Friend Pervert appears determined to an attack with qualifiers, my premise is too extreme, we don’t bear all the responsibility for innocent deaths, though he is willing to shrug and accept the “lions share”. Many people are “pissed at America”, but this need not be “catastrophic”, so on and so forth. Its like being nibbled to death by ducks.
Still, it remains at least that much valid, he does not contradict, merely scolds mildly for exremity of metaphor. So far, so good.
But this:
Is my ability to prophesy, or lack thereof, relevent to anything? Why am I being called upon to guarantee Saddam’s behavior over 20 to 60 years? Could this have any conceivable bearing on the issue at hand? If we start making such dreadful decisions as war based on our conjectures as to what might happen in 20 years or so, we might as well be scrying with entrails.
And no, I wasn’t implying that an attack from Saddam was “impossible”. But now that you mention it, with what was Saddam going to attack? Special teams of international voodoo masters? Standing on his balcony and shouting curses? Send his army overland through Mongolia and wait for the Bering Straight to freeze over again?
Of course, I said no such thing. Seems a pity to point that out, since you have so directly and forthrightly destroyed that position. And you can accept that we “might” bear the “lions share of the responsibility”? Who else? How was Saddam to comply with our demands to give up his WMD when he didn’t have them in the first place? “Give me your Invisible Pink Unicorns of Death, or else! What? You refuse! Have at you, sir!..”
It was our army that invaded, whom else shares responsibility, Belgium? Luxembourg? The Duchy of Grand Fenwick?
Being in a good mood, I will ignore your underhanded slur about liberals attitude to reponsibility. No doubt you thought better of it, but had already hit the “submit” button.
Since I was discussing the deterrence of Iraq, it seems to make sense to consider what deters Iraq.
I thought you were saying that Hussein had to be convinced that he could get away with it for a few months rather than convinced for a few months that he could get away with it.
And… we had to invade Iraq because Iraq was likely attack us when invade it?
What exactly are you trying to get at here? Go real slow and methodically for me.
AFAICT, ‘imminent’ negates ‘unlikely.’
I’m sure you’re ready and eager to explain how something can be both imminent and unlikely. So, please proceed. I’ll bet it’s good.
Look, if you’re gonna get all humpty-dumpty about things, you should let me know beforehand so we can all prame the borgroves together.
Actually, it “adapted” the “concept of imminent threat”. It did not seek to replace the term imminent with another term reasonable or otherwise. It allowed that an attack could be imminent even “if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack”. It did not broaden the concept to include attacks that are unlikely to occur.
And a likelihood of doing so. In addition to these things you mention above, industry, missiles etc., it had to have the likelihood of actually delivering them. Can’t forget that at all. Very critical part of the threat assessment equation.
This likelihood is what separates India’s WMD from Pakistan’s in terms of threats to the US
Even with stockpiles and a very advanced delivery system, a country doesn’t represent an imminent threat without a likelihood that it will actually deliver the weapons. That’s why we haven’t raised a stink over France’s nukes or Canada’s troops.
You meant to say:
“What 9-11 taught us is that relying on this sort of delivery system in the hands of our undeterrable enemies like al Qaeda before we act is foolish.”
Would you like to try to demonstrate how fanatic stateless actors such as aQ have identical strategic constraints as modern nation-states?
Or would you rather concede that there’re actually broad basic differences between the two categories of threats?
Failure to recognize the enormous differences is a strategic blunder of the first order.
No, it’s not impossible to see. It is visibly flawed on a fundamental level.
Compañero, 'luc, already took care of this one, but I continue to be perpeplexed by this particular line of reasoning – and I use ‘reasoning’ lightly. It’s like playing whack-a-mole with this thing:
Bush Apologist: “Saddam should have cleaned up his act!”
Reality-based objector: “He did. Inspectons and sanctions obviously worked.”
Bush Apologist: “No, he didn’t and they didn’t. Silly to imply America is poised to invade any country at the drop of a hat.”
RBO: “Huh? You just did. And for made-up reasons to boot.”
Well, one would think. But when discussing this in the context of how the administration used intelligence, it seems more prudent to retain focus on how the US viewed the relationship.
That was certainly due to my excessive [mis]use of clauses when I write.
No. I think I recall the intelligence testimony you refer to often as concluding that Iraq was unlikely to attack the US. What they said was that Iraq was unlikely to initiate an attack on the US. Isn’t that correct? What I was trying to point out was that there might have been other things interpreted by Saddam as an attack short of an invasion. How long, for instance, before our opposition to the lifting of sanctions and the continuation of the inspection regime would he have begun to take it personally? Forgive me, I don’t recall all of the details of that testimony (I seem to remember reading it long ago when you pointed it out to me I think). Did they specifically rule out the possibility that Saddam would interpret any other actions as an attack sufficient to launch an attack?
No, I’m afraid it won’t. Because I don’t think I suggested any such thing. What I was trying to point out is that preemption has other meanings as well. There is certainly the letter of international law (if any such thing exists) which says that without clear and widely understood evidence of imminence the war cannot be preemptive. However, I think you might agree, that this is simply a way to define preemptive war so that others can be sure it was not agressive. The difference between inocent and not guilty, if you will.
I disagree. The one I quoted was a secondary clause to the same definition you are relying on. It does not include references to military actions, but yours only includes references to nuclear war actions.
Which is a sub instance of preemptive action in the general sense. No? Are you claiming that it is an entirely different concept?
[QUOTE]
If you’d like, you may supplement the specifically military definition from the dictionary (given that we’re specifically talking about a specifically military situation) with the first definition I provided, the one from the Navy’s Post-grad site, [/QUTOE]Well, to be frank, that one seemed too flipant for our purposes.
*Whether starting a preemptive war is justified in a particular instance is not primarily a question of international law. The critical question is whether the action is one of aggression or of legitimate self-defense, and no law can answer that. There are, however, criteria for judging the action, deriving from something more basic in international politics than specific international laws: the unwritten understandings international actors reach on an ongoing basis as to what is within the bounds, is permissible or not under the rules of the game. These understandings change with time and circumstance, of course, but a fairly wide and stable consensus on this particular issue has developed, especially in recent centuries.
To justify a resort to preemptive war, a state needs to give reasonable evidence that the step was necessary, forced upon the initiator by its opponents, and also that it represented a lesser evil, i.e., that the dangers and evils averted by war outweighed those caused the international community by initiating it. This requires showing that the threat to be preempted is (a) clear and imminent, such that prompt action is required to meet it; (b) direct, that is, threatening the party initiating the conflict in specific concrete ways, thus entitling that party to act preemptively; (c) critical, in the sense that the vital interests of the initiating party face unacceptable harm and danger; and (d) unmanageable, that is, not capable of being deterred or dealt with by other peaceful means. These criteria are naturally open to interpretation and contest. They represent, however, a consensus of enlightened international opinion, make sense of historical experience, and are easily illustrated with historical examples. They have helped actors in the past judge claims and weigh arguments for preemptive wars and have had some effect in deterring illegitimate resorts to it.(2) They are stringent; most claims made to justify preemptive wars do not pass the test, which is as it should be. But the criteria are not unrealistic or utopian, and do allow for preemptive war in certain particular cases.(3)*
What I’m trying to suggest is that “imminent” while certainly an integral part of the definition of preemptive war may not be the only concept in there. For instance, the definition also suggests that the danger be “clear”. This is a concept from when wars took years to plan and execute. Armies had to be moved in large numbers leaving “clear” signs of where they were and which direction they were heading. If we insisted on this word as you wish to insist on “imminent” then no clandestine attack, no matter how well forcasted, could be cause for a preemptive war.
There’s no need for that.
Ok, perhaps you need to go slowly for me. I’m not entirely sure I see the difference. If an attack is imminent but may be unlikely to occur for many years, how is that different form an attack which is unlikely by our latest estimatioin?
I have to disagree with you here. The likelyhood of an attack could (theoretically) be measured by the existence and actions of these sorts of large infrastructures. That’s the whole idea behind the requirement of clear and imminent threat. It allowed for a country to engage in a preventative war, but only when everyone could see the evidence that the war was in fact inevitable. (If you will allow me to turn the words around just a touch)
No.
Identical? No. Of course not.
No, I don’t think I will concede this. aQ did not want to set up an Islamic paradise in some imagined other dimension. They wanted philosophical control of the traditional Islamic states. They did not have any to begin with, so there was a good deal of difference between what they might do and what a recognized nation might do. But they were not some mongongo monkey nuts loonies out there looking to blow up the whole world.
Agreed. As is making too much of them.
Forgive me, but then you have not seen it yet. I’m not saying the thought process I am describing is correct. Just that it is not as easily dismissed as you would like.
Merely turning your penchant for extremity against you old bean. No offense meant.
You also must have missed the For The Sake of Argument clause that we agreed to earlier. In order to get at some issues which are usually clouded by this argument, PatriotX sugested that we agree FTSOA that Saddam in fact had a WMD arsenal.
Quite. And perhaps it would have been more prudent of me simply to respond to your post with this and nothing else. I must try to remember to emulate your pithiness.
I’m not sure what you are criticising me here for. I don’t think I implied that America had cooler heads in regards to the invasion of Iraq.
I would like to address just one point, however.
Yes, frankly, I do. He had a lot of evidence that the US would put up with quite a lot of crap for quite a long time without invading. I really don’t think it would be that great a leap to come to the conclusion that he might just be able to get away with a larger attack somewhere in the world.
And this is a fair judgement. Others disagree.
I don’t think there was much evidence, no. That would have required examination by trained psychologists. There was certainly evidence that he was not very stable, though.
Maybe. But the anexation of Kuwait came after the policy had been made very clear to him. He did not back down, he did not seek to discuss, he ratcheted up the stakes.
Both sides need cool heads. Justifying our actual lack of coolness from Saddam’s potential lack of coolness is like LeMay’s desire to launch a preemptive strike based on the potential for a Russian strike. I shudder to think what would have happened if the current bunch were in office back then. I suspect my 11 year old ass would have been fried good.
The crap we put up with was small change compared to the invasion of Kuwait. Now, especially considering Bush Junior’s axis of evil statements, I can’t find it credible that they would not expect strong action.
But I’m curious about this “attack somewhere in the world.” Do you mean on US interests, or just anywhere? An attack on the Saudis or Israel would probably be considered fair game for reprisal, but if he bombed Teheran would we really get too upset? Anyhow, the threats implied were on US soil, not blowing up a McDonalds somewhere.
Oh. Does the name April Gillespie ring a bell. The Google hits I got seemed to be implying that she deliberately gave the greenlight to the invasion, which I doubt highly, but it seems clear that Saddam understood her to say that we would not block it. Not a conspiracy - the Korean war started in part when someone seemed to be saying that South Korea was not vital to the US. But it is problematic that Saddam had a clear message how attacking Kuwait would be viewed.
This is not to say that someone not surrounded by yesmen wouldn’t have been smart enough to figure it out - but our side has some of the same problems, doesn’t it?
No, I meant US interests. I think that was included in the leadup to the war. Us or her allies and all that sort of rhetoric.
Yes, it does. I remember what she said. And taken the wrong way it certainly could have been interpreted as a green light for the invasion of Kuwait. However, after the invasion, when the whole world was yelling at him, Saddam’s response was to convene his assembly and pass a law anexing Kuwait. Clearly the rhetoric flying about after the invasion did not disuade him from his policy. What I mean is that some of Saddam’s actions are not those of a reasonable man just trying to get along as the dictator of a small country. Some of them portray (JMHO mind you) a decided unreasonablness toward international warnings*.
But you see, I don’t think Saddam figured it out even after we kicked him out of Kuwait. I don’t think he figured it out after the sanctions were imposed and dragged on for more than a decade. I really don’t ever think he fully expected the US to invade and kick him out of office. Why else would he have gone into that spider hole? He expected to be able to come out of there at some point and resume his role as the modern day Nebekenezar.
*Yea, I know, “oh the Irony of mentioning Saddam’s international beligerence from one defending Bush!” But this whole sub thread came up as a result of elucidator suggesting that Saddam had no responsibility for Iraq’s problems of late.
I said that? I can’t believe I said that. I realize that as one approaches the full ripening of one’s maturity, certain minor lapses in memory are to be expected, but still… Boy, I’d sure hate to think I said that, 'cause that would be, like, stupid. Got my faults, Lord knows, and its a long list. But “stupid” ain’t on it.
Perhaps translating “every innocent death” into "Iraq’s problems of late was too much for you? How would you have reworded the sentiment, pray tell. I am trying to absorb some of your pithyness.
Perhaps that isn’t for the best. Your ability to transmute my “sentiment” into yours reveals an exuberant creativity, an easy willingness to go beyond the simple literal meanings into a realm of enthusiastic imagination. Such gifts are not widely given, it might be wise to content yourself.
From you that is high praise indeed. Thank you very much. But the question was more of a technical nature. Surely you are not now contending that the death of innocents is not among the problems of late in Iraq. I agree that I may have gone too far by leaving to doubt wether or not you ascribed any responsibility on Saddam for any of Iraaaqs problems. I left out a “some” or a “many” in the interests of pithyness. As I said, perhaps I went too far? I’ll leave that to you to judge.
Not so much that, but that focusing on an insistence that Saddam bears some of the responsibility for this horror buggers the question. Just as you say, the “lions share” is ours, the question of whether its is ours alone is pretty small potatoes.
Besides, what might he have done? He had no WMD to surrender, he was telling the truth and we refused to believe him. (Thats an especially stinky part for me, that one of the great scumbags of all time was telling the truth, and we persecuted him unjustly for the only crime he didn’t commit!) Did we expect him to surrender himself to GeeDubya in the style of Vercingetorix surrendering to Caesar?
Perhaps we can assign some responsibility to Hussein for failing to cringe appropriately. But did anybody really expect that he might? If your condition for avoiding war is unacceptable to your potential enemy, and you know that before you offer it, then your condition is disingenuous, a mere public relations ploy to soften a blatant aggression.
Thats the towering stupidity, that we demanded Hussein surrender things he did not possess, and refused to believe anyone who suggested that he did not, in fact, possess them. Perhaps if we had given him a bit of time, he might have been able to cobble together something that he could surrender to us!
So, perhaps, what meager crumb of blame remains can be assigned to Saddam. You are welcome to whatever comfort you can find therein.
Well, there were those al samoud missiles which we decided were in violation of the UN’s 150 km range limit (I was never sure they actually were). Saddam did surrender them:
No, it is not. It goes to the heart of your implication that Saddam was as blameless in this situation as Belgium.
Come now, you know the answer to this. He could have been more open with the inspectors from the beginning. Is that really all that hard to understand? Now, after 10 years of rather refusing to do so, he would have had to do something pretty drastic, yes, to apease the Bush administration. But it goes too far to say that we persecuted him unjustly. We did so incorrectly, certainly, but unjustly is just too far.
Can I ask you a question in all seriousness? You do know that the US had a less than friendly relationship with Iraq before Bush came to office, right? What had been our conditions for the lifting of sanctions when Bush began his term?
But again, this was not the demand until the end. For the better part of a decade, all we wanted him to do was abide by the damn cease fire terms. He was, in fact, trying to learn how the South Africans had assured the world that it had stopped developing WMD. He was just trying to do that 10 years too late.
I assume you mean “that” as oppposed to “what” in the first sentence here?
Frankly, I find little comfort in it at all. I opposed the war in Iraq for different reasons altogether than those we are discusing here. Squink, those missles were destroyed in 2003. If I borrowed $2000 dollars from you with an agreement to pay it back in installments, then proceded to avoid you for 10 years while you tried to collect, would my payment of $100 be enough to forstall your lawsuit?
After Saddam reported the over-range (183 km) flight, there was discussion as to whether a test flight by an stripped down test missile constituted a violation of the UN resolution. The UN decided it did, so Saddam destroyed the weapons, after minimally arguing that an operational missile would comply with the resolution.
As it turned out, this was the only significant illegal system he had, and it’s illegality was arguable. Saddam complied with our demands that he disarm, and we invaded anyway.
Your bad loan analogy:
Implies that there was nothing Saddam could do to avoid conquest. That being the case, you can’t really defend on the basis of PatriotX’s “best info available @ the time” can you? No matter what the info was, we’d have invaded anyway.
My point being that they had not been prevented before that date.
But “significant” is a value judgement. Say that again without that word.
BTW, I think I am proving that almost anything is arguable.
No, it doesn’t. In the analogy, I avoided you rather than pay up or give good concrete evidence that I could not pay up. Saddam could have provided a lot more cooperation than he did to the inspectors.
A case can certainly be made that the Bush administration might have fudged some information. But I think it has not been shown at all that we would have gone to war regardless of the information. Think about it logically. Assume for a moment that Bush lied entirely. Every single accusation was made up. Even so, the job of starting a war was made much easier because the target was Saddam Husein. No?
