http://tampatrib.com/News/MGA65V9295D.html
Here’s a pretty well-informed voice speaking out against any action at this time.
<<Here’s a must-read from an international law professor, Michael Byers.>>
If a dentist discussed war with Iraq, he might analyze it in terms of teeth. Being an actuary, my anlysis would focus on insurance rates. Of course, our analyses would be worthless.
Prof. Byers fares no better, using historical international law as his basis. The giveaway is this passage:* “What is most striking about the new policy is that it portrays weapons of mass destruction as a new problem…In fact, the first treaty on poison gas dates from 1899.” *
He needs to make the claim that today’s WMDs are not new. Otherwise he admits that historic international law is no longer a sound basis for policy. However, his quote does not make that case. A single hydrogen bomb no larger than a television set might kill 20 million people in New York or London. This is an utterly different magnitude of threat than poison gas ever could have been.
General Zinni knows military matters, so he certainly has something to contribute there. When he says that war with Iraq would draw down the armed forces’ manpower, which is already "stretched too tight all over the world,’’ I assume he’s right. Still, the purpose of the armed forces is to be used when necessary, not to be kept permanently stored. Note that Gen. Zinni did not say that we couldn’t defeat Iraq with our current manpower.
Some of Zinni’s arguments wouldn’t stand up on this web site:
Secretary Powell may have “expressed reservations” (whatever that means), but he has not ever said he opposes war with Iraq. Zinni quoted precisely two (2) former military leaders who recommended against the war, and then says all the generals see it the same way. Feh.
Thanks, Plnnr, I saw that earlier, but neglected to post it.
For those of you thinking about skipping that link, that would be unwise. The speaker in question is Reitred Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, ex-head of the Central Command and (as I understand it) head honcho in charge of the Middle East, and current Special Envoy to the Middle East.
december: If a dentist discussed war with Iraq, he might analyze it in terms of teeth. Being an actuary, my anlysis would focus on insurance rates. Of course, our analyses would be worthless.
But your discussion of war with Iraq, and of all the other war-related issues you so frequently discuss on these boards, does not in fact focus on insurance rates or other actuarial aspects. If you believe your analyses of such issues are “worthless” because you’re not a military expert, why do you continue to subject us to them?
On the other hand, if other people than military experts are capable of providing useful perspectives on military issues, then Byers is in no way disqualified from having something valuable to contribute.
He needs to make the claim that today’s WMDs are not new. Otherwise he admits that historic international law is no longer a sound basis for policy.
Sorry, but this is inconsequent gibberish. “Historic international law” includes not just nineteenth-century treaties on poison gas, but also reams of more recent international law and treaties dealing specifically with nuclear weapons and other forms of “today’s WMDs”, to which Byers also refers. You’ll have to come up with a far better argument than that to convince anyone of your vaguely Orwellian proposition that “international law is no longer a sound basis for policy” (aka “rules are for fools”).
I think it’s an open secret that Powell is highly skeptical of war though of course he hasn’t said so in public. For that matter I don’t think Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz have actually said in public that they want war against Iraq thought that is what they clearly want. I think it should be obvious that the participants in these internal debates have ways of making known their preferences without making public statements.
So there are ,including Zinni and Wesley Clark, five generals who are in various degrees skeptical of war compared to the administration hawks who, put together, don’t have a single day of combat between them AFAIK. (I think Rumsfeld who was a peace-time naval aviator in the 50’s comes closest). That itself tells its own story.
Ace, what’s your malfunction? You intimate that the President is an asshole in virtually every thread you start or reply to, and then you lump me in with him.
You are so Anti-Bush you can’t see through your prejudices and act civil to people who disagree with you. MEBuckner gave the obvious counter to my response, and deservedly so. There was no need for you to respond the way you did, however.
My rationale was based on what you said later in your response to Sam Stone, by the way, if you care. To wit:
When was the last time we did wage a Constitutional war? 60 years ago. The odds are not good that we will ever have another one again. The enemy has changed to the point where we no longer fight nation-states. There quite literally is no “enemy” to declare war on. Therefore, your objections on the basis of the lack of Constitutionality are noteworthy but useless, since those laws haven’t been adhered to in a half-century and are unlikely ever to be invoked again. Even if we do go after Saddam, it will still be part of the “War on Terror”. We won’t declare war.
(Incidentally, as far as evidence goes, I’d like to see it as well, even though Saddam’s defiance in the face of the rules set upon him after he lost the Gulf War is really all the evidence we need. For all the sentimentality this country has for oppressed people, though, you’d think we’d want to go after Saddam with six guns blazing, evidence be damned.)
As I had said before, the President has generally gotten approval to send troops into combat zones historically, but as Vietnam has shown, once troops are there, Congress will support them. If Congress were to deny support to the sons, daughters, husbands, and children of this country to spite the President, they would swing.
If Bush sends troops, lawful or not, there will be a war. I don’t necessarily agree with Bush doing things that way, but that’s how he’ll do it if we go after Saddam.
US Airman Doors, I apologize for any unitended incivility. It’s hard to find a polite way to say that this post:
Was monumentally ignorant, and arrogant, and yet accurately reflects the administration’s position. You make some good points, but they are obscured by this boulder of an error, and it seems you’d rather be angry at me than address your mistake. [Shrug]
The more people who think like you do, that the constitution and the Congress and the People are mere paper tigers who will roll over in event the President cynically and caculatedly causes our troops to come into harms way for mere political gains, the more we yield to fascist tension, and the more we must preempt the placing of troops in such a manner.
Not to single out Airman Doors, as he isn’t alone in his misguided, yet patriotic intent. I suggest, we all re-read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers with specific respect to the concentration of power embodied in the excutive branch’s creeping command of war powers. We should remember that we are patriotic not solely towards the President, but towards the Constitution and the Ideals imbued in it. From No. 51, James Madison:
From this, I state it is just as patriotic to insist that the war powers be returned to Congress, and that the lack of nation-states is a canard, easily addressible by an empowered Congress.
This is really gonna chap your ass, Ace.
I have currently in my possession the Social Studies textbook that my sister, who is a Senior in high schol, uses. In the section that reproduces the Constitution in its entirety, they add footnotes to make things easier to understand.
Check out what they put down for a footnote when describing Section 8, Clause 11, the one that empowers Congress to declare war:
Isn’t that interesting? It’s almost exactly what I had said above, with the proviso that the War Powers Resolution won’t stand up. And to think they teach this in high school.
I would agree with your last statement, by the way, Ace, it would be better if Congress were making that decision, but that’s a losing battle. It’s being interpreted differently than you would like, and it’s being taught that way to kids.
It would appear that my interpretation of things won’t be going away anytime soon, if ever.
Looks like I’m a fascist, then. Eh, Ace?
I’m never one to have a problem with the statement of fact – wouldn’t a social studies book be remiss if it didn’t have that? But I’m sure it doesn’t say that we should ignore the rule of law altogether, or acquiesce to those forces who would attempt such.
And as I recall, Bush & Co. are big believer in “staunching the flow of powers.”
For the sake of argument I’ll give you Powell as a war opponent, although you have no cite.
How many retired generals are there in the US? Let’s include admirals, too. I do not know where to find that statistic, but I imagine the figure is over 500, perhaps in the thousands.
Five out of over 500 retired top-level military officers is less than
1%. We haven’t heard from the other 99%+. It’s a statistical fallacy to focus on this 1%, but that’s what war opponents have been doing, led by the New York Times. When Scowcroft came out against the war, they made it headline news. If 100 other retired generals support the war, they didn’t report that.
In short, it’s spin.
If the New York Times really wanted to present the opinion of retired generals, they could get a list and poll them. But, that’s not the point. They wanted to focus on a selected few, in order to fool people.
Um the point is that of those generals who have spoken out on the issue the majority are skeptics. If any of the other 500 speak out they should also be counted. And the ones who have spoken out aren’t some random generals but generally ones who have achieved high prominence in recent years like Scowcroft and Schwazkopf who presumably deserve to be heard more than the average general.
BTW one former general Alexander Haig has supported the Bush position (although even he has some subtle differences with the administration hawks).
Most significant of all is that within the administration, according to newspaper reports, the professional military is much more skeptical than the civilians though of course they haven’t said so publicly.
We do not know this. Of those who have spoken out and had their position widely reported, 4 or 5 are retired generals. We have no way of knowing how many others have spoken out in some forum or other, but not had their position plastered all over the media.
Yes, these two are much more prominent than average. Still, there must be dozens of others who are equally prominent. OTOH Zinni is perhaps less prominent than the average general.
Incidentally, I heard Zinni on TV. His opposition to the war is not miltary, it’s diplomatic. In the field of diplomacy, his generalship does not make him an expert.
I’ve seen this claim, too. It should be taken with a grain of salt, because:
– Some of these newspapers are pushing an anti-war position.
– Virtually all of Bush’s civilian foreign policy wonks support war with Iraq (perhaps excluding Powell, who is in a civilian position.) If, say, 75% of our military leaders support the war, it would be true that the military has less support than 100%.
I have seen no evidence at all that a majority of military leaders oppose the war. Any cites you can find would be welcome.
Say, December, what percentage of the Republican military leaders coming out against the war would convince you that it’s a bad idea?
And what percentage of newspapers?
How about our overseas allies?
See, in the military – ‘having some concerns,’ is the civillian equivalent of taking a messy crap all over the plan and handing it back. They hate to disagree; rest assured that they hate the plan, mainly because it doesn’t solve problems, it creates them.
Oh, and Iraq says political solutions are still available.
Hitler also said all he really wanted was Czechoslovakia. Not that I’m in favor of war with Iraq, but this statement stood out as one of shocking naïveté (what a great word). It should be pretty obvious to anybody who has followed the news that Hussein and his thug cronies are simply trying to buy time. If they had wanted the bombings, the sanctions, and the threat of full-blown war to end at any time in the last 4 years, they just would have had to let the inspectors back in.
<<Say, December, what percentage of the Republican military leaders coming out against the war would convince you that it’s a bad idea? >>
50%
<<And what percentage of newspapers? >>
You mean newspaper editors? I do not know how much credibility they deserve.
<<How about our overseas allies? >>
Any ally who opposed the war would be nuts. They will get the benefit of eliminating Saddam Hussein from the world stage, but the US will pay the cost in money and lives.
<<Oh, and Iraq says political solutions are still available.>>
Iraq also said they would cease all efforts to build WMDs and they would permit unfettered inspections. Ha! Why believe anything Saddam says?
In fact, Saddam’s failure to keep his word makes a compromise solution impossible. He could not be expected to fulfill any promise he might make.
December,
My point remains that a majority of prominent ex-generals who have spoken out are skeptics. Now you may believe that there are other generals who support war whose views are not being reported but it is surely up to you to provide evidence of this. Considering that there are many conservative media outlets which support war surely there should be more reports if you are correct.
, “I heard Zinni on TV. His opposition to the war is not miltary, it’s diplomatic. In the field of diplomacy, his generalship does not make him an expert.”
Zinni is actually very prominent as Bush’s Mid-east envoy so he has a lot of diplomatic experience in the region as well.
“Virtually all of Bush’s civilian foreign policy wonks support war with Iraq”
Not really. Virtually all of the hawks are civilians at the Pentagon which is not exactly a foreign policy department. Do you know of any State Department appointees who are pushing for war? Powell? Armitage? Haas? Even the exact position of Rice remains a matter of controversy. So this is a dubious statement at best.
“Some of these newspapers are pushing an anti-war position.”
The WaPo is not really anti-war and there have been reports about military skepticism there as well. Besides I think these newspapers generally do a good job of separating their editorial positions from their news reports for the most part.
“Any cites you can find would be welcome.”
Unfortunately I can’t give the cites to the NTY and WaPo articles because those articles are no longer available for free. Of course they didn’t literally do a statistical survey of all generals but the general impression they articles gave was that the military pros were skeptical. YMMV.
Saddam Hussein supposedly is grooming his son Qusay to step into his position upon his demise. His other son Uday is said to be out of the loop. From what I’ve read, both sons are just as reptilian though not as clever as Saddam. It will be interesting to see what happens when the dust settles.
If the U.S. goes to the trouble of deposing Saddam, you can bet that it isn’t about to allow either Uday or Qusay to take power. Nor anyone else from Saddam’s ‘inner circle’.
In fact, both of those two brutal scumbags will be either dead, in hiding, or in jail when the war ends. Both of them have done plenty of things to get them locked up at the least.
When Saddam’s government falls, I expect the prime candidates for the new leadership to come from the group of exiles who are working with the U.S. now to plan the possible invasion. Some of them used to be quite high ranking in Saddam’s military, and could make credible leaders.