The above were statements made early in this thread.
Can you explain in light of your deeper explanation of your personal views on the US invasion of Iraq that made you ‘early on’ after the troops were committed to regime change, figure out that Bush’s decision got us into such a fucked up mess. What made you realize so soon after the ground invasion began that you were wrong and that Bush made a stupid decision? What was the major factor or event that made you change your mind?
Hey, NFbW: Do you support a US invasion of Syria?
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Can you explain in light of your deeper explanation of your personal views on the US invasion of Iraq that made you ‘early on’ after the troops were committed to regime change, figure out that Bush’s decision got us into such a fucked up mess.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t remember the exact timing on my increasing disillusion with the entire affair, but a lot of it came from debating all of this stuff as it was unfolding here on the Dope. You are years too late to be bringing this crap up, as it was debated to death as it was happening and for literally years afterward.
However, I could see that the way we were going about it was fucked up almost from the start. We were trying to do an invasion on a budget. And clearly, the Iraqis were folding without putting up much of a conventional fight, saying that they hadn’t rebuilt their conventional military to any great degree (thus, weren’t much of an external threat to pull off another Kuwait or to invade Saudi).
And our plan for post conventional operations was incredibly fucked up. You could see that we really HAD no plan for how we were going to deal with any of this and that it was increasingly turning into a total cluster fuck. The insurgency and asymmetrical warfare was something it was clear we had no plan to deal with, nor did we have the training or equipment needed to do so. Our post war plan for an interim government and phased approach to Iraqi government was clearly a joke as well. No real thought was put into any of this, and we were trying to do all of this on a budget with the lightest forces we could use.
Once I realized this, I started to rethink some of the assumptions I had been making about what got us to this point. Folks like Ravenman and many others kept making calm, clear points and eventually it started to sink in. I’d guess that by 4-5 months into this thing I had already reevaluated my stance and found it wanting and had already turned against the entire endeavor and certainly against Bush and the administration at the time. I didn’t vote for Kerry, but I certainly didn’t vote for Bush (I believe I voted for a Libertarian candidate that year). And I’ve voted for and fully support Obama and what he’s done to extract us from the mess. I think he’s done a hell of a job in getting us out of Iraq and what he’s done in Afghanistan as well.
I do not support a US Ground invasion involving US Troops into Syria at this time.
I supported GHW Bush putting together an international coalition using ground troops to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, So I would be open, to what you ask if a broad international coalition were formed including the Arab League etc where the legitimacy of military action was demonstrated prior to any military action.
Early on I was not convinced that Syria’s geography with it’s problem of dense areas being populated by opposing sides, makes a No Fly Zone conducive to saving lives of innocents caught in the crossfire of this conflict. But I have not checked lately if the rebels have taken much territory that they can hold.
I believe if Syria were similar to the situation in Libya when Gadhafi was sending tanks and artillery against the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, a NFZ would have been set up by now.
But if a ‘real’ international coalition were committed to some kind of shared peacekeeping ground forces under an effective NFZ and were not sent in to fight and die for one side of the other, I would consider supporting that.
But at this time it appears there are no clear paths to such a scenario.
Libya like the First Gulf War were in my view proper use of military force when it looked as though there were no other solutions.
There would need to be a r 'non-unanimous vote in the UNSC similar to the Libay vote to protect from the sky in LIbya, to commit ground troops primarily on a humanitarian military mission to stop genocide and massive civilian suffering if no outside nations were to act. But we are not there tragic as it is so far. The international community is sort of deadlocked on Syria.
I did not get a chance to ask about your reply to my point that Iraq had publically offered in December 2002 to let the CIA come into Iraq to search themselves for the WMD they thought was there.
I would like to know why what you described in a potential defense argument for Bush to reject the offer prior to the invasion, would not be a much worse problem when after the invasion, the CIA was sent in to run the search for the alleged WMD - under much more fog and confusion of war.
IF the CIA ‘found’ something after the start of the invasion meant to secure the ‘most lethal weapons ever devised’ would not the same claims and counterclaims be made, and wouldn’t they be much more controversial duirng a US occupation of Iraq rather than if the CIA had to plant something under the noses of the inspectors while peace was still at hand.
I don’t see any genuine justified excuse for Bush to have rejected even a slight test of that offer.
In light of all that you have been kind enough to explain about your personal perspective, and setting aside for a moment your personal opinion that UN 1441 and Iraq’s level of cooperation had little to do with Bush’s drive for an invasion of Iraq and the ultimate decision to invade; Do you think the following statement is closer to the truth or closer to being absolutely false?
The decision to invade and therefore occupy Iraq as Bush did, forced the UN inspectors out which meant they had to abandone their work. When Bush was authorized to use Military Force ‘if necessary’ against Iraq in October 2002 **when there were no UN inspectors inside Iraq **doing their work which made Iraq and outlaw regime in defiance of international law. So would you say that Bush was correct to declare war five months later meaning that a full scale ground invasion was absolutely NECESSARY although at the time, **there were UN inspectors inside Iraq and making an unprecedented amount of progress **in disarming Iraq peacefully.
Was forcing the UN Inspectors to leave in March to begin bombing and invading Iraq necessary, in your honest opinion?
Was making that decision by Bush to end inspections abruptly and without due cause what you define now as a stupid mistake by Bush and pro-war supporters?
President Bush’s objective was to remove Saddam, not to protect the United States against WMDs. From the perspective of the Bush White House, the suspected WMD program was simply the most convenient reason to rally support for regime change, which was the stated policy of the United States Government at the time (and for the several years prior to the invasion).
If you would simply understand that Bush’s real goal was to remove Saddam (rather than figure out if there were WMD programs), then it becomes incredibly easy to understand that any action or policy that would jeopardize regime change was undesirable to him. Once regime change had been accomplished, who cared what inspections by the UN, CIA, Boston PD, or Springfield Gas and Electric Company would find? The goal had been achieved, and the end justified the means.
You’ll note that this was more or less stated by President Bush and other senior officials after the war and after WMD programs were not found: the real issue, they said repeatedly, wasn’t active WMD programs, it was that Saddam had “the capability and intent” to begin WMD production as soon as it was feasible, and that he was a supporter of terrorism anyway so the invasion was still justified.
So, no. Once again you just don’t get it. Bush wanted regime change, not inspections and verification, so there was no incentive to him at all to send more inspectors into Iraq. From his point of view, there were only potential downsides. Seriously, do you not understand that?
And let me just call out something you said: you asked why unilateral US inspections for WMD wouldn’t be a “much worse problem” after the war. Uh, hello? We’re not playing alternate history games, that’s what actually happened. No WMD were found after the war, and there were comprehensive reports – two of the top of my head – that explained why there were no WMD to be found. The fact that the US embarrassed itself with WMD claims is historically significant, but it pales in importance to the much more critical issues of the US launching an unprovoked war without international support, and the war was so botched that we had 150,000 plus troops there for a decade and sacrificed almost 5,000 American lives. The embarrassment of the US not finding WMD pales in comparison to those two outcomes.
And let me add one other thing: if you think the drive to go to war with Iraq was really about securing WMD programs, you have seriously been fooled by W. I mean, totally duped, suckered, gas lighted.
And the fact that today, ten years later, you still think the war was about WMD should be extremely embarrassing to YOU.
Indeed. Even in Oct 2002, most people knew otherwise:
Further, in the quest to fight ignorance, I humbly request the mods to remove the “Not” from his username.
Ouch, way to get the guy where it really hurts!
Now he’ll have to post another 2000 words refuting that.
Wait, he’s pro-Bush?
For some reason I’d assumed otherwise.
See the date of your poll Mace? Bush didn’t start talking going through the UN to peacefully disarm Iraq, until a few weeks prior to this poll.
I can cite polls where five months after your poll Mace, where about 60% responded it was their preference for Bush was to allow the inspections to continue and not invade just to remove SH from power. So what gave those wise and intelligent folks the idea that there were inspections about WMD and war could be avoided?
First of all, you need to start reading for comprehension. John’s poll is assessing what people thought was in Bush’s head – did Bush really care about WMD or just removing Saddam?
You’re talking about polls asking people what Bush SHOULD do, not what they think Bush is thinking about.
You aren’t really capable of telling the difference between things, are you?
There are many fundamental errors in your narrative of what took place prior to the US invasion of Iraq.
But first the AUMF:
So I ask you; UN Res 1441 was not passed until a month after the AUMF, however did that become an additional ‘relevant’ UNSC Resolution. And did Bush enforce it as part of ‘all’ Relevant UN Resolutions or did he proceed with regime change on his own?
I’m just not interested in the question, so I won’t respond.
Duly noted. My point (Arrg354) establishes as a fact that the AUMF ties Bush to 1441 and therefore to the search for WMD and the last round of inspections. This I believe contradicts your argument that I cited in Post #354.
No it doesn’t.
Ah. I see what you’re driving at, but you’re still wrong. The language allows the President to hang his hat on any single UN resolution he wishes, regardless of whether the UNSC thinks that resolution was being violated or not. See, “as he determines necessary and appropriate...” Under this authorization, Bush could say he was enforcing UNSC 678 or 687 and meet the letter of the law. That’s why it is a stupid thing that anyone voted for it.
And I’m going to cite your posts Arrg69, Vroom129, Barf185, and SexyBigLady141469.
That is quite an argument. Do you have more?
So your argument can be sustained only be changing the language in the AUMF to from
{… enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.} to your version {…enforce one or some relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq}
Regardless, you have not de-linked the fact that the AUMF ties Bush to UNSC Res 1441 which governs enforcement of ALL other Resolutions. Bush was directed in the AUMG to use military force to **‘enforce all relevant resolutions’ ** so I wonder what you think of the words ‘all’ and ‘enforce’ actually mean as used in the AUMF. (Arrg354)
I’m just reading the text. Any eight grader can tell that the intent is to compel Iraq to comply with all UN resolutions; so that if the President believes that Iraq failed to comply with one (eg, 687), that is a sufficient trigger for war.
The alternative reading is that war would only be authorized if Iraq was in violation of every single resolution. That’s clearly absurd. Why would Congress authorize war only if Iraq were not in compliance with what, probably a dozen or two UN resolutions? That’s stupid.