. Saddam was a rogue despot — he had to go, if only to serve notice to other dictators who didn’t want to end up being pulled from a spider-hole looking like a vagrant.
Davebo
Why on earth would ANYONE listen to John Cole’s opinion on Iraq?
Because of his proven record of predicting outcomes in the Middle East? I seriously doubt it.
What you are saying in essence John is “why would we listen to Collins? To have her smear into our faces yet again that we are basically clueless? To throw up yet again the fact that we were incredibly wrong?”
No one likes to have it pointed out to them that they are an idiot.
But most have the self respect to just scuddle away quitely rather than enforcing the caricature.
Nash
pmm:
I’m going to go way out on an actual attempt-at-communication limb, here, pmm and take you at face value that your questions are sincere.
What would [I] have done differently in March 2003?
Not attacked Iraq of course.
Keeping in mind that we didn’t know what we know now, what could we have done to resolve the situation?
I knew enough then not to invade Iraq in March 2003 from a combination of press accounts (you see, I’m one of those cretins who actually goes to multiple sources, print, tv, radio, to get my information.) And the story was definitely out there to be pieced together if you wanted to get your information from more than just FNC or just WaPo or just NYT or just CNN that your next statement that
is a the combination of an untruth and a dodge. There are several contemporaneous stories (two were Knight-Ridder, perhaps the most even-handed of all outlets on the stories from this time) in which the inspectors said they had gone through approx. 100 sites and needed to see about 600 more or so and wanted more time–but it was the US, not Saddam, who refused them more time. As an aside, you have never explained why an invasion had to be in March 2003, and no later than that. Which brings me to your next question.
Maintained, not lifted. And tweaked and strengthened if information that the sanctions were failing to work had come out. As it was, and I don’t claim I knew this at the time, the sanctions had worked brilliantly as far as keeping Saddam weak militarily. Whether that would remain the case is a debate neither of us can win.
Absolutely. This is precisely what the buildup accomplished and President Bush should be given full credit for the being strategically correct about this.
Indefinitely. As long as it took to complete the equivalent of the Duelfer Report BEFORE invading rather than after. If WMD, invade, if not, no invasion. I cannot have been the only human on the planet to see this. Again it gets back to the question none of you can answer without squeamishness. Why March 2003? Why not June 2005? Why not Dec. 2005? Why not March 2004? Remember, you are totally tied up in logical knots by your own admission that President Bush never said the threat from Saddam was imminent. You are totally tied up in ropes of obfuscation if you say that we had all the men and material there and couldn’t just sit there indefinitely. Says who? Wouldn’t it be easier to explain that standoff to the American people than the one you are contorting so to justify now? So, you really can’t explaing March 2003 without alot of twisting and hand waving.
That’s your first bit of out and out blather, ppm. Of course the Duelfer Report said that. They could just have easily noted that North Korea was preparing the capability to use WMD against the US or our Allies once the opportunity presented itself. With equal truthfulness and with equal significance. The fact is the Duelfer Report confirmed Saddam didn’t have WMD when our leaders said he did and that he wouldn’t be able to have them any time soon. The strategically correct move was to invade later on better information. And that is not a hindsight conclusion. Again, many of us were saying at the time that the evidence was being called into question when you looked at the sum total of press coverage. [Here is where you are supposed to blame bad intelligence, according to the script for Republican apologists. I now confidently call bullsh-t on that–what we didn’t know for sure then, but the Bush Administration did was that there was evidence being put before the Administration from numerous sources that the “Saddam has or will soon have WMD” meme was a not only leaky boat before we ever forced inspectors in in 2002, the meme was taking on more water every day that the inspections took place.]
Woulda shoulda coulda is how this ol world turns. Your backwards justifications don’t excuse the gross strategic blunder made by our President. In hindsight, he didn’t need to invade at all. At the time, however, it was completely clear to many of us that he was invading too soon.
pmm
TimF,
Please review my original post. Smijer implied that they could’ve done it themselves. I asked how. It’s not changing the subject.
To your broader point, there was nothing serendipitious about the liberation of the Iraqi people. It was an integral part of the plan, down to the name of the Operation “Iraqi Freedom”. It’s explicitly mentioned in everything from the congressional resolution authorizing the President to invade to pretty much every speech ever made on the topic. While I agree that it wasn’t the central component arguing for war, it was still there and you can’t just ignore it.
You can argue that librating the Iraqi people was insufficient reason to go to war, but you can’t say that it was just a lucky side-effect that war opponents can dismiss. That’s base-stealing. It’s like arguing the merits of the Civil War without recognizing that slavery was a component, or WWII without noting that the Axis were genocidal conquerers, not liberators.
This is NOT to say that war opponents are bad guys that “hate america” or support the enemy, but an honest anti-war position requires you to at least respond to the arguments in support of the invasion. In this case, why the liberation component of the argument in favor of invasion does not outweigh the factors against the invasion.
DougJ
“Your backwards justifications don’t excuse the gross strategic blunder made by our President.”
What strategic blunder? You libruls go on and on about poor planning in Iraq, but give me one example of something that could legitimately be called a blunder. Just one.
We toppled Saddam in record time. We have suffered very few casualties by historicla standards. We’ve got a functioning democracy. Soon there will be a constitution. I just don’t see any blunders.
Nash
Invading Iraq in March 2003.
How not to make this blunder, DJ? Easy,
Invade in March 2003? No, too soon, inspections not complete, allies not lined up, world support not lined up.
Invade later? Still possible, armed with information that Saddam actually has WMD from inspections and with better support from the world.
It was a strategic blunder of the first order, and as I’ve argued above, it was “knowable” that it was premature at the time. I didn’t guess that it was premature, I knew. The press told us that it was premature, even in spite of their best efforts not to. The press told us, against all their better angels of collusion, that the CIA itself had people questioning the slamdunkness. The press told us, in spite of their strongest interests, that the State Department had people questioning the slamdunkness of this. The press told us, even though they really hated doing it, that the Oct 2002 NIE had statements of significant disagreement with the slamdunkness of this.
That you didn’t see this isn’t my fault. It was there for you to see–I almost understand how you didn’t see this, because the press really didn’t want you to.
That Bush refused to acknowledge this is a strategic blunder and all the reason needed to know that he will never be considered a good president, but a failed one.
Defense Guy
The removal of Saddam Hussein had been established American Foreign Policy put in place by Clinton. I agree with it, as I agree that ALL tyrants should be removed from power. I tend to smile when we actually get around to doing what we say we should. I would replace the word contained in your post to removed and then say it is a fairly accurate description of established policy.
Now if you would like to ask why this tyrant and not others or point out that the UN had him contained, I will not really be willing to take your arguments seriously. If you ask nicely, I may even tell you why they are not convincing.
smijer
Wow… lot of comments have piled up since I wrote this morning.
Someone stated that they didn’t think it was realistic that Iraq would have ever become free without U.S. led intervention. I don’t think that’s true… I think that eventually, most every oppressed people will become free.
I don’t think that it is realistic that every oppressive regime in the world will become free in the next decade… I’m not even too optimistic at this point that Iraq will, although there is hope.
I do think that true freedom comes from the will of the people to be free, not the will of foreigners to try to create a utopia at the point of a gun.
I was not politically aware during Kosovo… I really don’t know whether we undertook that military action after diplomacy attempts failed, or if we jumped the gun. But there was an ongoing genocide there that the world could not ignore. It wasn’t just another case of a tin-pot dictator whose people weren’t free enough to suit us.
I’m not saying that the U.S. cannot use its power to help a people who are struggling to be free. When people want to be free, they may welcome help from abroad, including our own. But we weren’t invited to this war by a liberty movement.
And, as others pointed out, “liberation” was never more than a third-rate excuse for invasion. There was never the least effort to encourage Saddam towards democratic reform. It isn’t as though we relentlessly pursued a policy of democratic reform in Iraq through every peaceful means available, and only reluctantly decided to go to war when they all failed.
We still fail to lead the world in working toward democratic and human rights reform. We still shack up with despots like the regime in Uzbhekistan, and authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia any time it suits us.
Anyone who believes that the goal is the liberation of the Iraqi people is self-deceived. Anyone who believes that unilateral military action as a first resort toward liberation is the best way to form a self-governing people also doesn’t understand how self-government works.
mac Buckets
I suppose you’ll take it upon yourself to put the “price tag” on casualties, spreading freedom and national security concerns, right? The beauty of such a vague, interpretive criterion is, you get to define success according to your own personal partisan biases, and no one ever has to admit they were wrong!
For instance, since the left was whining about “10,000 Bodybags” before the war, will they grant that 1,800 casualties is a cost-benefit success? No, of course not. They just move the goalposts of outrage closer in.
So to decide whether a despot is worth fighting, you have to know not only the winner, but also the final score! Foreign policy via interpretation and fortune-telling! Wonderful…And you wonder why the left can’t even beat George W Bush in a national election.
Not a big FDR (“America must be the great arsenal of freedom”) or JFK (“pay any price, bear any burden”) guy, are you?
The US lost 400,000 soldiers dead and twice that wounded during WWII, and the major thing that came out of it in the end was Soviet and Chinese Communism. I suppose there are a lot of people (Jews, French, British) happy that we didn’t use your cost-benefit analysis to determine whether to fight then.
pmm
Nash,
Thanks for your interesting response. I appreciate the “jaw-jaw is better than war-war” stance you’ve taken. Let me try to answer the question you keep asking, namely why March 2003. In the interest of time, I’ll be going from memory but if you want to call bull on anything I say here, I’ll try to go find supporting documentation.
One big difference of opinion between us seems to be that you are confident that, with sufficient time, the inspectors would’ve been able to resolve the issue of Iraq’s WMDs conclusively, thus either proving or negating the case for war (we now know which it would’ve been). I think that the level of cooperation being received from Iraq would have made that impossible. Their brinksmanship and minimal cooperation meant that the weapons inspectors were on a scavenger hunt. And the previous decade of inspections did not indicate that the Iraqis would improve their cooperation. As the inspectors were prepared to search until the end of days, that means indefinite would really be forever. It was this impasse made March 2003 good ’nuff, since there was nothing to suggest that 6-months, 1-year, or 5-years would actually change the situation.
What’s more, the security council was already restless. They’d (notably France and Russia) been trying to get sanctions lifted back in 1999, and it was only because the US was pushing for war that they offered maintaining sanctions as a compromise.
Also, the idea that we could’ve maintained sufficiently high troop levels in Saudi, Kuwait, and Qutar and the Arabian Sea indefinitely would tie down a greater % of our force towards neutralizing a threat, not eliminating it. Our forces there would act as a motivator only so long as the likelihood of invasion was there. Once the administration made it clear that we were giving the inspectors all the time they said they needed, the invasion threat wouldn’t hold much water. When the threat is something like the USSR, that makes sense. But you can’t tie up substantial percentages of your forces indefinitely and not have anything to show for it.
You can point out that a lot more troops are tied up in Iraq now as a result, and I definitely don’t think the planners thought that would be the case, but the situation isn’t static over there–a new gov’t is coming up.
Another big difference in opinion between us is a factor that mitigates towards action sooner rather than later. You’ve pointed out that there were substantive disagreements in the interpretation of the intelligence that indicated what Iraq possessed, what they were trying to possess, and when they would get a show-stopper like nukes. You seem to imply that it’s obvious that Iraq lacked WMD capability. I would argue that the evidence available at that time was ambiguous, at least. For all the evidence suggesting that Iraq was clean, there was evidence suggesting it was dirty and could get capabilities it didn’t have. In a case such as that, you can either roll the dice and hope that he’s in his box or you can act on the worst-case scenario. You say the President blundered, I’d argue that he made a reasonable call at the time. As this is a judgement call, I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this.
Waiting isn’t always an option–again, North Korea and Iran suggest that if you wait long enough to have an iron-clad case, it could be too late.
Finally, I still don’t think you can dismiss the Duelfer report so easily. Supposing we had done as you asked, and Iraq had suddenly opened up sufficiently to prove to the inspectors that they were clean. Sanctions were predicated on their compliance, so they would’ve been dropped. The Duelfer report spends a lot of time showing that the Iraqis were prepared to ramp up R&D once the sanctions & inspectors were gone. So your way might buy us time, but it wouldn’t actually eliminate the threat. Hussein et al. would’ve just gone back to the drawing board, and the likelihood of a nuclear-armed Iraq (or one getting sufficient stockpiles of Bio/Chem) is practically inevitable. I don’t see how that would have helped us out, or what would change on the ground in the time we’d have brought.
pmm
Smijer wrote:
This clarification helps me understand your point, but I think you’re assuming that sufficient numbers of the Iraqi people aren’t working towards self-government. I agree that ultimately it’s up to the Iraqi people whether OIF succeeds or fails. At least we’ve given them a chance.
Defense Guy
I realize that this will chap your ass, but if the ends come out as hoped, he will go down as on par with FDR and Lincoln. This will likely cause fits of manic rage amongst some.
mac Buckets
If only we had something like Iraqi election results, or the writing of a new Constitution, to prove to you that Iraq really did want to be free. I hope gratefulcub, who assured me that liberals really don’t think that Iraq should’ve been left alone to fight Saddam’s military dictatorship with twigs and stones, is still reading.
So naive, like newborn puppies. “Pretty please, Saddam?” We expelled him from Kuwait without ousting him, we set up sanctions, we sat on our hands for 12 years. I guess we forgot to send the “Democratic Reform” fruit basket. Maybe we could’ve worked through his sons — Uday seemed a reasonable sort!
Anyone who believes that the Iraq War was “unilateral” is self-deceived or needs a dictionary. Anyone who thought the war was undertaken as a “first resort” was not “politically aware” from 1991-early 2003. Anyone who thinks that a country must free itself by itself to acheive self-government doesn’t know American history very well.
pmm
Were “liberation” really a post hoc excuse for the war, why was democratization such a big part of reconstruction right off the bat? Wouldn’t it have been quicker, easier, and less costly to simply install a puppet regime of some sort, or a strongman more attuned to our needs?
Nash
pmm, your response is both appreciated and helpful, and I have no reason to call bull on anything you said nor to make you scramble to sources for support. I think we both realize we’re at a strategic level here, finally, with minor tweaks for adjustments of “fact.”
One of those tweaks, off the top, though concerns
In the runup to war, there were 3 significant “entities” involved in this idea of the minimal cooperation being grudgingly provided by Saddam concerning the inspectors. One was the neocons favorite Iraqi, Chalabi, one was the NYT and the third was the civilian leadership in the Administration, but particularly in the Pentagon.
The following pattern was repeated time and again: Chalabi would make a claim to the NYT (usually, but not exclusively to J. Miller). He would also be making similar statements independently to the Pentagon and to the Iraq Survey Group in the White House. Miller would second source these tips from Chalabi by querying Pentagon sources and or White House sources, who would happily confirm them and everything would fit nicely into what appeared to be a legitimate story, except that the stories inevitably turned out to be false or unverifiable. This is how we got the Curveball lies (remember that the weapons or their components were buried in a backyard?) This is how we got the unverified reports repeated as verified that Saddam was shipping the goods to Syria. This is how we got several stories about scientists being cowed into silence by threats from Saddam, including assassinations of family members. In all of these cases, these stories were actually single-sourced to Chalabi or via his “assigns” to him.
This is not to say that Saddam wasn’t making an effort to hinder these inspections. Except that his motivation is now known to have been not that he didn’t want the inspectors to find his stash of WMD, but that he didn’t want the inspectors to find that he didn’t have a stash of WMD. Looked at from the pan-Middle Eastern strategic standpoint of the genocidal madman Saddam, his actions actually make sense. So, it is clear in hindsight that given time, we were going to eventually figure out and prove to ourselves and the world that he didn’t have WMD or a near-term capability to have them. The question is, could we have figured this out at the time if we had allowed the inspectors to continue their jobs? That question has been asked and answered already–to the extent that the inspectors themselves said that they were making progress and wanted to continue the effort. It will be quite awkward for you to acknowledge that it wasn’t Saddam who sent these inspectors packing against their wishes and against the wishes of the UN Security Council. It was the Bush Administration.
I guess a shorter way of making my point is to say that you are using a “Saddam noncooperating means we would never know if he had WMD” meme that was being forwarded by the Bush Administration itself and contradicted by the people actually in the field in Iraq. You cannot then logically turn around and say that the Bush Administration’s use of this line of argument is a defense for their decision to remove the inspectors. I’m not saying it well, but logically, it was incumbent upon the Administration to allow the inspectors to prove them right or wrong. Saddam’s brinksmanship and minimal cooperation thus didn’t mean that the inspectors were on a scavenger hunt, it meant that eventually they would demonstrate that absence of anything passed the threshold of coincidence. Eventually, one Curveball story too many would unravel the whole scheme.
I’d like to consider some more of what you have to say before replying, because I think you are making a legitamite argument
mac Buckets
Hey, if someone wants to delude himself with the DNC lie about Iraq’s liberation being a “new, third-rate justification” for the War, then there are easier ways to show the truth. It took me 10 seconds to Google Bush’s pre-war speeches about Iraq, and every single one of them says something like these extracted paragraphs:
“America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.”
“Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq’s people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.”
“But America’s cause is always larger than America’s security. We also stand for the advance of freedom and opportunity and hope. The lives and freedom of the Iraqi people matter little to Saddam Hussein, but they matter greatly to us.”
“The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interests in security, and America’s belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.”
“I have a deep desire for peace. That’s what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don’t like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody. That’s not the intention of the American people or our government. We believe in freedom and we believe in peace. And we believe the Iraqi dictator is a threat to peace. And so that’s why I made the decisions I made, in terms of Iraq.”
gratefulcub
MacBuckets,
I checked in. I agree with your idea, if not your rhetoric. Iraq was not going to become a democratic free republic any time soon on their own. anyone that believes that it was, is naive and self delusional.
I didn’t have time to respond to you earlier, when you jumped on my point about removing sh, the strongman, would leave a vacuum of power.
I don’t really have time to explain myself fully, but I will try to give it the cliff note treatment.
Strongman wasn’t used instead of dictator for any reason. What i was saying was that he, and his henchmen, controlled the nation and that prevented civil war. That doesn’t mean that I support him, or love him, or think Iraq was paradise. Just stating a fact that through fear and violence he ‘held together’ the country. Not in a patriotic nationalist sort of way.
My fear was that when we removed him, we would unleash sectarian and tribal feuds that we could not contain. We can’t fill the vacuum for the long term. We can provide some security in the short term, but they have to be sovereign in the long term.
If i thought the end result would be democracy, I would possibly have supported the invasion. Unfortunately, that is not the way i see it.
The problem with turning a dictatorship into a democracy the way we did, is that it has to be created from the ground up. there are no democratic traditions, there is no respect for a constitution, there has never been a peaceful transfer of power, etc. All of the things that make a democracy. (and don’t jump me for saying that Iraqis aren’t capable of democracy and call me a bigot, because that is not what I am saying in the least) Democratization is a long process.
Under SH, there were no moderate political parties. The only semblence of parties with popular support, come from the mosques. SH couldn’t crack down on them because that would risk a true people’s rebellion. So, the SCIRIs and Dawa’s were allowed to exist. Now, when democracy is sprung overnight, they become the dominant political parties in the country. There are few moderate voices in the government, and there will be fewer once we leave.
These are my fears. i don’t have a crystal ball. Democracy may spread from Baghdad to the entire region. But, I read everything I could get my hands on about Iraq and the ME (acedemic books, not Daily kos) during the runup to war, I tried to inform myself, and I couldn’t help but think that anyone that thought we could go in and set up a new democratic government in Iraq without babysitting it for a generation was delusional. I hope it works, I truly do. And, I don’t support a withdrawl today. We can’t just leave and let them have at each other.
I was in a hurry, I tried to stay on the single point of the power vacuum leading to civil war, but I flew through it and I know there are tons of holes because I didn’t have time to fill them.
By the way, some of your post was completely overboard and off base. The ‘iraqis running off a cliff’ and me thinking they weren’t capable of a decent government, or wanting to be oppressed….all of it. if you get to know me at all, the what you will notice is that I won’t attack you, I won’t put words into your mouth that make you sound like a bigot, and I will answer any questions you have about my point. We are talking about something that deserves lengthy chapters, and we are doing it in soundbites. i’m not a writer. I will give bullet points, and they start conversations, but before you attack, please try to communicate and we can have a useful discussion. i truly want to know what you believe and what you think, that is why I am here at all. But, “ignorant sheep, and without their dominant bellwether, they would wander aimlessly off the cliff” is not what I said or implied.
Nash
I absolutely agree with you, mB, he most certainly did say such things as
But here’s where I’m going to ask you to be just as absolutely intellectually honest as you are asking us to be. A thought experiment if you will.
Pretend we know for a fact that Saddam’s Iraq doesn’t pose an immediate threat to us. In fact, pretend we know for a fact he has absolutely no WMD nor capability to create them in the near term.
Now, say that we also know for a fact that he is a genocidal madman who has and most certainly will continue to murder his own people by the thousands.
Here’s the test of intellectual honesty. If you laid out the above scenario for the American people, such that every last American understood these facts, would a majority favor removing Saddam if it meant the invasion of his country by US ground forces and the projected deaths of thousands of Americans?
I maintain that given our history, this would not meet the threshold for support of an invasion by the American people. Up to now, we have always fought these types of wars for only two reasons*:
1. They have attacked us. (Japan, Al Qaeda, not Iraq) or
2. We went in believing (even if mistakenly) we could play some variation of “remove the tyrant” cheaply in terms of US lives (Vietnam, Kosovo).
I don’t think your war in Iraq gets started (moves from relatively antiseptic no-fly zones to Americans dead on the ground) if the President tells you we are doing it for exclusively noble reasons having nothing to do with our security. I don’t think an American public supports President Bush to do this. I think President Bush thinks this as well. I think that is why it is absolutely necessary to also make Saddam a threat to our security and to falsely conflate him with an enemy who has actually attacked us (Al Qaeda).
* a little nudge wink on this claim. Categorizing, e.g, the Mexican-American and the Spanish-American wars by these criteria can be an exercise in moral turpitude.
gratefulcub
It was all in there. He mentioned freedom and democracy. But the war was sold as SH being a threat that had to be dealt with. And members of the administration went out and sold it in a way that I am not comfortable with. “Mushroom clouds”
I don’t think the American people would have ever supported a war based on liberating the iraqi people.
Liberals like to ask “if we did it to liberate Iraq, why don’t we liberate Uzbekistan?”
Because the people would never fight a war to liberate Uzbekistan.
This country was scared shitless in the prelude to this war. They were easy to sell to through fear. That’s the way it was sold.
Don
I don’t understand. I opposed the new Nationals stadium but it looks like it’s going to happen anyway. So now I am not allowed to have an opinion on it any more? I mean, we’re not even talking about INPUT – why would I have THAT on how my tax dollars are spent? – but no opinion on it is acceptable either?
huh. who knew?
smijer
“Wanting to be free”, and being ready to create freedom (as gratefulclub has pointed out) are two different things. A nation is ready to create freedom when they fire the shots at Lexington, then send Ben Franklin to the powerful nation overseas for help… not when Napolean decides it’s time for America to be free.
Such tunnel vision… like newborn rabid puppies, blind in one eye… You know, we set up a few resolutions to protect the Kurdish controlled regions (which wound up working pretty well), and to protect the Saudis and Kuwaitis… also pretty effective… But at no point did we practice anything like diplomacy aimed at freeing Iraq. No, that wouldn’t have meant sending the Democratic Reform fruit basket. At least not to Saddam… Yeah, maybe to Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, and getting them interested in putting pressure on Saddam.. Maybe organizing a group of friendly nations who made it known that they stood ready to assist the Iraqis, should they decide to rise up in revolt in order to bring about freedom…
No… when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail… but America outside the neocon community has plenty of other tools. Those who recognize this are not the naively innocent ones.
A series of slaps on the hand, not aimed at anything but keeping Saddam’s military weak and his people underfed (both fairly successful, for what they were)… yeah… I’m politically aware of that… Without serious efforts at diplomacy with the goal of restoring freedom and/or human rights, and we were without them… the invasion was the first resort.
Just like his compassionate conservative rhetoric… full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And hearing them reminds me ominously of the scene in Seven Years in Tibet when the Chinese troops crossed Tibet’s boarders with the radio propagandist encouraging the Chinese to “liberate them! Liberate the Tibetans!”
The belief that this war was motivated out of hopes for a better future for Iraqis is not just self-deception. It can only be intentional self-deception..
Considering how our military has been stretched to its breaking point “liberating” Iraq, and has so far been unsuccessful, I think that those people who believe that the answer to every dictator is an aggressive military strike need to quit smoking whatever that is they’re smoking… It ain’t the rest of us who are innocent puppies.
Everyone else, please excuse the flames.. I prefer civil discourse, but I’m in one of those moods today where I don’t mind stooping to the other guy’s level.
smijer
gratefulclub… I expressly made clear that I didn’t think freedom in Iraq without American military intervention would happen “anytime soon”… especially not with some initiative being taken by the Arab world and the world at large… But, Uzbekhistan ain’t going to happen any time soon, either…
Why single out the one “tough nut” that isn’t going to be cracked without breaking its people, the entire mideast, and the American treasury? Why not single out a nation where there was hope for a transition to democracy more quickly, where concerted effort on the part of the world at large might have made a positive difference? Why not single out a nation (Sudan, anyone?) where the situation is an emergency and it’s people are being slaughtered at a rate where it is unconscionable not to gather support and find a solution, even if it is terribly difficult and costly?
And yes… if we, and our allies, pursued solutions toward justice and freedom around the world… eventually Iraq would have found a way to join their free neighbors. They might have even asked for help from the U.S… at that point, I think maybe a lot more people would have been willing to provide it.
Defense Guy
And some would say that it is equally likely that a man who had shown such propensity for evil would continue to be a murderous, lying thug in at least some major way.
The thing that makes your argument fall apart is that attempts at reason with those who will not be reasonable, are ultimately doomed to failure. Had MLK existed under Stalins rule, you can be fairly certain the ‘overcoming’ would have been waylaid due to untimely death. The message would not have gotten out.
smijer
But Stalin is gone… Putin’s there now, and he’s got lot’s of problems, but MLK would have a fightin’ shot these days. If we had taken the same route with Stalin that we took with Saddam, we’d all be dead now.
smijer
P.S. Saddam was an asshole, but if it was hurting his own prestige, pocketbook, or whatever was most important to him, you’d be amazed at how quick he’d start being reasonable… I’m not saying it would have been him – it might have been one of the sons, or one of their successors… I guess that depends on how smart the rest of us were. Eventually, the people would have seen that the world wanted a free Iraq, they would have reflected that, “hey, so do we”, and the tyrant would have fallen. There might have been war, but any non-Iraqis fighting in it would have been there by invitation, not by force.
mac Buckets
Nash–
First of all, if pre-war polls were used to decide whether we should go to war, we also wouldn’t have entered other wars which are now commonly agreed to be just wars. Obviously, we are a peaceloving people (and strangely, two wars with some of the most solid pre-war popular support were both against Saddam).
Second, while you note that people should know that Saddam killed his own people, you’re leaving out things like Kuwait, the assassination attempt on Bush 41, rewarding terrorists, vocally supporting terror against the US and its interests, breaking the ceasefire, defying UN Resolutions, etc., and these incidents had nothing to do with whether Saddam had WMD in 2003. As long as we’re testing our intellectual honesty, let’s also be honest about Saddam.
So, hypothetically, I’d guess that, if WMD in 2003 were taken out of the equation, it would depend on one factor as to whether the American people’s support for the invasion, at the cost of 1,800 American GIs’ lives, would slide one way or the other. Independants would likely split “60% approve-30% disapprove-10% don’t know/care” for whatever the President wanted to do to Saddam. I believe that Republicans would support invasion (they hated Saddam for a variety of reasons, they supported Bush41’s, Clinton’s, and Bush43’s attacks on Iraq on principle, and spreading democracy in the ME hits all the right Reagan/Bush43 notes for long-term vision), and I think that Democrats’ support of invasion would range from 25% to 85% dependent on whether it were a Democrat President calling for war. Call me cynical, but I base this on the Clinton years, and how there was virtually no active (or even vocal) dissent among Democrats, even hardcore liberals, to Clinton’s “unilateral” (non-UN sanctioned) attacks on Iraq — because of their perceived but unproven WMD threat — and Yugoslavia, neither of which posed an imminent threat to the US.
WWII as regarded Europe doesn’t seem to fit either category. Then again, popular support for the US entering the European War was so low that FDR and Wilke both ran strongly on “I’ll keep us out of Europe,” knowing full well that we’d be in it.
Ironically, current polls show that 80% thought that was a just war (the highest among those wars polled) that was worth the incredibly high price. It goes to show that people think in the extreme short-term in supporting a war at the time, and only years later come to a clear realization of whether it was a net good or not. I think there’s a lesson there about Iraq.
I might buy this if 1) Clinton and all the major Democrats hadn’t already been saying for seven years that Saddam was a real and grave WMD threat to the US — let’s not pretend that Bush needed to invent anything here, and 2) if Bush had actually claimed that Saddam had any type of hand in 9/11. Those are two massive “ifs,” though.
So if you’re saying that Bush manufactured the Saddam threat because he couldn’t get public support for an invasion based on the merits of ousting Saddam, I’m not buying, for a number of reasons.
mac Buckets
The major voice in Iraqi politics, Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, is a true secularist moderate who believes it is a sin for a cleric to hold political office. When Iraqi people have been polled since their elections, they have been positive about the chances for success of their democracy, and positive about maintaining a society where everyone is free to practice their own religion.
Pardon me if I ran with an argument that I’ve heard many times…but an argument that you weren’t making. When we talk in bullet-points, you’re absolutely right, some things get lost in interpretation.
I will say that when you say that you oppposed ousting Saddam because it would “create” a vacuum and turmoil we couldn’t control, it seems to be saying that a) a vacuum of power (which may produce a democracy) is worse than Saddam in power and b) the “turmoil we couldn’t control” was not already existent with Saddam in power. The first, even assuming a vacuum, is arguable, the second is flatly incorrect.
mac Buckets
Smijer –
I’ll just say that for every dictator you can name (if you can name even one) who, at society’s request, voluntarily gave up his position in order to enable democracy, I’ll name you five (ten? twenty?) Castros and Stalins who preferred to keep their jobs. I really believe this is an absolutely naive notion.
smijer
MB,
There are a couple of “dictators” who have chosen reform, for reasons varying from economic failure of his system, to international pressure, to fear of revolution. What is naive, or tunnel vision, is the belief that the only way freedom comes is from a dictator choosing to suddenly give up power in favor of democracy on the one hand or aggressive war by foreigners on the other. I think history shows that neither path to freedom has been the historical norm.
One historical norm is a revolutionary movement that begins at home when the ruling powers are weakened (as Saddam was since the early 1990’s), whether pursued peacefully, through violence, or by turns through both. Consider the famous reforms of the past, be they liberations, or merely moves toward reform:
The Magna Carta came about through the organization of British nobility against the King.
The French Revolution – led by Frenchmen with a vision for “liberty, equality, and fraternity”.
The American Revolution (the British were strong at home, but weak in the New World, with little motivation to quell a revolution in the colonies) – led by Americans with a vision for liberty and justice for all.
Indian Independence – led by Ghandi, and his peaceful “homespun” movement.
The end of Apartheid – led by Nelson Mandela, who invited assistance of various forms from overseas.
Polish Solidarity – led by the Polish with assistance from a Polish pope.
The Rose Revolution – led by Georgians, concluded peacefully…
Another historical norm toward liberation occurs when the ruling powers are strong. Being strong, they move toward empire, and unite their targets and enemies defensively against themselves…. the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, and Nazi Germany, to name a few.
What examples do we have from history where a powerful foreign and culturally alien nation warred agressively against an autocratic regime and created a successful and free nation in it’s place? The Balkans? Maybe… Haiti? Not really. Vietnam? Not really, and at fantastic cost. Somalia? Absolutely not… I’ll have to give credit to Reagan where it concerned Grenada and Panama, but those nations were right in our back yard and shared a lot of our European history and culture. Their people lacked the long-held distrust of and animosity toward America and the West. Their people were united in cultural, religious, and national identity, making the road to liberty much more clear of obstacles than anything Iraq faces.
Extremism, Islamic or otherwise, is a bad and infectious idea. To defeat it means a war of ideas, more than bullets. It will be the smartest, not the most aggressive, who will find a way to create peace, protect the world from violent extremists, and foster liberty and justice around the world.
smijer
P.S… How could I leave out the Velvet Revolution?? That, too.
mac Buckets
Not to belabor the point, but there are literally hundreds of absolute rulers who chose to continue oppressing their people while living fat and happy, even under failing economic systems, international pressure to reform, and internal pressures.
Of course, those are not the only conceivable ways. I would argue that, for Iraq at this time, the way we chose will end up with the fewest dead people, though.
When you first mentioned “diplomatic solutions,” you discussed
I’ll guarantee everybody reading this that the “We’ve got your back” approach, besides being a proven failure (Bush 41, Clinton) in limited terms and pie-in-the-sky in substantial terms, would have resulted in Saddam’s military (fifth largest in the world at the time) creating a quarter-million dead Shiites, easy, and gotten the US-led coalition into the same long-term situation we are in now, if anyone would’ve kept their promise to “have Iraq’s back.” That’s not my idea of a “diplomatic solution.”
We could’ve waited until Saddam, or Uday, or Uday’s son’s sons, were weakened, but you’re arguing there for prolonged inaction, which is tough to defend (even outside of WMD/terrorist fears) knowing what Saddam was doing, physically and financially, to the majority population in Iraq. Saddam was strong, mainly because of oil and the fact that he kept his enemies weak by, well, filling mass graves with them. Bear in mind that Clinton tried the quiet-backing of willing, revolutionary Iraqi “insurgents” as part of the Iraqi Liberation Act, and you know what happened: mass graves.
So are we in uncharted territory, setting up a foreign-style democracy in a place that’s never had it? A bit, yeah. I think post-war Japan (and in a more limited sense, West Germany) is a decent comparison to post-war Iraq in a lot of regards. Reagan had the small successes with democratization that you mentioned, but nothing on this scale. The Balkans, similar.
The Iraqi people are confident when polled that they will have a democracy with minority rights, and Bush believes that once democratic freedoms are given, they are impossible to take away, because it is the natural state of humans to be free.
Nash
mB, you clearly are incapable of being intellectually honest.
Strawman. Unlike in a totalitarian state, in a democracy, the leadership must account for the level of support of its own citizenry. It has very little to do with taking a democracy to war–that is relatively easy, so the pre-war poll strawman of yours is a dodge. The intellectually honest issue is whether the leadership in a democracy can maintain internal support at high enough levels to keep the country at war. What is happening is actual proof of my point. President Bush was able to take us to war with Iraq easily and with high support. He is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain support for that war.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said and I didn’t in my original statement either. All of that has still proven insufficient to keep support high enough for his war. You continue to prove my point.
First, WWII as regarded Europe is a silly issue. As you say, our leadership knew we were going to be entering that war and had already been quietly heading us in that direction while publicly saying otherwise. Once again, this proves my point–in a democracy, the leadership must build support for a war and then must maintain it. Dictators don’t have to face that problem. However, once the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, we were obviously instantly in “WWII as regarded Europe.” Axis Allies. So, that’s silly.
I maintain you are in your own little faux world on these guesses. Thru all these Clinton years you deride while also saying the Clintonistas agreed Saddam was a big threat so how can one blame Bush anyway, there was no public push for invading Iraq. Revise history in your mind all you want, but other people will remember that we did not wake up every day thru the 90’s wondering when the hell we were going to send the marines in to get rid of Saddam.
Precisely!!!! I thank you…for as many times as I’ve addressed this, I’ve never been able to put it as clearly or succinctly as you have–that is precisely my point. Bush knew ousting Saddam for noble reasons wasn’t going to be sufficient to keep support for the war from the American people and had to elevate the true but oversold idea that Saddam was a threat, both through an orchestrated campaign to fake people into thinking they were hearing two things: Saddam was involved in 9/11 by virtue of ties to Al Qaeda and Saddam was enough of a threat to American security that waiting for the inspectors to finish their work wasn’t possible. He didn’t every say either of those things, he just wanted us to think he had. A majority of Americans now agree with that statement.
But you put it much better than I’ve ever been able to.
smijer
True this… Never indefinitely, but always longer than we would like. Eventually, a house of cards will tumble.
If Iraq – at that time – had been ripe for regime change, other solutions might have presented themselves.
If Iraq – at that time – had been so much greater an emergency situation than, for instance, Zimbabwe, Iran, Uzbhekistan, North Korea, etc… then perhaps it would deserve priority status, and merit the death of tens or hundreds of thousands to bring justice there.
Iraq – at that time – was tunnel vision. We had so many opportunities, and the whole world with us after 9/11. Iraq was not fair return on that capital.
As you point out, 41 & 42 only paid lip service to having the back of a popular uprising in Iraq, and promised only American intervention on behalf of one – so we can’t count that a failure of the policy I laid out.
Yes, the way such a policy played out the way it was implemented there did lead to ruin. But it wasn’t played out smartly. Saddam figured on the fact that the peeps of the U.S. would not give political support to a Westerners-only action of that nature on behalf of an ill-defined and unfocused resistance group.
If this policy was pursued with assistance from a reforming Egypt, Turkey, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, and the peeps of Iraq had a real vision of freedom they felt was worth fighting for, the scenario would likely have played out quite differently.
I don’t think it’s tough to defend at all. America was quite comfortable with leaving Saddam to his own devices when he was doing the exact same thing, physically and financially, to the majority population in Iraq for the last thiry years. Rumsfeld sold them WMD to fight Iran with. Halliburton signed them up for an oil pipeline.
Many of us rabid left-wingers were unhappy with it… but no more unhappy than we were with the same things going on in dozens of other countries – and much, much worse.
What is tough to defend is the way Iraq was singled out with “liberate them! liberate them!” and a deadly war, when there was so much else we and our allies could have been doing to ease the burden of people suffering under autocratic regimes, and people who were ripe and ready for freedom and asking for help.
…
Not quite… if you added that the “means” justified by the “ends” of seting up a democracy was aggressive warfare… well, then you might say we are in nearly uncharted territory. And it’s territory I would have prefered never made it onto our charts.
I hope they’re right.
I have nearly as hard a time caring what Bush believes as I do knowing what Bush believes. I know what he says, and it sure does sound purty. But his actions don’t line up with his words… just as when he said that invasion was a “last resort”, yet rushed the weapons inspectors OUT! OUT! OUT! so that he could get his tanks rolling before popular support for the war could die.
Nevertheless, I hope that the ideas and flowery rhetoric he preaches have some truth to him. I do hope the best for the Iraqi people, but I expect that, so long as the “Great Satan” is their chief security force and their government is considered to be a puppet for the Pentagon by many of their people and their neighbors… a free and peaceful Iraq will not emerge.
smijer
P.S. Saddam was weak. Witness the evaporation and surrender of his “elite” Republican guard. He had barely enough power to keep his starved population in line, and nothing else.
mac Buckets
Nonsense. I answered every question you asked honestly, and clearly delineated my reasoning to alleviate doubt. Let’s see what your beef is.
Wait wait wait. First of all, you aren’t using the term “strawman” correctly, but that’s as common as expletives in blogging today. More importantly, you’re changing theses in mid-argument here. Your original post said:
Your tenses there (“will continue to murder,” not “would have continued,” and “would the majority favor removing” not “would have favored“) certainly indicate that we were talking about pre-invasion support for the war, not post-war support, or reconstruction-era support. Now you are changing your thesis to ignore pre-war support, and only focus on keeping up mid-war or post-war public support? You’ve officially got me (and I suspect, yourself) confused.
Well, then you should’ve said so originally, and I’d have been arguing that point. Note how you say twice “This is the test of intellectual honesty,” and then ask two different questions, one indicating pre-war support and the other mid-war or reconstruction support.
Plus, I don’t believe your second question has much to do with intellectual honesty, as it requires a good deal of projection and interpretation. It has a lot to do with media, and a lot to do with political hardlines and a number of crystal-ball issues, so I think the intellectually honest answer is: We just don’t know much effect low public support of a war will have on a second-term President, when even the opposition party says we must stay until the job in Iraq is finished. Probably not much in the short-term, maybe more in the longer term. But we don’t know.
If you would’ve asked this question the first time, I could’ve saved a lot of typing.
It’s not really an issue of contention at all. It’s just a vanilla example of a war which doesn’t fit neatly into the two categories which you laid out upthread, plus a little practical lesson in public support at the time of war versus public support in retrospect. No big whoop.
The rest of your post is rubbish like this that is in no way relevant to the original topic, since you’ve changed your thesis. Just realize that first, I never derided Clinton in the least (so keep your knees from jerking for a moment) and second, you should be able to discern an obvious difference in the public’s supporting the President once he has made a decision and the public demanding that particular decision in the first place. For example, the public didn’t clamor for Clinton to bomb Saddam in 1998, but once the bombs fell, it was rally-’round-the-flag time.
A few problems, besides the ones I pointed out earlier: If Bush’s motives were “to keep support for the war from the American people,” (and I’m assuming from the word “keep” that we’re talking about your mid-war or post-war support argument, not your pre-war support argument) why on earth would he willfully manufacture or overhype a threat that he knew couldn’t stand the scrutiny of post-war inspections of Iraq? Bush would’ve known that once we found little-to-no WMD threat and no mash notes saying “I love you, Osama! Hugs and Kisses, Saddam,” the public support would be, well, like what it is today, so hyping has no positive long-term effects. If Bush were concerned about “keeping” support high by manufacturing a threat, he’d have certainly planted WMD in Iraq by now. Or am I supposed to believe that he’s evil enough to send soldiers to their deaths for a “lie,” but not evil enough to do the easiest thing that would validate his decision to the Whole Wide World?
Your “hyping the threat” argument is more suited for your original idea about pre-war support.
mac Buckets
There’s no “if” about it, and there are a hundred quotes from Democrats and Republicans alike saying that Iraq was the threat we should be most concerned about. As much as you’d like to, we just can’t talk about pre-invasion Iraq without talking about seven years and two Administrations worth of bi-partisan beliefs that Saddam had WMD and was a real, grave threat. We also must talk about Kuwait, the ceasefire, the UN Resolutions, the terrorist state, and the other issues that made Iraq an enemy of the free world on a level far surpassing the countries you mentioned.
I don’t believe for a second that the “whole world was with us after 9/11” in any substantive sense. Of course, there was sadness for the innocents in civilized circles, but every country who felt our pain was always going to pursue its own self-interests, regardless of any sympathy they might’ve felt. Is anyone seriously willing to argue that Germany would’ve given up, say, a million Deutschmarks worth of GDP because terrorists had attacked the US? Come on, that’s beyond naive. The “squandered goodwill” argument is among the silliest I’ve ever heard, but it sounds good to the Kum-Ba-Yah crowd.
Yes, even under the Golden Scenario you mention (that I have a lot of historical problems with, but no matter) it would’ve played out to the tune of a quarter-million dead, outgunned Shiites, at the very least. Then it would be the “allies” turn to either back them or decide they want no part. But those dead guys are still dead. Asking the long-oppressed Shiites to fight for themselves against the fifth-largest military in the world was asking for them to get mown down like grass. Again, not my idea of a “diplomatic solution.”
Just when I thought you were trying…oh, well. It’s too late for that garbage.