George Bush and Tony Blair on the future of Iraq. "*Coalition forces will remain in Iraq as long as necessary to help the Iraqi people to build their own political institutions and reconstruct their country, but no longer. We look forward to welcoming a liberated Iraq to the international community of nations. We call upon our partners in the international community to join with us in ensuring a democratic and secure future for the Iraqi people. *
Condoleeza Rice talking about that summit. “*They had an opportunity to talk about the progress in the war, which they see as progressing according to plan and progressing well. But everybody wants to caution that theres still a lot of work to do. There is still fighting going on, there are still areas to be liberated. *”
and
"*Q Do they have a consensus on how much longer the war is going to last?
DR. RICE: I dont think anybody is trying to make a prediction on how much longer. Its going to last as long as it takes, because obviously good progress is being made, but the one thing that everybody is absolutely clear on is, this regime is coming down, Iraq is going to be returned to a – to the Iraqi people in a way that it can be a good neighbor, can be thoroughly disarmed – completely disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction, and can be put on a path to democratic development, keeping the territorial integrity of the country.*"
And in May in front of the “Mission Accomplished” sign he said: *"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We’re helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)
The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.) *"
Perhaps I am looking at the wrong representitive of the administration. but every speech I looked at which mentions Iraq and its future also seems to include the disclaimer about it taking a long time and requireing lots of work.
They were effective at keeping his development programs in nuetral. They were uneffective at elliminating those programs.
Yes. What value is this deterant to someone like Al Qaeda? Yea, I know Iraq was not the same as AQ. The argument was that they might use each other. Again, I know, the evidence for this was thin. I’m really not arguing that the Iraq war was the best possible strategy. Simply that it was not the crazy illegal lie it is portrayed as currently.
Weren’t at least a few things disbanded and destroyed by inspectors prior to Bush taking office?
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but wasn’t “Containment in the coldwar sense” meant for the realtions between nations? IIRC, aQ is not a nation.
Given that the best estimates of the American intel Comm were that it was unlikely Hussein would initiate an atack against the US because it would result in what Dr. Condoleeza Rice called ‘national obliteration’ I’d have to say that many (if not all) the cries of self-defense are more or less the results of some combination of ignorance or dishonesty.
Any country on the planet could decide to cooperate with aQ. But what’s important is which countries would. The Taleban’s Afghanistan was one of the countries on the planet with the least to lose. Most politicos have at least a modicum of interest in self-preservation.
Sure, but again, if you follow the conversation you and I are having on this, you asked what Saddam’s continued efforts to protect what was left of his WMD program. I simply said that it proved he would continue the program when or if sanctions ever slacked.
No. Containment was not meant merely to define relationships between nations and peace and security be damned. Containment was a strategy for securing peace and security when the primary threat to that security was nations. You see, once everyone realizes that nations conventional armies are not the main threat to peace anymore, a new doctrine is necessary.
But they are not since the actors by which such an attack might have taken place were not to be deterred by such a threat. Again, after more than a decade of thwarting international sanctions designed to disarm him, what makes you think Saddam was going to be as responsible with WMDs as the Soviet Union?
Quite so. Any country could. But most countries won’t. In fact, most countries are so unlikely to do so that it is silly to say that they could. I agree that no laws of physics would be violated if France, say, decided to support AQ. But that is so unlikely, that we should worry about aliens first.
What was unique about the Taliban that they had the least to lose?
And just so you don’t get in a tizzy and because I know you might not have read much of the thread, we were discussing the hypothetical development of new WMDs. Especially whether or not sanctions were the best long term solution for the problem posed by the fact that Saddam clearly wanted them.
As my mother used to say, “Some bulls want horns but they die butt-headed.” The political environment Hussein had to live with – just prior to the invasion – made it practically impossible he would ever again have the chance to build up an arsenal of WMDs if he should live and rule as long as Castro.
Pervert: On the “mistakes were made” front - my issue with this is that as is a statement that “mistakes were made” doesn’t really mean anything except as a vague gesture in the direction of accountability. By leaving it at that level neither analysis nor corrective action can be perceived or judged. Do you know what the problems/mistakes/oopsies were? Do they?
As to George Bush’s/the administration’s willingness to debate and discuss the issue of IRaq pre-war I think that on their part it was limited to a search for some formula, some set of issues or terms on which they could get authority to go in.
I also read the statements of Bush and Rice you reference as being rather pro-forma “blood, sweat, tears, yadda yadda yadda”. Certainly none of their budget contained any hints of long term activity. I also have a hard time imagining that the current state of the military wrt stop-loss and ongoing NG/reserve utilization was part of the plan. Nor that long-term general military impotence outside of Iraq was ever in the cards.
No, it was the military environment he lived in. The only thing whihc kept him from having stockpiles of weapons was the presence of troops on his border which kept the inspectors moving throughout his country. But even then, he was working like mad* to thwart the inspectors efforts to find the remnants of his development programs. So, unless you are prepared to say the the inspection regime would have remained as strong as it was and possibly got stronger for the rest of Saddam’s life as well as his sons, you have to admit the possibility that Saddam’s regime was a threat to the world which nothing but an invasion could cure.
Well, yes, I think so. JMHO. As I said, I have a pretty long list of problems with the war. And I respect the opinion of others who have other problems with it. All I am arguing is that not every aspect of the war was a mistake. Not everything occuring in Iraq right now is bad. And that some very positive things may indeed come out of this war.
Yes. Politically, the Bush administration was committed to ousting the Iraqi regime. They offered a few chances to Saddam to leave the country. His refusal left, in their opinion no option but to invade. As I said, I have several problems with how this was handled. But the basic premise that Saddam was a threat (although in hindsight not as immediate a threat as we thought) shoudl not be one of them.
Perhaps, but don’t you think it is disengenuous to simply ignore it and say that they have been claiming the war would be short all this time?
Well, the yearly budgets did not, but the supplementary requests for funding did. They asked for more money very early than would have been necessary for a short war. They certainly did not try to sneak the funding from anywhere or lie about. They simply asked for the funding off budget. Again, I have problems with this as well. But it is not correct to say that they claim a short war plan and then run to congress for more money when they realize it will take longer than they thought.
I’m not sure what you mean by “military impotence”. And you have to be more specific about your time frame when you say that using the National Guard was not part of the plan. Our military has relied on the National Guard for a long time for any sizeable deployments. As soon as the number of troops going to Iraq went over 50,000 or so, there was an implicit inclusion of the National Guard.
Do you mean that this was not the exact plan back in 2002? Ok, maybe your right. I don’t know. But the plan has always been to evolve the plan, so to speak.
Which appears to be the thrust of your argument: that if you can plausibly aver any threat, however remote, then you have justified the invasion as unavoidable. I should be pleased that the threat to my grandchildren is removed by The Leader’s bold and decisive action.
I confess, to my shame, that I had given very little thought to those grandchildren, other than concern for how they might manage the vast holdings of the estate. I suppose, if I had given it any real thought, I might likely have dismissed the notion that a man of Saddam’s advanced years might cast a shadow over their lives. Yes, I very well might.
Is this it, then? The case for immediate and urgent action, at enormous cost, is based on clairovoyance and divination? Peering into Saddam’s mind and sorting the contents, you assure me of dire threat at some point in the future? Is there a Nostradamus quatrain you would care to cite, or do you prefer the more classical approach of scrying with entrails?
Ah! I see! An improvisational approach, it might be politely called. “Making it up as we go along” is another way. “Clueless bumbling and fervent prayer” also describes it pretty well.
Which was not my argument at all. Again, I am only arguing that the position which considers the war in Iraq to have been justified is not ridiculous. I realize it is more fun to simply not tolerate opinions different from your own. But it really is not necessary. And it is not conducive to a meaningful debate.
As you know very well, the response to your snide response was itself snide. I assume from your habit of snideness that you are able to take it. If I am wrong about that let me know.
Not at all. And Again since I know you are loath to actually read the thread, the point was a small one concerning the evidence found since the invasion that Saddam was not in possession of WMD stockpiles, but he was, in fact, protecting what was left of his development program. That is he had every intention of developing WMDs as soon as possible. Precisely as Bush alleged. Precisely as alleged in the Congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq.
It was not a complete and whole defence of the entire Iraqi operation. I appreciate your attempts to shorten the argument for the war. I assume you will not object the next time the Bush campaign does the exact same thing to Kerry’s arguments against it.