The Great Pro-War Massacree Thread (and General Meltdown)

[elucidator]

Well, that does appear to be the emerging “party line”. Those dastardly liberals over at CIA misled and misinformed our Beloved Leader, who yet to this day supports them, even as they treacherously failed him in his hour of need. Why, Heavens to Betsy, poor Rummy was even forced to concoct his own seperate intelligence team to come to the correct conclusion…er, to sift and analyze the raw intelligence. Feith based intelligence.

They had to come up with something, I suppose. This is most likely the best they can do. How many times can poor George Tenet fall on his sword? That must get tiresome in a hurry.

OK, they’ve got a defensive line, however ragged and implausible. Now all they got to do is cobble together some sort of remotely acceptable “government” for Iraq toot sweet. Anything remotely plausible will do, just enough window dressing for the Bushiviks to declare victory and start bringing home soldiers for the Re-elect Our Troops and Support Our President Rally.

Trouble is, this gives trump cards to each of the respective potential antagonists, the Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a. They haven’t the strength to muscle each other out of the picture, but any one of them can upset the apple cart. They don’t trust each other, and they don’t trust us. They can’t fuck each other, but they can damn sure fuck us! Each group has mutually contradictory goals, none of which can be realized under a “federal” Iraq. (Except the Shi’a. They seem to have caught on that time is on thier side, that any remotely democratic Iraq must end up with them in the driver’s seat. Oh, happy day…)

Each group wants entirely different things from the US. And each has a grip on our balls, to give a hearty yank whenever needed. Solomon would throw up his hands and go get drunk.

There is a solution. Turn the country over to a hand-picked leadership and place them in the protection of a reconstituted Iraqi military. Hand out a bunch of medals and run like hell. With any luck, it won’t come totally unglued before November. Then they can shrug and say “Well, we gave them a democracy, but they fucked it up. Oh, well.”

If it occured to me, it occured to them as well. Got two bits? Bet me.

[Uncommon_Sense]

Mtgman, shit, sorry.

That last paragraph was worded in such a way that you were able to take it the wrong way.

"Also, unbiased persons could plow through all the same info and come to different conclusions. "
This was in exclusion of you. IOW, two people reading the same material will come to two different conclusion. I was just rationalizing why you could have come up with your position while others reach a different conclusion looking over the same facts.
Again, sorry, it was clear in my fingers when they typed it but I can see how it looked like an attack on you.
Getting back to the original point. I think that people do find that they enter such quest for facts with a certain bias. If youre a Bush hater it requires that you find overwhelming evidence to change your convictions. If youre on his side then you do not need as much supporting evidence. Depending on how far in one direction you lean determines how much persuasion you`ll need to cause you to lean the other way.
It would be a challenge to find one person that is completely unbiased.

[elucidator]

…It would be a challenge to find one person that is completely unbiased.

Not at all. I’m right here.

And after careful review of the evidence and facts of the matter, I have reached the entirely non-partisan and unbiased opinion that the Bush Administration needs to be chucked out at the earliest possible opportunity.

Any other questions, as long as I’m at hand?

[Mr.Svinlesha]

GoHeels:

Wow. Impressive analysis. Not that I agree with all of it, mind you….

• Rumsfeld’s personal stock is somewhat better, probably because he’s got such a joie de vivre about his core ruthlessness that so many find endearing.*

• The consequences of the WMD fiasco are also geopolitical. The doctrine of pre-emptive war lies in ruins as a result of the WMD failure, or at least Bush’s ability to carry it out. Successfully making high-level intensity war still requires the consent of US citizens; Iraq proved there is no force in the world that can stop the American government - when it has the capability to impose its will - except its people. But the people require a sound reason for war, and the main one Bush gave last time was WMDs. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me will be the mantra if Bush attempts another pre-emptive war under similar circumstances. This means that US strategic options are reduced, but still other options remain.*

Domestically, his credibility appears only slightly damaged (so far); but the damage done to America’s credibility in the international community is potentially much worse:

**The Bush administration’s inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – after public statements declaring an imminent threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein – has begun to harm the credibility abroad of the United States and of American intelligence, according to foreign policy experts in both parties.

In last year’s State of the Union address, President Bush used stark imagery to make the case that military action was necessary. Among other claims, Bush said that Hussein had enough anthrax to “kill several million people,” enough botulinum toxin to “subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure” and enough chemical agents to “kill untold thousands.”

Within the United States, Bush does not appear to have suffered much political damage from the failure to find weapons, with polls showing high ratings for his handling of the war and little concern that he misrepresented the threat.

But a range of foreign policy experts, including supporters of the war, said the long-term consequences of the administration’s rhetoric could be severe overseas – especially because the war was waged without the backing of the United Nations and was opposed by large majorities, even in countries run by leaders that supported the invasion.

“The foreign policy blow-back is pretty serious,” said Kenneth Adelman, a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Advisory Board and a supporter of the war. He said the gaps between the administration’s rhetoric and the postwar findings threaten Bush’s doctrine of “preemption,” which envisions attacking a nation because it is an imminent threat.

The doctrine “rests not just on solid intelligence,” Adelman said, but “also on the credibility that the intelligence is solid.”

Already, in the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, China has rejected U.S. intelligence that North Korea has a secret program to enrich uranium for use in weapons. China is a key player in resolving the North Korean standoff, but its refusal to embrace the U.S. intelligence has disappointed U.S. officials and could complicate negotiations to eliminate North Korea’s weapons programs.

James Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration who believed there were legitimate concerns about Iraq’s weapons programs, said the failure of the prewar claims to match the postwar reality “add to the general sense of criticism about the U.S., that we will do anything, say anything” to prevail.**

Then, of course, I love this bit:

Bush, when asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer why he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when intelligence pointed more to the possibility Hussein would obtain such weapons, dismissed the question: “So, what’s the difference?”

[Bugs Bunny]

What a maroon!

[/Bugs Bunny]

• When compared to guerrilla wars in Vietnam (vs. France & U.S.) or Afghanistan (vs. Soviet Union), the insurgency left much to be desired. Its significance was enhanced by Bush’s ineptitude in managing how the masses perceived the war, in part because of his mediocre (to be charitable) rhetorical ability, a rather annoying preference for secrecy, and a general dismissal of the importance of establishing a narrative.*

That was beautiful, and you’re the first person I’ve met on the board to speak to the importance of “establishing a narrative” in modern American political discourse. But I have to disagree with you on the specifics of that point; I think Bush – or well, not him, but his team – are superb narrators. The way this administration has seized upon events since 9/11 to create a “narrative of war,” for example, has been truly impressive, and is to my mind a big part of the reason that the administration managed to bamboozle the public into this damn fool excursion to begin with. Here, let me give an example from Bush’s latest public statements in Poland:

**Question: “Mr. President, a year ago you said the dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction. Are you still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, given what Dr. Kay has said?”

President Bush: “Let me first compliment Dr. Kay for his work. I appreciate his willingness to go to Iraq and I appreciate his willingness to gather facts. And the Iraq Survey Group will continue to gather facts.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That’s what we know. We know from years of intelligence – not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence-gathering organizations – that he had weapons – after all, he used them. He had deep hatred in his heart for people who love freedom. We know he was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. We know that he defied the United Nations year after year after year. And given the events of September the 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein, because he didn’t have any.

“There is no doubt in my mind the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. America is more secure, the world is safer, and the people of Iraq are free.”**

Now, first we notice that Bush didn’t answer the question posed to him at all. Rather, taking a cue from his media trainers, he exploits the opportunity of the question to present his government’s standard narrative, a sort of “America, shining beacon of hope, at war against the forces of evil and darkness” story, if you will. We recognize the elements: Saddam was a “gathering threat;” “he had weapons of mass destruction, and used them;” he “hates freedom;” he was “defiant;” and of course the inevitable mantra, “September the 11th,” always repeated in the text somewhere near the name “Saddam Hussein,” as a means of establishing a kind of narrative connection between the two.

The only serious problem, as I see it, is that Bush’s narrative is at certain critical points unconnected to reality. So, for example, when pressed about the lack of “WMDs” a second time, Bush pretty much repeated his “Saddam was bad” trope but added:

I said in the run-up to the war against Iraq that – first of all, I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.

Now, here are some more narrative elements: for example, he tries to create the illusion that 1441 represented a unanimous resolution backing Bush’s action (which, or course, it did not), and so forth, but ends by stating flatly, in contradiction to fact, that Hussein “did not let us in.” What’s that, Mr. President? In fact, after 1441 Hussein did let the inspectors in, and his regime was subjected to the most intrusive inspections routine in its history.

So, while I understand that you, personally, dislike the narrative Bush peddles – I find it abhorrent, myself – I don’t think you can say that he has dismissed the importance of establishing one. Quite the contrary. The question is whether or not the general public will discover this disjunction between the Bush narrative and the real world before the next election.

** I do think that as a military matter, the insurgency is all but crushed, unless it can somehow alter the strategic paradigm (doubtful when its symbol was pulled out of a hole begging for his life on TV). The insurgency appears to be retreating after its burst in November, as illustrated in the dramatic decrease in attacks since Saddam was caught.**

Again, I gotta disagree. I think the insurgency is strong, possibly growing. From Juan Cole:

** Wednesday, January 28, 2004

Bomb at Baghdad Hotel kills 3; In other attacks, 6 US Troops Killed, 2 CNN Employees, 4 Iraqi Policemen; 6 US troops Wounded

There was so much violence of so many types in so many places in Iraq on Tuesday that it took me some time just to track it all down and summarize it….

CNN reports that guerrillas detonated a truck bomb in front of the Shahin Hotel in the ritzy Karada district of Baghdad just before midnight Tuesday. Much of the hotel was occupied by Iraq’s interim minister for labor, Sami Azara al-Majun, and his staff. He and other officials were safe, but between one and 3 bystanders were killed.

Tuesday had earlier witnessed 5 attacks that killed 6 US soldiers and 2 CNN employees, along with 4 Iraqi policemen and a civilian.

Guerillas detonated a roadside bomb near Iskandariyah at 8 pm Iraqi time, killing 3 soldiers from the Combined Joint Task Force 7. Another three were wounded….

Bombs Rock Baghdad on Monday

Powerful explosions rocked downtown Baghdad at 10:35 pm local time on Monday, as a rocket also landed in a parking lot near the American headquarters. It is where Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer and his aides park, but no casualties were reported. Sirens went off and US officials at the Coalition compound were told to take cover.

A man getting off a bus in Baghdad stepped on and detonated a roadside bomb. He was killed, and three other passengers were wounded.

Later on Monday, guerrillas set off a roadside bomb in West Baghdad neighborhood, wounding a civilian and inflicting damage on three vehicles….

Monday, January 26, 2004

6 US Soldiers killed over Weekend, Over a Dozen Wounded; 2 Iraqi police dead, dozens wounded; Helicopter Crash

The low-grade guerrilla war against the US military continued at a heated pace over the weekend…

On Sunday, a soldier died of wounds inflicted by a rocket-propelled grenade attack near Beiji, north of Baghdad…

In a separate incident, according to the WP, a riverboat capsized while on patrol, and one out of the 4 US soldiers on board went missing, in the north near Mosul early on Sunday. The US military then sent a helicopter out to look for the lost soldier, and the helicopter went down with its two crewmen (the cause of the crash is unknown). Then an Iraqi police team secured the region for a search for the helicopter and one of them was killed at a makeshift checkpoint in a drive-by shooting. Arriving US troops met small arms fire. Two Iraqi police and a translator were killed in the same region, either, as the WP says, in the capsizing incident, or, as wire services suggested, in a separate one. This area seems to be like the Bermuda Triangle or something.

On Saturday, guerrillas near Khaldiyah in the west detonated a car bomb, killing 3 US troops and wounding 6; they wounded 8 Iraqis, as well. On the same day, guerrillas drove a car bomb into a military checkpoint, near Fallujah, killing another 3 US soldiers and wounding six. A third attack, at Samarra north of Baghdad, narrowly missed a US convoy but killed 4 Iraqis and wounded 40.**

And so on.

I also doubt that the insurgency is primarily indigenous at this point, if it ever was, so I don’t think Saddam’s capture has had much of an effect. I don’t see the connection you make between Sistani’s “muscle-flexing” and the decline of the “Sunni-fueled insurgency;” but would be interested to read your explication.

Also, I doubt the US is as “inured” to the steady drip-drip-drip of casualties as you would have us believe. I think that it just takes time for something like that to reach critical mass. The point is that for the moment, Iraq is a dangerous place for Americans; and a “spectacular attack” or “major deterioration” of the situation could come at any moment, and the administration knows that now. So the constant attacks, bombs, etc, though perhaps tactically ineffective, are putting a great deal of pressure on the US to find some kind of solution to the political mess and beat feet. That only increases the chances that the US will be forced out prematurely, leaving Iraq in the hands of some Shiite theologian, or maybe be engulfed in civil war – despite Bush’s narrative of “sacrifice and steadfastness.” Think about it: if Iraqis start shooting at each, what the fuck are the American soldiers going to do? Just sit there and hold on to their asses, I imagine.

This response is overly long, so I must round off. Just one last comment:

• As for me personally, I admit I’m conflicted. Bush resonates with me because he at least recognizes the situation in the MENA was untenable in the long term, and he had the guts (or hubris, YMMV) to confront a failed status quo.*

There is some merit to this point. But I’m not sure I’m a big fan of Bush’s solution to the MENA failure, for a whole host of reasons.
Dorkness:

Howdy. Nice to see you again. Hope all is well with you and yours down there in Asheville. (I just thought I’d send a greeting, since I don’t really have any comments regarding your posts, seeing as how we seem to be pretty much in agreement and all.)
whuckfistle:

I’ll be back (I hope).

[Beagle]

This is a good article on how the French media was probably too anti-war biased. That’s all I’ll say about that. Almost all of the rest of my criticism will be domestic. Rather than mudsling in one direction, I try balance it out somewhat.

First of all, Bush never justified the war convincingly for the reasons I was in favor of it – humanitarian grounds and crimes against humanity. OTOH, we were facing real philosophical opposition from the Europeans that was not going to go away by using a policy of “cooperation, not confrontation” – or whatever soundbite you favor.

Let’s face it, Bush doesn’t make complex arguments for for what he does much at all. Recently, when he was with the Polish PM, who was making many interesting statements about Bush and the war on terror, Bush was staring into space thinking about his truck, or his ranch. Sure, anyone can daydream. I’d avoid doing it during a Q&A with a military ally. He missed the opportunity to extend the remarks. But, with his inimitable style, he made up for it with a backslap.

Calling Saddam “evil” – though true – really isn’t a justification for war. Europeans understandably quake when they see what our news media churns out or hear some of the language Bush uses. If he did a better job of explaining what evil means in the context of regional instability, terrorism, or ongoing human suffering using diplomatic language, I think he might save himself a few problems.

Our military might be secular. Our system might be secular. We might favor freedom for all religions go get along side-by-side peacefully. We may have checks and balances, debate, and an entire system devoted to giving our decision-makers a huge amount of information – but, Bush’s speech writers, DoD people in charge of naming operations, and many politicians – well, they might lead you to believe otherwise.

Let me briefly critique CNN from the right, sort of. They justified not reporting the real news about Saddam’s regime to keep their bureau. That’s not unique, but disgusting. Access is not an inherent good. Having access to propaganda, or torture for your staff, is not news reporting. Leave. Then report the torture.

If the White House says they might back bench your reporter, let us know. If you can’t ask your own questions, let us know. News IS NOT the same as entertainment programming.

As for the rest of the media, and the administration, there is not near enough intelligent conversation about Iraq, the war, the world, anything really.

Bush, like most politicians, is all about slogans. That’s media driven, obviously. If your particular policy viewpoint jibes with his take on something – like the war – you hold your nose and go along with him. That Bush has caused some movement in Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc., is to his credit. I’m one of those that just hopes we can iron out Iraq, a just, albeit somewhat ineptly prosecuted, and poorly followed through on, war. “I’d have had vanilla with that sweater.”

I would have used more troops and had more in the way of immediate reconstruction plans involving local builders. I bet it would have been cheaper. Yes, Halliburton getting all those rush contracts is a bit disconcerting to say the least.

That is one, but only one, of many issues that simply are not discussed in detail. Panels of experts on TV rarely live up to that billing. But, there is only so much time in the day for such unimportant news as the world, war, and the future of our planet.

I do not care about the Peterson trial.

I do not care about Michael Jackson.

Nor do I care much for politicians just blaming the other party.

If I must go to the internet, books, foundations, or thinktanks for news about an ongoing complex situation in the ME, someone isn’t doing their job. What are the real problems in Iraq? Building a democracy, with protection for religious minorities, in an Islamic republic, avoiding civil war, fighting Islamism, all while pulling out on an artificial deadline. Furthermore, we have to do this with the UN being unusually picky about the security situation.

Of course, the actual Iraqi people have some problems that won’t go away soon. The former regime was so controlling, and so all-encompassing, that sometimes it is hard to get people to believe that freedom exists. Criticism of the former regime used to get you tortured. That will make an impression.

The total casualty count of American troops could be exceeded in one day if, say, the Baathists came back into power. Those casualties might be “quiet” in the sense of being carried out execution style with no media coverage, but they would be violent deaths just the same. Lining up all the collaborators and shooting them is still one possible, albeit appearing less likely, outcome to all this.

The news about protestors wanting elections is hardly bad news. Any protestors in Iraq not being killed or getting violent is a step in the right direction. Elections, “no, not that briar patch.” That might, if other circumstances come together, lead to democracy, economic success in Iraq, and peace.

Bad reporting through the years somehow never made it clear that that was the ordinary course of business for Saddam and his regime, killing any dissent (literally). Unless they went Fargo, or Reservoir Dogs on you.

Somehow I made it this far without pointing out that every WMD story has been rushed into headlines before proper follow-up. Good, now I did.

[London_Calling]

@Beagle

First of all, Bush never justified the war convincingly for the reasons I was in favor of it – humanitarian grounds and crimes against humanity.

Not how I remember it - I don’t recall a single person expressing the view you now claim as being your primary motivation, and I read an awful lot of views prior to the invasion. So, you got a cite for being such a caring, thoughtful, farsighted person ?

@Beagle

OTOH, we were facing real philosophical opposition from the Europeans that was not going to go away by using a policy of “cooperation, not confrontation” – or whatever soundbite you favor.

Are you reinventing history as well as yourself ?

No “you” (whoever that is) weren’t, You were facing opposition from the world community, including the UN and EU. Why ? Because there was already a timetable in place for dealing with Saddam that the world community had agreed through the UN.

It wasn’t “philospophical” or “confrontational”, it was a real-world solution, the timescale just didn’t suit Bush’s (post 9/11) urgent regional realignment needs.

And, of course, Bush never came up with any evidence solid enough to convince anyone about the threat - well, except for that comedy show by Powell at the UN.

@Beagle

As for the rest of the media, and the administration, there is not near enough intelligent conversation about Iraq, the war, the world, anything really.

We agree !

[Mtgman]

@whuckfistle

Mtgman, shit, sorry.

That last paragraph was worded in such a way that you were able to take it the wrong way.

Damnit! Does that mean I have to take back the “Physician, fuck thyself.” line? Because I loved that line and I’d hate to see it go to waste on a miscommunication. I don’t know how many of those type of zingers I’ve got left in me.

Getting back to the original point. I think that people do find that they enter such quest for facts with a certain bias. If youre a Bush hater it requires that you find overwhelming evidence to change your convictions. If youre on his side then you do not need as much supporting evidence. Depending on how far in one direction you lean determines how much persuasion you`ll need to cause you to lean the other way.
It would be a challenge to find one person that is completely unbiased.

Well, ultimately there is a “true” and “false” answer though. Life does have objective facts to offer. Aside from questions of subjective reality(If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it type stuff), which I believe to be reasonably inarguable, arguements of something being “unknowable” seem to fall a bit flat. Sure there is a fog of secrecy and furtiveness to penetrate, but the facts are there for the finding and they won’t change just because one person peers into the fog and sees one thing and a second person peers into the fog and sees something else. One, or both, of them is wrong at least to some degree. The correct response, IMHO, is to disperse the fog and the best tool for that job isn’t a MOAB bomb and weeks of looting. Step up inspections, dedicate more inspectors and back them up with military action if necessary.

Let’s say someone is 100% convinced that everything Bush says is absolutely true. No amount of evidence could possibly convince them otherwise. If Bush is actually wrong, then that person is wrong as well. No amount of evidence will convince them they are wrong, but they don’t have to be convinced of something for it to be objectively true. Likewise, being convinced of something doesn’t change the facts on the ground. If a person is absolutely convinced that Saddam didn’t have WMD, that does in no way stop him from actually having them.

There have been some suprises for me in some of the reports from the ISG(Kay’s group) and some other reports from the ground. I’m not claiming omniscience, but the issue was knowable to a far greater extent than the Admin seemed to penetrate to. It was knowable to an extent which would have made for far more effective planning and execution as well as much less entanglement and disruption of the region. I tend to think this level of due dilligence in fact-finding/fact-checking would be the minimum when you’re talking about something as serious as waging war.

Beagle. We’ve been through this before. I might also have supported a war on humanitarian grounds(part of reading all that I did about Iraq and Hussein pre-war is that I have developed a serious dislike for the man and the way he ruled the country), but I have to face the fact that I do not represent a majority viewpoint in this. My fellow citizens supported the war as a method of containing what was sold to them as a threat to the US. If they were lied to or deliberately misled, or just misled through incompetence, I want to know about it and I want heads to roll. I can’t allow the Admin to get away with lying or being incompetent just because I happen to agree with the outcome. I have to stand up and demand fair and accurate information from the Admin in all areas or it may be me they mislead or lie to next. I think “Remember the Maine” was a despicable event in our nation’s history and I refuse to sanction another false battlecry even if I am personally itching for battle. The ends do not justify the means.

Enjoy,
Steven

[MMI]

The problem I have with all of the justifications for the war that do not rely on knowledge that Baathist Iraq was either on the verge of completing a nuclear weapon or in the midst of negotiations to transfer some of bio- or chemical or radiological materials to Al Qaeda is timing. Why did we have to go to war RIGHT FUCKING NOW?

Why not placate the Chileans, Mexicans and Canadians by waiting the thirty days or whatever (and get some sort of slightly more substantive UN backing) ? Take the time to read the UN’s reports on the state of Iraq’s infrastructure. Read the state department’s plans and studies concerning Iraq and post-SH concerns. Read any of several pentagon papers concerning Iraq and governing Iraq post SH. Use the time to get the fourth division in place (or possibly a show of some slight reasonableness or restraint might sway the Turks - heck some show of humility and restraint might sway more than just the Turks). Plan to secure the known NBC weapons sites rather than leaving drums of yellowcake for whoever wants them. Why not take the time to do it right?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

**Hentor the Barbarian ** — Interesting handle. Its significance? You a Robert E. Howard fan?

No, I am a fan of Rush (the Canadian power trio, not the empty headed former football analyst). Perhaps more of an ersatz fan at this point. However, for some reason, I still tend to choose Rush related handles. Since ByTor and Snowdog were taken, I went with a name they made up in the liner notes of one of their albums. Hentor the Barbarian, IIRC, is a snowshoeing hermit who designs electric guitars.

[London_Calling]

@MMI

Why not take the time to do it right?

They absolutely did do it right, by them. The worst case scenario (post 9/11) was that the UN might get its hands on Iraq (as per the existing timetable), when the Cheney Plan required that the USA control the supply of oil and the infrastructure relating to the oil fields.

The whole idea was to pre-empt any possible UN action that might happen once the whole Inspector thing had been gone through to its seemingly never-ending conclusion.

And why precisely then ? Because summer in Iraq was coming, the US military said it was then or much later in the year, by which time the UN might have got its act together and Iraq would have been lost (as far as the US was concerned).

[Ale]

@MMI

Why not take the time to do it right?

One good reason was that, if the inspections would had been carried out as Blix requested, no WMD would have been found… and there goes the war case.

[Beagle]

Some early analysis about the post-war that turned out to be right from long ago available halfway down page one.

OTOH, there will be Iraqi loyalist resistance, not to mention Syrian Baathists, all of whom are royally pissed right now. Victory in Baghdad, even the death or capture of the top leadership, IMO, does not mean there won’t be fierce fighting in Tikrit or Basra. I’m not sure about any of this, obviously. I’d love for the Baathist loyalists to start liking puppies and lay down their arms. But, resistance–much of it ugly and urban–is to be expected. That is like Vietnam, sure. Actually, the city fighting thing only happened once in Vietnam. As for resistance, it’s like most wars in that respect.

The Hitler Youth went down fighting in many cases, when the outcome of the war was long decided. That is a frightening parallel between Saddam and Hitler, using children as cannon fodder, BTW.

Another very similiar–but the exact opposite–problem will be ordinary people wanting bloody reprisals against the Baath Party that brutalized them for so long. Mob justice will be hard to prevent.

Early concerns, my topic, abstract of NYT editorial: right war, wrong reasoning. My belief was that the war had to be justified on many levels. WMDs were one part, but only part, of what I was interested in. If it was just WMDs, I was for keeping the inspectors.

This is probably the best summary of my argument. I did a pre-war topic on the Kurds. Me:

It’s fair to say that for many people the war would have a moral component. To free Iraq from Saddam, release the oil revenue to the people of Iraq, Have elections with two or more candidates. To stop the torture, the disappearances, the just really sick stuff that you can’t believe is happening in an advanced nation like Iraq. All of that, to me, is a moral argument for ending Saddam’s regime. Along with, finally, putting an end to the disarmament two step. To enforce the long-standing agreement with Saddam to disarm. To free up all that money - spent on arming Iraq unnecessarily, the palaces, the triple redundant security for a crazed tyrant - for the Iraqi people also.

But, what about the supposed plan for the Special Republican Guard to take fortified positions in Baghdad and use chemical and biological weapons to maximize overall casualties? I’m not sure how many people that might kill. Clearly, there are strong practical and moral arguments against starting a war with a madman, as tempting as the arguments on the other side are. If the war plan depends on the other side surrendering, or, maybe millions of civilians might die in a chemical and biological holocaust - time to give peace (keep sending in the troops) at least a temporary chance.

Also, if Bush miscalculates the post-war and the regional situation decays into general chaos, violence, or increased tyrrany, the whole point of going will be subverted. So, what happens in Iraq is a test for anything Bush wants to do for the remainder of his presidency.

Whether President Bush understands all the moral and geopolitical dimensions of this potential war the way we want him to UDS, I admit, is an open question. The Turkish deal, if true, makes me wonder what Bush is thinking. Screw the Kurds, again? I’d literally be sick. , the moral imperative to rid the world of the most horrible dictators exists whether the president believes it or not.

Back to the democratic Kurds. Yes, this is another moral litmus test for GWB. If he has any diplomatic skills, he can get an agreement to permit the status quo on the ground to continue without any precipitous military intervention by Turkey necessary. We can handle anything on the ground, obviously. We don’t need the Turks going in for “security?” reasons. Is that what the article said? How thin is that? Any evidence, at all, that the democratic Kurds have any real offensive designs on Turkey? If Iraq (the regime) hits Turkey, cynics would say, that is what we’ve been waiting for. Just stand back and watch what happens then. I think the six or so carrier groups in the area alone would make any Iraqi (or whoever for purposes of this topic) assault anywhere short-lived.

Notice how I deftly skated around WMD stockpiles before the war? HTF should I know?

Actual WMDs or no, I wanted Saddam gone

quick takes on Clinton’s wars

North Korea threatens us, I mention slave labor camps not their nuclear program.

Obviously, I’m a sucker for HR arguments.

[Desmostylus]

OK, Beagle, I’ve read through your links. L_C asked for proof of your motivation:

@London_Calling

@Beagle

First of all, Bush never justified the war convincingly for the reasons I was in favor of it – humanitarian grounds and crimes against humanity.

Not how I remember it - I don’t recall a single person expressing the view you now claim as being your primary motivation, and I read an awful lot of views prior to the invasion. So, you got a cite for being such a caring, thoughtful, farsighted person ?

The posts that you linked to are full of rambling bullshit about WMDs, us v them, Clinton was a pussy.

This one, I think is a good summary of your position:

@Beagle

Inept or not this thing is hitting a critical mass. But for GWB’s supposed ineptitude Iraq would still be refusing inspectors (yes, they originally left). This did not all start under GWB. His dad screwed up by not getting a surrender and Clinton used underwhelming force. There is plenty of blame. Reagan used Iraq as a counterweight to Iran. Some say we sent Iraq bioweapons precursers. France sold them nuclear technology. The UK almost shipped them the parts for the Babalon “super gun.”

Fine. Everyone screwed up. What do we do about a vengeful, resourceful Saddam over the long term?

When the troops are positioned it becomes a binary operation: go or no go. To say go means you want to try to topple Saddam, no go means, functionally, support for his regime. Why? There are no other reasonable options on the table for the elimination of his regime, and the troops will not stay in place forever. Therefore, IMO, it is incumbent upon everyone involved in the debate to seriously note what kind of exceptionally dangerous man Saddam is. He is a dictator’s dictator.

There really are not that many nations I can think of plunging ahead with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capability like Iraq. Yes, this is in dispute. But there is a history of such programs and substantial resistance to the terms of the recent UN resolution. Just denial of access to the scientists should cause any reasonble person to suspect Saddam is hiding his programs. Of course, there is much more.

Just listen to Saddam and his sons, they think they are a threat to the United States. I’m all for debate and criticism and “ept” foreign policy, but ultimately this is going to come to a head, or not. Really, that has been true since the end of Gulf War I and the lack of compliance by the Iraqis.

Everyone can see that you really meant that you were concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people, right?

I guess what you are really saying is that you supported the “regime change” policy, regardless of whether it had any justification whatsoever. And so you claim that the crap you post has always been consistent, because there was never any coherent thought behind it.

[Uncommon_Sense]

@elucidator

Not at all. I’m right here.

And after careful review of the evidence and facts of the matter, I have reached the entirely non-partisan and unbiased opinion that the Bush Administration needs to be chucked out at the earliest possible opportunity.

Any other questions, as long as I’m at hand?

Do you know any comedians, besides yourself? Good ones, I mean.

[Beagle]

Actually Demo you’d have to look at the part I bolded about the moral component and plug it in with the nervous military sounding shit as the war neared.

I was in favor of overthrowing Saddam, but actually less so if the only reason for going was that he had stockpiles of mustard gas. See, he’d use it on our troops, only kill civilians, and the inspectors had a fighting chance at finding it.

I’ll pull out the relevant quotes. The first one is a repeat.

**It’s fair to say that for many people the war would have a moral component. To free Iraq from Saddam, release the oil revenue to the people of Iraq, Have elections with two or more candidates. To stop the torture, the disappearances, the just really sick stuff that you can’t believe is happening in an advanced nation like Iraq. All of that, to me, is a moral argument for ending Saddam’s regime. Along with, finally, putting an end to the disarmament two step. To enforce the long-standing agreement with Saddam to disarm. To free up all that money - spent on arming Iraq unnecessarily, the palaces, the triple redundant security for a crazed tyrant - for the Iraqi people also…

…or increased tyrrany, the whole point of going will be subverted…

But, the moral imperative to rid the world of the most horrible dictators exists whether the president believes it or not.**

As I said, the Kurd article summarized my position pretty well. This was in there also.

Personally, I don’t see any bonus to my domestic safety that is worth scrapping a whole people’s right to self-determination, if not actual independence. I find it hard to believe that the World’s Only Superpower could not cut a deal to protect a fuctioning democratic state that already exists. Maybe ‘US of Kurdistan’ (or whatever) has to be colored in on maps as part of a larger state, fine. But to let them get manumitted into the local tyrrany would make me sick. **

Sorry about that, but that’s as freaking clear as I could possibly make make it back then without coming out and actually opposing Bush on the war, stupid justifications, facial expressions, and all.

I wanted Saddam out for the Kurds, the Saudis, our troops in Saudi, Usama (hey, big fella!), the Palestinians, and all the right-thinking people of the world – including the Free French. Vive liberte! But mostly, I’m hoping some Iraqis will become SDMB members and tell me what an asshole I am with their newfound freedom.

[MMI]

Ale and L_C: I think probably that you are right that for the administration it was imperative to start the war before too much extra evidence or serious thinking occurred, lest someone talk them (or the American people) out of the war they wanted/needed/felt was necessary. However, my question wasn’t really asked to opponents of the war but rather to those who seek to justify the war on other than imminent threat WMD/terrorist grounds.

If the war was fought on humanitarian grounds, then I would have thought it made more sense to invade/occupy/liberate with at least some thought given to how to deal with eminently foreseeable post-war humanitarian issues - infrastructure, governance, policing.

If the war was fought for either oil or to call out the baddies, why would an invasion in September in bad faith be any worse than an invasion earlier, in equally bad faith? Certainly any failure of Hans Blix to locate any wmd’s in the interim could continue to be spun as a combination of (typical) UN incompetence/dictator coddling and Saddam Hussein, evil genius, managing to shuffle around the weapons the administration knows, knows he has, one step ahead of the UN.

[Tee]

@MMI

Ale and L_C: However, my question wasn’t really asked to opponents of the war but rather to those who seek to justify the war on other than imminent threat WMD/terrorist grounds.

I wouldn’t call it a justification, but probably the overwhelming reason for individual Americans’ support of the war was as a means to remove Saddam Hussein from power for a whole list of reasons. That seems very self-evident to me. On this board I recall seeing staunch Democrats defending their support of this because others suggested they were on the wrong side - crazy talk. I’ve seen a lot of the opposition - elucidator for example - claim that they’d be supportive of such a thing when done right, i.e. with broader international support. So I assume that UN approval is, by itself, a justification and lack of it by extension is an acceptable reason to oppose the war. Fine. You win that one.

But the purpose was, is, and ever shall be, removing Saddam Hussein from power. I’d like to see an example, cite, introduction…something indicating that a majority of people supported this effort solely because they feared an imminent attack by Iraq. I’ve never run across it myself. I’ve seen “Time for him to go!” quite often. People my age were involved in Desert Shield and Desert Storm right after high school.

[Tee]

(the last part of my post isn’t there…)

…right after high school. There was no foreseeable end to either his control of Iraq or his influence in the region, and the responsibility to keep him “contained” fell to us for the duration. I don’t think that’s in dispute. So rather than question the wisdom in not placating the Chileans and Canadians, I wonder why the hell the Chileans and Canadians needed the 30 days to be “placated”.

[Beagle]

And, of course, by “article” I mean post or topic. Those were my statements about moral justification. Hitchens wrote the article that I started the topic on.

I thought the best justification for overthrowing Saddam was crimes against humanity. I didn’t know the extent of Saddam’s atrocities at the time, but I read HR estimates in the thousands. His links to terror, though important, certainly weren’t enough by themselves. His wars, alone, probably weren’t enough. But, you mix all that together, along with his apparent bloodlust and there was a decent case for war.

The point was, and I guess is – even though the whole idea is to get out at this point – I wasn’t willing to give up the Kurds for any perceived safety benefit at the time. I figured Saddam had some chem and bio weapons tucked away. So, I was wrong about that. Or, the future holds unpleasant surprises.

As I mentioned in one of the threads I linked, we sold them germ samples, the French sold them nuclear technology and advanced weaponry. We also sold them conventional weaponry. The Russians sold them the most. Or, RPGs grow on trees. Actually, statistically, they did – mostly as Soviets. Various nations, Germany, Poland, China and did I mention the US? (oh, now the third time), gave Iraq weapons and technology. The UK almost sold them the barrel for the supergun accidentally. Iraq actually used chemical weapons, duh. But, as I said, chemical weapons aren’t the real WMDs – IMHO.

OTOH, any kind of WMD material in the hands of terrorists is a serious threat. The new “delivery system” that al Qaeda and the other radical groups are so proud of is the suicide bomber. They think that they can beat our technological edge with kamikaze, martyrdom/female/WMD someday? bomber tactics. Don’t know yet really. The links between some states and terrorist groups certainly ups the ante.

I’m probably just going to wait for a while and hope for the best. The Europeans aren’t my enemies, the liberals aren’t my enemies, nor are any posters here. Well, unless you want to kill me.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Tee

I wouldn’t call it a justification, but probably the overwhelming reason for individual Americans’ support of the war was as a means to remove Saddam Hussein from power for a whole list of reasons.

Some true, some made up - one of the major ones was, if you’ll recall, the allegation that Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush is still trying to make that insinuation, and a large number of people still believe it. As the song goes, “Have you forgotten?” Getting the guys responsible for 9/11 “was, is, and ever shall be” the primary goal. You might also be aware that Powell had offered to let *Saddam stay in power * if he acquiesced completely in the WMD issue - kind of undercuts the regime-change argument, doesn’t it?

I’d like to see an example, cite, introduction…something indicating that a majority of people supported this effort solely because they feared an imminent attack by Iraq.

You won’t, because it’s a distortion of the facts and reasoning you’re discussing to put the word “solely” in there. But if you take that as another item in the list of lies we were given to believe, then sure, it’s part of it. If regime change “was, is, and shall be” *the * goal, then why IYHO all the lying and dick-waving and other damage to our standing? Do you think we the people just might not have accepted the war if the truth had been told? Truth, that is, not only about the facts on the ground but about Bush’s motivations. That shitpile doesn’t stink any less 500 deaths later.