Quite so. But lest we forget, Iraq was an active theater of activity for our military. We were conducting ongoing operations there for the last decade. I’d be quite shocked if President Bush were not briefed on the situation, including some of the contingency work, before he even moved into the White House.
Certainly. The 60 Minutes piece was vague about what was discussed at NSC meetings, and what came from the pentagon. NSC discussion of post conquest oil contracts, or war tribunals would indicate high level preparations for an actual invasion in early 2001, but we don’t have that. Maybe we will when the book comes out?
Because he wasn’t flogging a book then?
I’m not sure even then would we have damaging evidence. If there were contingency plans to invade Iraq would they not have included discusions about what to do with the oil? How to best ensure its safety etc.? Now, if someone said something along the lines of “Well, all these contingency plans left over from the Clinton administration call for us to allow CompanyX manage the oil well. Clearly we have to change that to Haliburton…” If they said it pre 9/11, then maybe. Personally, I find that highly unlikely. But stranger things have happened.
The war was about gaining a spot for potential military bases in the future amidst the oil fields. Iraq was the geopolitically ideal spot for such - not only are the Persian Gulf supplies right next door, but the massive Caspian reserves are within a few hundred km as well. Yes, the US forces may be withdrawing within the year, but there can always be a subsequent invasion to “clean up our own mess” and get in position to exert influence on either region.
Whether or not the war was moral is a question of personal view.
But if one adheres to the Kantian definition of morality (i.e. the action itself must be moral) virtually any offensive war is wrong. Contemporary wars are not started for reasons of morality - they are an extension of politics, not righteousness or personal vendettas (unless the guy in charge is completely nuts). As much as parts of the Dubya-hating crowd want to believe that the war was retaliation over the assassination attempt on Bush Senior, the possibility of that being the central motive is about as plausible as a fish needing an umbrella.
hhhmmm… I agree that planning for war scenarios is a “normal or regular” thing. So the Bush regime might have pre-planned taking down the Saddam regime… but what many are missing is that it certainly seems that it was way more than theoretical and military standard fare. They were actively seeking to use these plans with little provocation or excuse…
The sad part was that they did very little in other arenas to “prepare” for a greater acceptance of the invasion. They sent troops but not diplomats.
Another point I haven't seen anyone take up is the fact that Al Qaeda was used as an excuse to attack Iraq. Iraq was a target even before Osama Bin Laden was a major menance. Which makes it clear that the "War on Terror" has been diverted to "War on Target Chosen Before things happened". So one wonders if Al Qaeda and Osama would have been hurt more if diversions like Iraq and pissing off allies were not happening.
Finally the most shocking part:
They actually planned for the aftermath ! I shudder to imagine how much worse things would be without these plans ! :)Sure we would. This wasn’t just any NSC meeting, it was the president’s very first NSC meeting:
No competent planner would have allowed a theoretical discussion of Iraq post-war minutiae at what would normally be an organizational meeting, without having a damned good reason.
After all, they could have spent the time discussing Clinton’s report on the threat posed by international terrorists and Osama bin Laden. They chose not to.
Sure, I bet W was hell-bent on invading Iraq and avenging his daddy. But does he have deniability suitable for the sheep of America?
Of course!
Now, the Army War College is openly admitting that the War in Iraq unnecessary, and could have been avoided.
Muchless, that the War in Iraq, is detracting from the focuse of the War on Terrorism. Which is the most open ended war in American history.
I also would like to know when 9-11 will stop being our excuse for doing everything. When will we finally accept some responsibility for our actions?
Color me confused but Saddam had been ignoring U.N. demands for almost a decade before 9/11, the reasons to go to war did not change on 9/11. The only thing that 9/11 changed was the U.S. public’s belief that they were invulnerable to attack.
Well, that article did not seem to say that the meeting was his first. But, would id have been his VERY first. I may be mistaken, but didn’t Bush have organizational meetings before moving into the white house? Would those sorts of meetings have been considered the first official meeting? Also, if the plans had been circulating since Clinton, they may very well have been included in the first meeting. I know Iraq came up a couple times during the campaign. Given that we did not have many other theaters where our troops were under threat, it may have even had a prominent place in the very first meeting.
The only thing that would make this seem more of a smoking gun to me, would be if Bush insisted at a very early meeting that changes had to be made to the plan. I’m not sure what would have to show up to constitute proof of that though.
from skepdic:
post hoc fallacy
The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.
Which is all we have here, Post hoc reasoning. Dont you think we also have an attack plan for Cuba? Im sure we do, for many years now. If we attack Cuba tomorrow does that mean GW has wanted to do so since he came into office?
We had an attack plan for Iraq because Saddam had already shown that he was not a resonable person. We had no idea what he might do next, so we prepared ourselves…big deal.
So either I agree with you or im an idiot sheep? how about I just think your wrong?? Can i think your wrong and still be smart?
Not at all!
If I decide to drive out to California, I have to put gas in my care first.
Putting gas in my car is a necessary condition for driving to the coast.
Anyone who notices that I put gas in my car could reasonably conclude that I had moved a step along a pathway that could lead to my driving to California.
There are other possible reasons why I may have gassed up my car, but if it later turns out that I have gone to California, many of those other reasons begin to seem less probable.
Apparently Bush used his very first NSC meeting to gas up the station wagon of war.
from Squink
First, even if I know you are going to CA, seeing you put gas in your car means nothing. You could be going to work for all I know! How do I know your leaving for CA right after pumping the gas? You could be leaving a month later for all I know. For that matter you could be taking someone elses car, or a rental. One does not relate to the other.
If I see you in CA how does that mean you drove? You still could have flown, taken a train, a taxi, bus…whatever. The only way I would know is to ask you directly, and you answer me. Until then I am speculating, and not even doing that very well.
NSC discussions are a necessary part of the causal chain which leads to war, just like putting gas in my car is a necessary part of driving to California.
Given the result, me in California, or Bush in Baghdad; car gassing up, or NSC discussions must have happened at some point.
It’s not post hoc ergo propter hoc, unless the events do not necessarily form part of a causal chain.
If you wish to argue that Bush could have gone to war without discussing it at NSC meetings, have at it. Otherwise, all that’s being discussed here is the timing of the event chain that led to invasion. There’s no fallacy in that.
Looks like once again the Anti-Bush crowd jumped the gun. According to CNN Paul O’Neill denies everying put forth in this debate:
Is this not exactly what we said all along?
The situation in Iraq started looooong before Bush Jr and long before 9/11. You went to war because Saddam refused to agree with UN weapon inspectors and refused to step down when he had the chance. Saddam had the ability to prevent this war, he brought this on his country, he is the only one responsible for Iraqi civilian deaths.
I also want to repeat the fact that Saddam didn’t need to have physical WMD on hand to violate the agreements with the UN. The UN already knew he had them, he was asked to show proof that he destroyed them. Its time to stop this rediculous notion that Pres. Bush decided to lie about WMD to send his country to war. The only one tha lied was Saddam.
I loved this part…
That’s right. Blame it on the boogey man. He lied when he was saying he didn’t have any, and now he lied about lying about not having any.
Don’t tell me, that recent outbreak of mad cow disease your nation experienced was also his fault, right?
So the question I have is: seeing as how we spent two years endlessly rehashing the 2000 election, and have now spent a year rehashing Iraq, which dead horse will we be beating during Bush’s second term?
Y’know, you might want to check the grammar and capitalization in a sentence where you claim to be smart.
And the answer is no. When dealing with the tinfoil hat crowd there’s no middle ground.
from furt
I am smart, I am also lazy, sometimes the two clash.
“I am so smart, s-m-r-t, I mean s-m-a-r-t!”
-Homer Simpson