Sam, I do not believe in blindly following one man. If there is suficient evidence to justify the attack it should be made public but the idea of attacking another nation on the basis that a few people know it needs to be done is repugnant to me. Not to mention that the rest of the world would laugh if asked to support the attack on that basis.
Well, I believe in providing as much information as possible, but there are limits.
What if, say, the U.S. had ‘turned’ one of Saddam’s close advisors, and was getting intelligence from him that Saddam was preparing a nuclear attack on Israel. Should that be public? Even if it means that the intelligence resource will be killed and the U.S. will lose a significant strategic advantage?
Should the allies have informed the public that D-day was going to happen soon because they had successfully convinced the Germans that the landing would be at Calais, and therefore thinned down their shore defenses in the landing area? That wouldn’t make a lot of sense.
When it comes to matters of national security, there are times when you are just going to have to trust your elected leadership. They are privy to information they simply can’t release.
The Bush administration is loaded with foreign policy superstars. They are among the best in the world. I have a certain amount of confidence that if they commit U.S. forces to war, they have a damned good reason.
We should also remember here that the strategy could be simply to threaten war, as an end to itself. Of course, anyone who threatens war better be able to back that up, and the U.S. can. But this administration may simply be operating on the principle that appeasement is a disaster, and it’s better to lay your cards on the table and spell the consequences out. Remember, Bush 41 was in power when the ambassador to Iraq (April Glaspie) made appeasement noises to Saddam, and he took that as a hint that the U.S. would not respond if he invaded Kuwait. If that administration had said “You touch Kuwait and you’re dead” when Iraq first started massing troops on the border, that war might have been averted.
My question is, with all these foreign policy superstars, how does Bush manage to fuck up foreign policy this badly?
Erek
Is it? Looks to me like Afghanistan worked out pretty well so far, The Saudis seem to be working pretty hard to please the U.S. now (they just arrested a terrorist on behalf of the U.S., for example), the people in Iran are starting to revolt against their own government because they want to be more like the west. In the meantime, the U.S. is getting absolutely unprecedented cooperation out of places like Yemen and Syria, because they are now scared spitless.
The big issue is Palestine and Israel, and it’s hard to blame that on the Bush administration.
The Bush administration’s major bungling so far has been in homeland security. They are going seriously awry there, in my opinion. I’m not a fan of Ashcroft’s either. But that’s not foreign policy.
Maybe you could tell us where the Bush administration has gone wrong, what you would have done differently, and what the situation would be like as a result.
Does it really, Sam? From my perch near the telly, it looks like the results were mixed: the Taliban is toast, but a stable regime isn’t in place. Al Queda was routed…and now we can’t find them and have no idea what they’re up to. And Osama is MIA, maybe dead, maybe not.
It could have gone much worse, but it certainly could also have gone better.
“But I will also note that the difference between those who support the attack on Saddam and those who don’t is in large part determined by who has been given security briefings.”
The opposite may be closer to the truth. For instance in the New York Times it was reported that there was quite a lot of skepticism among the senior military staff and the CIA as well as the State Department. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, this means that the three main sets of professionals with relevant expertise; the soldiers, the spooks and the diplomats are wary of war . As for Tony Blair, his foreign secretary has recently said that getting the inspectors back should be the priority and not regime change; this marks a shift from the Bush position. And the Arab leaders who likely have good intelligence about what Saddam’s up to aren’t on board either. Finally probably the most outspoken opponent of the haws in Congress is Sen Carl Levin who is Chairman of the Senate of the Armed Services Commitee and presumably well-informed.
The biggest supporters of war are the professional ideologues insider and outside the administration who have been screaming for war for years and who generally have little or no military,diplomatic or intelligence experience in the region.
You mean like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Richard Perle, and possibly Colin Powell? Nah, no experience there.
The military and CIA are certainly balking, and I think there is good reason for it. The problem is that Saddam looks like he’s preparing for an urban war. That’s the one weakness of the U.S., and I’m not sure the generals can come up with a reasonable plan for winning that war without killing a lot of civilians and losing support of the public.
I’m not sure whether the U.S. should go to war with Iraq, and that’s the reason why. It might not be as easy as the Gulf War.
Actually I am not entirely sure Rice is on board for war despite her recent BBC interview . I think there was a recent story in some newspaper which said she was a skeptic. We have to remember that the public statements might not necessarily corresspond with private advice. And Colin Powell is almost certainly not on board.
In any case I was referring to professional experience in the region and not experiece as high-level political appointees. Oh and Richard Pearle , by most accounts, is the classic example of a professional ideologue with little operational or admininstrative experience in any relevant area. He appears to be generally despised by professional soldiers in the Pentagon.
BTW there was another article in the Times by James Baker which called for giving inspectors another chance before going to war. This mirrors the Kissinger article and the recent British position. I think that this is where the consensus is heading. I suspect that Saddam, canny survivor, that he is will accept inspectors and this time allow them to do their job and there won’t be a war. Let’s see.
These folks may be quite experienced…But, with the exception of Powell (to at least some degree), they also seem to come from a rather narrow ideological spectrum. I don’t see why I should necessarily trust them to make the right decision on this when they seem to me to have a worldview fundamentally different than my own.
So . . . only people with a worldview fundamentally identical to your own are capable of making correct decisions? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying, here. The decision that you would prefer is not the “right” decision just because you prefer it. (Or vice-versa. And that goes for any “you.”)
The fact is ther is not enough support internally and there is close to zero support abroad. Under those conditions it would be crazy to go to war. I am not saying who is right or wrong, just the fact that the US is not going to war with so much opposition internal and external. Things would have to change very much and, as I said, the rest of the world, including Europe and other powerful countries and the Arab and Muslim countries are not going to support a war on the premise of “trust us, we know what we’re doing”. It ain’t gonna happen so the US needs to build up more support, both at home and abroad.
Oh, I should add two more names to the “War Hawks” - Henry Kissinger and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. I saw interviews with both of them last week, and both of them were pretty hawkish.
You guys can try to paint this as an ideological, neo-conservative issue, but it just isn’t. There are honest disagreements about it, but there is wide support for both positions in both parties.
For example, The New Republic is extremely hawkish on war with Iraq. Peter Bienart, the editor, is a staple on pundit shows these days, beating the war drums.
I will agree that this issue needs far more debate. There is plenty of skepticism, and there should be. I don’t think any of us want to see any democracy go to war without healthy internal debate, and to have a debate you need both sides of the issue.
As I said, I sympathise with the generals, because I’m not sure how the U.S. will wage a war if Saddam successfully manages to draw 50,000 soldiers into a fortified and stockpiled Baghdad. It’s an extremely difficult situation, and urban warfare is a military planner’s nightmare.
Um Kirkpatrick IIRC has always been on the hawkish wing of the GOP (though maybe not technically a neo-conservative which refers to former Dems who switched to the GOP). The New Republic while liberal/centrist on domestic issues has long been stridently hawkish when it comes to the Middle-East and close to the postions of the neo-con magazines like the Weekly Standard.
Kissinger’s article clearly states that the US should try inspections first which is a significant departure from the neo-conservative line and puts him in the Baker/Levin/British camp. He has also clearly said that the focus should be on eliminating WMD and not “regime change”. So while he is somewhat more hawkish than Scowcroft he does not support the war-camp in the Bush administration.
The bottom line is that there is significant dissension in both the moderate/realist wing of the GOP (Powell,Scowcroft, Baker) and the libertarian wing (Armey,Kemp, Cato Institute).
So most of the pressure for war is coming from basically one wing of one party of one country. Hardly a solid basis for a war.
Cyberpundit: There are hawks and non-hawks in every wing. There is a healthy debate going on among libertarians right now, with about half on either side. Same with Democrats and Republicans.
And by the way, some of the people you mentioned who are ‘opposed’, aren’t really. Rather, their position is that Saddam has to go, and the U.S. has to take military action, but it’s not a good idea to do it alone. That’s Kissinger’s position. He wants to try to demand inspections first not because he thinks that war can be avoided, or that inspections will make us safe. Rather, he wants to demand that first because he thinks Saddam will refuse, and that will clarify the U.S.'s moral position and bring more allies on board.
That’s a reasonable position. There are arguments against it and for it.
Sam, the Saudis are not cooperating any more than they have to. That guy who got arrested turned himself in. They didn’t have to lift a finger. And, given that our terrorist foes seem to enjoy the die-laughing-in-their-own-blood routine, I doubt he’s one of them. Might have loaned them some lunch money, though.
Per for the FBI’s investigation, as far as I can tell the NSA is just pissed it was leaked that they failed to translate a terrorist missive the day before the attacks until Sept. 12th. How embarrassing.
As for Iraq, sure, I think it would be nice to wax Saddam. Anyone with a heart and a brain should think so.
However, the a/b/c/d effects that Eva Luna mentioned have to be foremost in Bush’s mind. This adventure addresses a lot of his problems. There’s almost no downside for him. Concerns about alienating allies notwithstanding, his main concern, and that of the public, has to be heavy American casualties, possibly missing Saddam entirely, and leaving the place a mess, in that order.
The second is an interesting question. What if Saddam escapes? As far as I know he has no broad network of allies worldwide like Bin Laden, but you have to admit he is rather skilled at the minor art of survival, having dodged internal assasination attempts and survived the '91 war. Even now he must be hatching escape plans left and right.
As for the OP, early next year probably, but within a year, tops. Some of the GOP is grumbling and will have to be appeased first, and the positioning of the neccessary forces hasn’t occurred yet. I don’t think the September elections will have much effect on the timing.
“Rather, he wants to demand that first because he thinks Saddam will refuse,”
I am curious; do you have source for this? I don’t remember him mentioning this in his article. In any case I don’t think it is correct. If Saddam faces a choice between inspections and destruction I think he is smart enough to choose inspections.
As for the Democrats, with the exception of Lieberman , they are at best extremely lukewarm about war. The most outspoken of them like Levin are clearly very skeptical. Do you seriously believe anyone would even be talking about war if Gore was President?
As for libertarians I can think of about half a dozen who oppose war and only one, Brink Lindsey who supports it. Perhaps you can name more? Both the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party oppose it.
So there might be a few hawks outside the usual conservative ideological circles but they seem to be heavily outnumbered by the skeptics particularly when you add in career staff at the CIA, military and State Department.
My impression of Kissinger’s position came in part from seeing him interviewed on the subject several times last week.
As for Libertarians, just go over to InstaPundit and follow a few links around. Glenn Reynolds himself is a liberal/libertarian, and a frequent contributor to Reason and other libertarian journals. You might also wander over to TechCentralStation, which is run by Libertarian James Glassman. Although many of his contributors do tend towards the neo-con movement.
In any event, trying to pin an ideology on the debate is a pointless exercise, isn’t it? You’ve already had to explain away such conservative voices as The New Republic and Joe Lieberman in order to maintain your thesis that this is an ideological battle coming from a fringe on the right. But who really cares? Why can’t the argument stand on its merits? Why do we have to go on a hunt for hidden ideological motivations? If the arguments are sound, does the political bent of the arguer matter?
As for Saddam and inspectors, he has already refused to let inspectors in. He first floated the idea of allowing inspectors again about a month ago, and when it was taken seriously and began being debated, suddenly he pulled the offer off the table.
A few messages ago, I mentioned possible intelligence the U.S. might have that we don’t know about. As an example, today the Telegraph is reporting that Saddam had Abu Nidal killed becuase he refused to train a bunch of al-Quaida terrorists that are in Iraq:
Later in the article:
Here’s the link (requires registration): Telegraph Article
OK Glenn Reynolds might be a second pro-war libertarian though as a blogger I doubt he can be considered of the stature of Kemp or Cato. So overall your list only suggests that there is a minority of pro-war libertarians which is less than you first claimed.
BTW a list of past secretaries of state/NSA who have expressed varying degrees of skepticism would include Baker,Scowcroft,Eagleburger, Kissinger,Bzerzinski(sp?) and Sandy Berger, a bipartisan and respected bunch. Who, of similar past stature, is speaking out for war apart from right-wing usual suspects like Kirkpatrick ?
“You’ve already had to explain away such conservative voices as The New Republic…”
Well it’s not my fault that the TNR is obsessively pro-Israeli and hawkish when it comes to the Middle-East. The point is that while they might be liberal on domestic issues it isn’t the slightest surprise in terms of their ideological position that they are pro-war. On the ME it would be more accurate to classify them as neo-con rather than liberal.
“In any event, trying to pin an ideology on the debate is a pointless exercise, isn’t it?”
Why? It is important to determine how much consensus there is for a war across the political spectrum . The fact is that most of the war talk is coming from one faction of the conservative movment with pockets of support from other places.
As for substance I have given my arguments against in some detail on previous threads.
Well, I’m not sure what you want from me. I’m not sure what you’d consider to be a ‘valid’ tally of Libertarian thinking. There’s a healthy debate going on right now about the war amongst Libertarians. And by the way, Reynolds isn’t ‘just’ a blogger. He’s the king of the bloggers. The man gets tens of thousands of hits a day. He’s a frequent contributor to Libertarian journals and magazines. He’s a professor of law. He’s a pretty big name. But if you follow his links to other bloggers of his ilk, you’ll find that most of them support war against Iraq.
Back to Kissinger: Here’s a quote from him that backs up what I was talking about:
That’s from an Op-Ed piece Kissinger wrote last week.
Then there’s this from the Washington Times:
So I guess you’d better take Kissinger out of your category of conservatives that don’t support Bush. I guess that makes him a Neo-con or irrelevant.
Sam,
Look the two big institutions in the libertarian movement are the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party. Both have come out against the war. The two most prominent GOP pols with libertarian sympathies are Armey and Kemp; both are skeptics. Given these facts you would have to produce an fairly large number of prominent pro-war libertarian pundits to claim that the libertarians are even divided between skeptics and hawks; Reynolds and Glassman don’t cut it. There are clearly some libertarian hawks but they clearly are a minority.
As for Kissinger our interpretations of the quote are obviously different; I interpret it as saying that the US should propose inspectors and if Saddam refuses it will have a better reason to attack him. Nowhere does he say that he thinks Saddam will refuse inspectors.
There was a good note in the talkingpointsmemo blog by John Judis which interpreted Kissinger as being in the Levin-Blair camp.
Here is Judis:
“And, most important of all, it must “propose a stringent inspection system” through the U.N. That last condition means that Kissinger agrees with Senator Carl Levin and with European leaders like Tony Blair who want to see whether they can contain Saddam’s nuclear program through the U.N. before undertaking an invasion. By contrast, the administration, as Vice President Dick Cheney made clear last Friday, insists that an invasion will be necessary even if Saddam were to agree to arms inspections. So contrary to appearances, Kissinger completely disagrees with administration policy.”
The interesting thing is that hawks while complaining about the Times mispresenting Kissinger themselves do the same thing and in particular omit to mention the lines about inspections.
Marshall himself makes the point nicely here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/aug0203.html