Bush's explanation of the Iraq "miscalculation"

Great Debates
21

Can you give me the cite where Bush explained that the purpose was to prevent Saddam from developing WMDs as opposed to him justifying it on the basis of those WMDs already existing?

Other people have commented on this but I just can’t help myself. It would have been nice to secure more sites?!?! Man, are you the king of understatement! We have a war started on the basis of WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists, a situation that the CIA feels is unlikely to occur as long as Saddam controls them, and you think it would have been nice if they had put more effort into securing WMD sites so that we actually make the situation we are supposedly so worried about happening perhaps less likely rather than almost surely more likely to happen?!?!

Yeah…I say it would have been real nice.

22

This report to congress by Steve Bowman of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress is informative. Its only 16 pages and is PDF but is worth the read for those of us who have short memories or are somewhat confused but all the rationalizations floating about. Of particular interest is the “heavy” strategy advocated by General Franks and rejected by the civilian leadership at Department of Defense in favor of a “Lite” strategy.

As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, the US knew very well that Iraq’s armed forces were considerably degraded from what they were in 1991. That is why we could seriously opt to go in with a Marine Division, a heavy infantry division, a light infantry division and the British brigade with Australians and a contingent of Polish special forces. That is why the US could give up on bringing another heavy infantry division in through Turkey. We pretty well knew that the actual combat phase would be pretty short and involve a minimum of fighting. It is hard to think that the force that was sent in would have to battle its way from Kuwait to the North in a prolonged slug fest. The size of the force put in makes in clear that what was expected was a quick drive on Baghdad.

It also means that the civilian leaders in the Defense Department expected a submissive if not welcoming population and that an American occupation would not be deeply and effectively resented. This is what General Franks’ “heavy” invasion was designed to deal with – not the war but the occupation. It is precisely the problem that the civilian leaders in the Defense Department’s ‘Lite” approach could not cope with.

The miscalculation was not that the Iraqi military and government would fold so abruptly and completely (as the President claims). The miscalculation was that the “Lite” force would be able to establish and maintain order and security. That miscalculation was not made by the soldiers, by General Franks and his staff, or by General Shinseki, the army chief of staff. The miscalculation was made by the civilian leadership who dismissed the plans and warning by the professionals at war in favor of wishful thinking that the war could be fought and Iraq occupied, reorganize and its government and institutions transformed on the cheap.

Read the paper.

23

PBS has put together a nice day by day Timeline of the Invasion. This entry for March 25:

suggests that we were damned lucky the Iraqi army didn’t hold together better. Our supply lines had been drawn out hundreds of barely protected miles. Had Saddam had better control of his troops he could have taken advantage of our ‘bold strategy’ and handed us a stunning reversal.
When Bush claims we succeeded to quickly, we’d do well to consider the alternatives.

24

Uh, did you read the pdf?

“This “lite” option stood in contrast to the operations plan originally offered by
U.S. Central Command. This option, often called the “Franks Plan”, after Army Gen.
Tommy Franks, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander who first
briefed it to the President, calls for a large-scale ground force invasion. News
reports initially indicated, however, that this “heavy” approach did not receive the
support of the DOD civilian leadership or White House advisors. Questions over the reliability of the regional support that would be necessary for staging areas and the length of time required for deployment were the major concerns.3 However, the White House rejection of the “Franks Plan” came prior to the decision to take the Iraq issue to the United Nations Security Council. When it became clear that Security Council deliberations and the re-introduction of U.N. inspectors to Iraq could delay the possibility of military action for several months, it was apparently decided that this interlude would allow time both to negotiate regional cooperation and to deploy more substantial forces to the Persian Gulf region, and military operations today appear to adhere closer to CENTCOM’s original recommendations. As the ground force offensive has slowed, however, there is now increasing criticism of DOD’s civilian leadership for not permitting the deployment of even more ground forces prior to onset of operations.”

Especially this part “military operations today appear to adhere closer to CENTCOM’s original recommendations.”

Oh, and you forgot to mention the air units involved.

Sure. Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Specifically “Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated”

Note, chemical weapons, but biological and nucular programs.

“Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security…”

“Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;”

Again, note the absense of the word stockpile. The key phrase is “possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability”. Capability, not stockpile, not arsenal, not even raw materials. Just the capability.

“Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;”

Again, notice the development rather than any other word indicating a stockpile.

And of course finally, as I have said many times in many threads:

"*Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; *"

Now, before you get too fired up. I am not claiming that each and every one of the intelligence assessments represented here was or is correct. I am merely responding to jshore’s request for a cite that the administration thought that the development of WMD was a part of the threat they were worried about before the war. I’d also like to note that neither here nor in my last post did I say the administration does not or did not believe the Saddam actually had WMDs.

No, I said it would have been nice to have more troops. The sites I was talking about were military sites more than WMD sites. As I indicated above the primary focus was in taking Saddam out of power so that he could not present a WMD/terrorist threat in the future.

[John Mace**, and LilShieste: Again, I was not trying to say that there were more foreign born fighters than local fightrers. I was only suggesting that the foriegn fighters might be providing the monetary and strategic support necessary to coordinate the insurgent’s activities. One would expect there to be far fewer foriegn prisoners in that case.

This sort of article is where I was getting that idea. I’m willing to be wrong about it.

25

Interesting link - seems about the first positive development I’ve seen in Iraq - I hope to Og that the Coalition is smart enough to capitalise on the opportunities this offers.

26

Now, can you give me the cite where Team Bush explained that the main purpose was to prevent Saddam from developing WMDs as opposed to defending the US from existent Iraqi WMD?
My memory holds that the war was sold as a “pre-emptive” action. And, of course preemption’s about the equivalent of a quick draw contest. Hard to have a quick draw when the other guy’s at the blacksmith’s forging the barrel of his pistol wouldn’t you say?

The main selling point of the war was that there were weapons in existence that could be used against the US any minute (where our allies were concerned, within 45 minutes). While there was concern about Hussein furthering his capacity, this was not “the main purpose of the war”.

27

I tried to give such justification in post #24 to jshore.

I agree and I sympithize with your quest to deliniate the difference between pre-emtive and preventitive. However, you are fighting a losing battle. In common usage the words are all but interchangeable. This means that when people talk of the war as being pre-emptive they are not excluding the possibility that it is really more preventitive. Again, I sympathize. I really do. I have some similar pet peeves with the English language.

No. I’d say it makes the whole thing a lot easier. :wink:

Well, I disagree. I remember many times Bush saying that he did not know how many if any WMD weapons Saddam had, but that we could not wait to find out. Especially where Nukes were concerned.

28

Ah, yes. Saddam’s dreaded nukes. You may be interested in this article, due out tomorrow, from the New York Times. It’s, like, tubular. Totally.

Skewed Intelligence Data in March to War in Iraq

29

As much as I hate disagreeing with you, elucidator, I think that article proves my point exactly. They wanted to go to war to prevent any nucular program from coming to fruition. They did not ever allege that Saddam had nucular weapons. While Condoleezza Rice’s “mushroom cloud” comment is often derided, it was intenede to demonstrate a need to stop the development of WMD. No an assertion that WMDs existed. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying here. I appreciate the site, though. Its one I did not find. :wink:

30

And, I’d argue that this analogy is still overstated. A better analogy is that we know the other guy has blacksmiths with the capabilities to forge a pistol barrel but we don’t know that he is actually forging any. :wink:

Look, the fact is that the case for their war would have been a lot weaker if they didn’t tell us about stockpiles of weapons. As for nukes, the nuclear program is the one that would indeed be most threatening if it existed; however, it is also the one that can be found and assessed most easily. And, the IAEA assessments were that there was no significant program to speak of:

31

Come on, pervert. Noone is claiming that they said that Saddam already had nukes. We are saying that they claimed that he already had other WMDs.

As for the nukes, what the Administration was claiming is that he had a program to produce them and might get them soon. And, in that case they were skewing the intelligence data, claiming things that they had already been told were most likely false…and also ignoring what IAEA was saying.

32

From the report “Iraq on the Record”:

33

Who realistically would’ve thought that so many Baathists and Saddam loyalists would live in the major Shia cities? I mean, is anyone here really going to condemn Bush for not forseeing that?

34

OK, lets review. :wink: is the winking smily. It indicates that some part of the previous statement is not to be taken completely seriously. My post to elucidator was somewhat tounge in cheek. Another clue is the deliberate misuse of the term nuclear as in nucular. Similar in some way to his post preceding. My appologies if my humor was too intense or in any way insulting to you. I thought liberals were better able to take jokes. My bad.

Well, I’m not so sure about that. In this thread there have been no claims that the administration claimed Saddam had nukes or biological weapons. But there have been many times that the thought has been put forward. For instance, why did you ask me to clairfy my statement concerning the purpose of the war if you believe that the administration did not claim Iraq had nukes? Surely if they never claimed Iraq had nukes then the purpose of the war could not have been to remove the nukes.

For the record, when I mentioned nukes, I only wanted to emphasize the fact that the administration claimed intent or activity toward developing nukes. They did claim the possession of chemical weapons. Their case for biological development programs or actual biological weapons could honestly be said to be more confused. I think they pretty clearly claimed programs with regards to BW as well. But I am willing to believe that an honest observer could have seen otherwise.

As I have said before in other places. I agree that intelligence was overplayed in public statements and political rhetoric. But this comes down to a difference of opinion at to the comfort level one has with various possible Saddam capabilities. Surely you are not suggesting that the IAEA had definitive proof that Saddam had no designs on developing nuclear weapons?

Yes. And later in your cite,
*The intelligence estimate, completed in mid-September, reflected the different views, but the final judgment said that “most” analysts leaned toward the view that the tubes had a nuclear purpose. When the British dossier on Iraq’s weapons program was published on Sept. 24, it referred to the tubes, but noted that “there is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear program.” *

Or perhaps this is more to the point I was making:
"*"We have a tendency - I don’t know if it’s part of the American character - to say, ‘Well, we’ll sit down and we’ll evaluate the evidence, we’ll draw a conclusion,’ " Mr. Cheney said as he discussed the tubes on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” in September 2002.

“But we always think in terms that we’ve got all the evidence. Here, we don’t have all the evidence,” he said. “We have 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent. We don’t know how much. We know we have a part of the picture. And that part of the picture tells us that he is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.”*

Notice that here, before the war, Cheney is saying that we have very little of the evidence to prove weapons or a program. But that this is enough (along with everything else we know about Saddam) to suggest a threat.

The only point I am trying to make here is that one of the primary purposes of the war was to dismantle Saddam’s efforts to build such a program. You and other questioned it. I tried to justify it. Meanwhile, elucidator made a glib comment as is his wont. I replied in a glib fashion to him as has become my habbit. Please let us not get distracted chasing my responses to elucidator. Shall we?

Mr2001, remembering that my post to elucidator was somewhat tounge in cheek, I don’t really see any discrepency between the portion you quoted and Secratary Rumsfeld’s statements. They seem to indicate to me that he is saying that the administration did indeed believe that Iraq had WMD development programs. Just as I suggested.

Here, is the interview that Mr2001 quoted.
The question and full answer in context is this:
*MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We’ve got, again, a long record here. It’s not as though this is a fresh issue. In the late ’70s, Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear reactors from the French. 1981, the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor and stopped his nuclear weapons development at the time. Throughout the ’80s, he mounted a new effort. I was told when I was defense secretary before the Gulf War that he was eight to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. And we found out after the Gulf War that he was within one or two years of having a nuclear weapon because he had a massive effort under way that involved four or five different technologies for enriching uranium to produce fissile material.

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.*

I should note that Mr Cheney mentions “reconstituting” 3 times in that interview. The first 2 times he talks about Saddam reconstituting his nuclear program this last time he says “reconstituted nuclear weapons”. Taken out of context it may seem to be a claim by Mr. Cheney that Iraq has nuclear weapons. But in the context of the rest of the interview, I beleive that it was simply a dropped word. He meant to say “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons programs.” Unless you can explain to me what a reconstituted nuclear weapon
is.

Well, right. We don’t know for sure that he is creating a pistol. We do know that he has built pistols in the past, used them, and tried many times to make better pistols. We know he is not being completely honest in his efforts to come clean about his use of the blacksmith. We know he has friends who might be willing to use such pistols in even more villanous ways. But you are right. We don’t know for an absolute fact that he is right now making a pistol. :wink:

35

Do you agree that this was a lie?

Do you agree that, even if you stretch the definition of the word ‘reconstituted’, this statement has turned out to be entirely 100% inaccurate?

36

No.

I don’t understand what you mean by "stretch the meaning of ‘reconstituted’.

37

In the context of the previous sentence, I don’t think so.

He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

He says we know Saddam has been trying to acquire nukes, then goes on to state the belief that Saddam has already _____. Why would it make sense to fill in the blank with “reconstituted a nuclear weapons program”? That would be part of trying to acquire nukes.

If anything, the misstatement there is the word “reconstituted”. I believe Cheney meant to say “acquired”.

38

I’m going to have to side with pervert on this one point. Because if you look in the context of what he says in that interview and what the administration was claiming at the time, I think their argument is that he is working hard to make nuclear weapons and we have to stop him before he does. For example here is a quote from the Washington Post article that I cited above:

And, for example, there was no talk of the possibility that the U.S. troops might face a nuclear attack. So, I think the evidence is that they significantly trumped up evidence that he was trying to reconstitute a nuclear program, basically considering only one side of the argument and being taken in by amateurly-forged documents, and refusing to believe what the IAEA was telling them despite the fact that they had inspectors on the ground and it is very difficult to hide a nuclear program from inspectors on the ground. But, I don’t think they tried to argue that he yet had nuclear weapons.

Even pervert can be right occasionally. :wink:

39

While the nukes question is important we have another aspect of this: Iran has collaborated with Al Qaeda and is also attempting to gain WMD’s. Why is this less war-worthy than Saddam’s attempt to gain WMD’s? And how goes the Russian arms distribution crisis? The W. “miscalculation” I believe rested on a judgment of what the American people would tolerate as well as an underestimation of the type and scale of conflicts being initiated. As if war was a little more ‘hard work’ than Bush expected.

40

I mean that which ever meaning you wish to apply to ‘reconstituted’ in Cheney’s sentance, you still cannot make the sentance anything other than completely inaccuarate.

So, of you believe that Cheney was correct and truthful in saying that El-Baradei’s pre-war position was wrong and that Saddam had in fact made ‘active and aggressive’ attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, would you be so kind as to detail what those attempts were?