Were any fundamental neo-con philosophical assumptions changed by the Iraq debacle?

Great Debates
41

Right, we know that because we kept the receipts, even if it was just to get Rumsfeld’s autograph. We also know that “in the past” is not the same as “in the present”, as all those years of inspections and destruction of the stuff should have made clear.

Why do you insist on conflating “had” with “wanted”? That’s the difference between really having and *not *really having them, between being possibly an imminent threat and *not * being an imminent threat, the difference between the world of fact and the world of imagination - the difference between needing to spend lives and *not * needing to.

[quote[This assumption was held by Clinton, Hilary, Albright, Kerry, Gore, and Bush. Since the notion was held by many who are not neo-cons, it is not solely a neo-con idea. [/quote]
But all but the last knew it was an assumption (at best, that is, “reasonable supposition” would be more accurate), and a shakily-grounded one. All but the last didn’t go get real people killed over their own “assumptions”. All but the last didn’t refuse to go find out the facts on the ground. Future historians and ethicists can’t be expected to spackle over something that fundamental the way you’re trying to.

42

Maybe you can use this as an opportunity to make yourself clear, since you apparently have managed it in the last couple years.

Was the war on Iraq about WMDs? If not, what was it about?

Before spouting a bunch more of your tapdancing crap, you might just want to review your previous posts so nobody nails you on your inevitable contradictions.

-Joe, won’t be able to take care of it till Monday, but maybe one of your other fans will instead…

43

[Moderator Hat ON]

merijeek, right after getting warned is probably not the best time to start talking about “tapdancing crap”. I’d like y’all to cool it here.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

44

Not to you, apparently.

There was more than one reason for invading Iraq. More than one, as in not only one, but more than that.

The primary reason was that Iraq had not been cooperating with the inspection regime. Please try to wrap your head around the fact that “primary” does not mean “exclusive”.

As I mentioned, there are other reasons as well. But failure to comply with the inspection regime, fully and unreservedly, was the primary reason.

The reason this was so is that Iraq had invaded Kuwait. The conditions for the cease-fire were that Iraq would not possess or attempt to possess WMD. This is the answer to ElvisL1ves question:

Because Saddam was not allowed to try to obtain WMD either. And he was required to prove that he did not have and was not trying to obtain WMD. And the history of the twelve years between the end of the first Gulf War and the invasion was of Saddam not fulfilling these obligations.

We know he had them in the past. We know that he used them in the past. We know that he had a history of aggression against his neighbors. And we know that he did everything in his power for a dozen years to convince the world that he was hiding something.

Which is why the idea “Iraq has WMD” is not a neo-con principle, but very close to a consensus, shared by (among others) the list of non-neo-con politicians who are on record as sharing this belief.

Now the reason why this was a particularly big deal in 2001 was because 9/11 showed that the US was at risk from international terrorism in general.

Now we hit on another hard topic. Just as it is possible to have more than one reason to do something, it is also possible to have more than one set of enemies at a time. And an attack by one set can sometimes make it clear the risks of attacks from others. This is not the same thing as saying “Iraq was involved in 9/11”. People who claim that this is the same thing are usually being partisan idiots.

Remember the German-American Bund and the isolationist groups of pre-WWII? Charles Lindbergh was even involved in some of them. But a few days after Pearl Harbor, they disbanded. Now that wasn’t because they thought the Germans had bombed Hawaii. In much the same way, the attacks by al-Queda raised awareness of terrorism in general, even though Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

Now I realize this is a more complicated concept than simply chanting “BushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLied” the way the hysterical Left would like to do in every political discussion. And it would certainly be much easier to get Kerry elected if we could all just pretend he opposed the war in Iraq all along, and that Bush was the only person on earth who believed in Iraqi WMD. The trouble is that both these statements are demonstrably wrong. Democrats were just as willing to take military action against Iraq as neo-cons, and based on exactly the same evidence. And in both instances, Iraqi WMD was at the base of it. That’s what Clinton said when he fired the missiles, that’s what the motion said authorizing the war in Iraq when Kerry voted for it, and that is the basis for the UN resolutions condemning Iraq for not fulfilling her obligations under the inspection regime.

I realize this is probably a waste of time. Most of the time, extreme partisans of the Left have made themselves incapable of understanding any position more nuanced than “Bush is a poopyhead”, and will simply misinterpret, misrepresent, or ignore whatever they glean from the above.

:shrugs:

If you don’t want to understand, no one can make you.

Regards,
Shodan

45

Got it! Your vocabulary skills are a shining beacon to us all. But moving right along…

In my fuzzy-thinking liberal innocence, I thought that the primary reason for a war with Iraq was that Iraq posed a dire and immediate threat, which is the one and only justification for a pre-emptive war, as defined by the UN treaties we not only signed, but inspired.

The UN has the authority to decide when and under what circumstances the UN will enforce, or choose not to enforce, its various resolutions. As convenience dictated, the US has chosen to ignore such resolutions as it finds distasteful (oftimes for good enough reason, oftimes not). But no one pinned a tin star to our vest and declared us UN Sheriff, no one authorized us to make decisions for the UN. To base your case on UN resolutions, you must accept that the UN has such authority. If you do, then you must also accept that the UN has the authority to withold such authorizations.

We were never given such authorization. Period. Hence, any mention of “UN resolutions” is an empty distraction.

Is it your contention that any violation of a UN resolution, however technical, is by definition justification for invasion and overthrow by the US? No, of course not, that would be silly. You must mean to suggest that Saddam’s compliance was an issue of such drastic importance, a matter of such immediate danger, than nothing short of direct military intervention would answer.

I believe Mr. Powells press conference in Cairo has been cited here already, if not, its not difficult to obtain. But in it, Mr. Powell directly contradicts your point of view, by stating that the sanctions were a success, and that Saddam posed no threat internationally nor to his neighbors.

With what evidence do you contradict this view? (I could understand if you were skeptical of Mr. Powell, given his dead dog and lame pony show at the Security Council, but I hardly imagine you would want to bring that up…)

What 9/11 showed was that we have always been at risk for terrorism, and sometimes the bad guys get really, really lucky. (I mean, the goddam cockpit doors weren’t locked? We’ve been having plane hijacks for 40 years and the doors aren’t frikken locked!..) The US was a risk for terrorism in the 20’s from anarchist loonies, in the 50’s from Puerto Rican seperatists, deranged rednecky loonies, and so on and so forth.

If you want to claim that the situation with Iraq changed fundamentally* because of 9/11*, then I think you are obliged to make the connection. Something a bit more substantial than Mr. Cheney’s droll innuendo that Iraq is at the “geographic heart” of terrorism would be nice.

Otherwise, you are saying that our attitude towards Iraq changed as a result of 9/11, not as a result of any special misconduct on Saddam’s part.

But we might as well bring this down to nitty-gritty: my premise, and the premise of my ilk (got ilk?) is that war in self-protection is certainly legitimate. But such legitimacy necessarily depends on a clear and present danger.

Are we even singing from the same page on this issue? Your posts would imply not, you seem to be suggesting that if our prejudices and intuitive judgements are popular and widely held, we may offer this as sufficient evidence to warrant pre-emptive war. And that, as well, we are empowered to enforce UN resolutions at our discretion, even if the UN should withold any such authorization.

Clarification, if you wouldn’t mind.

As to the change of “neo-con” to assume perjorative connotations, that is one of those accidents of history. If you have a complaint that the term “neo-con” has taken on unsavory connotations, your beef is properly with Mssrs. Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristoff, and other unindicted coconspirators.

46

Do you have some sort of cite for this? I have to call bullshit.

The threat to the US was the primary reason. That’s why we couldn’t wait. That’s why we didn’t need UNSC approval. We were defending ourselves. Remember what ‘preemption’ means.

If it were primarily about UN sanctions then we’d’ve just let the UN deal with it.

You don’t think that UN resolutions were more important to war advocates than defending America do you?

Which brings us immediately to the questions of priorities- triage.
The Intel Community said that Iraq was unlikely to initiate either a direct attack or one by proxy on the US.
Being unlikely to attack the US (directly or by proxy) should have relegated Iraq to a backburner.

Nor was Iraq involved in other attacks on the US (Wolfowitz’s Mylroie conspiracy theories aside).

Ah, even though you say it’s not ‘primary,’ you say it’s the foundation
of the case for the invasion.
Interesting.

FYI, the lack of adequate Iraqi cooperation toward fulfilling obligations under the inspection regime rather than WMDs was the basis of “the UN resolutions condemning Iraq for not fulfilling her obligations under the inspection regime.”

47

Don’t forget the all important ‘ratified.’
That’s the verb that’s especially special re treaties- see Article VI of the US Constitution.

Do not neglect Dr. Rice’s assessment that the trheat of ‘national obliteration’ was an effective deterrent against Hussein attacking the US just because it appeared in a egghead foreign policy journal.

48

What, and appear to all like an pathetic, unmitigated policy wonk? Thank you, no, I’m not married and am therefore permitted to maintain a shred of manly dignity.

49

For the fact that Iraq had spent a dozen years not cooperating with the inspection regime? You’re kidding.

My primary PC is down, so I will mention the 1998 withdrawal of inspectors and the various UN resolutions as evidence. Did you seriously need a cite?

Which, unfortunately, they showed no sign of doing, also for a dozen years. Thjey would prefer to do nothing, both to appease Muslims both in their own countries and in the MENA, and to continue to assist Saddam to steal from the food-for-oil program.

Not necessarily true. Wasn’t it Iraqi agents convicted of attempting to assassinate Bush Sr? And IIRC Putin mentioned his belief that Iraq was involved in attempts against American targets.

And Saddam abetted Palestinian terrorism as well.

I said exactly the opposite - that it was primary. Be so kind as to not misrepresent what I have posted.

Distinction without a difference. If Iraq were not believed to have or be seeking WMD, the inspection regime would have been irrelevant.

But Iraqi lack of cooperation was taken (by everyone) as evidence that she had something to hide - namely WMD, and the widespread fear was that she would provide them to terrorists.

Regards,
Shodan

50

I’m looking for citation saying that the ‘primary reason’ we invaded Iraq was “that Iraq had not been cooperating with the inspection regime.”

What followed the request for a citation was discussion of what was the primary reason for our invasion of Iraq:
“The threat to the US was the primary reason. That’s why we couldn’t wait. That’s why we didn’t need UNSC approval. We were defending ourselves. Remember what ‘preemption’ means.”

And foreign governments’ compliance with UN inspection regimes is a matter of vital US national interest because…?

Reread Putin’s quote again. IIRC, he discussed planning rather than attempts.

Against the US?

Actually, you said that “[t]he primary reason was that Iraq had not been cooperating with the inspection regime,” and "…failure to comply with the inspection regime, fully and unreservedly, was the primary reason. "
This is different than saying that WMD were a primary reason.

You, however, did not specifically say that WMD were not a primary reason. It seems though that you’ve amply implied such.

Upon further re-reading, I note that you initially said that both the lack of compliance with inspections and ‘trying to get WMDs’ were a single, primary reason.

Lack of compliance is not the same as ‘trying to get WMDs’. ‘Trying to get WMDs’ is not the same as having WMD.

While I’m at it,
The primary reason we invaded Iraq was not the same as any of the three things mentioned above - lack of compliance; trying to get WMD; and, having WMD. The primary reason we invaded Iraq was to counter the threat posed by the possibility Hussein would’ve initiated or otherwise facilitated an attack the US (directly or by proxy) with WMD.

It’s a critical difference.
The relevant relevancy of the insection regimes, while related, doesn’t affect the reasons for the “the UN resolutions condemning Iraq for not fulfilling her obligations under the inspection regime.”
It’s true that the inspection regimes were put in place to inhibit the posession of WMD by Iraq.
However, this is not the same as Iraqi WMD being the “basis for the UN resolutions condemning Iraq for not fulfilling her obligations under the inspection regime,” unless one uses the word ‘basis’ more loosely than I intend. The mere lack of sufficient compliance was enough to generate the resolutions. WMD couldn’t be considered as a basis for the resolutions as there was no positive evidence that Hussein had any WMD. There was, however, positive evidence that Hussein was not providing sufficient compliance. Hence Iraq was censured for insufficient compliance rather than WMD.

Even though the fear may have been “widespread” it was not shared by the American Intelligence Community. The intel Community judged that Iraq was unlikely to initiate and attack (directly or by proxy) on the US.

According to the IC, an Iraqi attack was a potential yet improbable threat. We went to war to reduce or eliminate this already small threat. Also we went to war to eliminate the potential for this threat (WMD programs). We also went to war to eliminate the potential potential for this threat (WMD related program activities).

What was unfortunately missing was an assessment of what was in it for the US. Not merely a description of the best case scenario outcomes that we hope for and call our goals, but a realistic assessment of the US’s probable cost/benefit ratios.

We’ve spent in the neighborhood of $200bil and expended more than ten thousand lives primarily to make an unlikely event even more unlikely.

51

Please quit trying to pretend that the “primary” reason sold to us was revenge for 9/11.

The rest of your carefully-worded statement about Saddam simply being an asshole is, guess what, not in contention here. Nobody disagrees that he was an asshole. He was a pain in the ass to keep contained. But, you know what? He was not a threat to us. Not imminently, not in the near future. He did not attack us. Somebody else did. You’d do well to acknowledge that instead of scorning it - it’s the truth.

More spackling over. Repeat after me: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

That’s when you have to prioritize. Repeat this after me: Al Qaeda attacked the US. Saddam did not.

What are people who insist on claiming, in spite of all the evidence being on the other side, that Saddam was a threat to the US?

Tell us, do you want to be taken seriously, or are you having too much fun with your copy-and-paste function?

You know enough by now that for you to continue to repeat that statement can only be willful. Read the fucking resolution. It’s short.

Based on, and only on, our inability to find the facts out further. But, if you’ll recall, the inspectors *were * there, and *were * looking, and *were * going to come up with a definitive answer, in only about 2 more weeks of looking. The resolution added force to Saddam’s allowing them back in, by saying *if * the shit is there, in quantities and state of control that constitute a threat to others, *then * war can be authorized. But you find it helpful to ignore those facts, as well.

We understand you just fine; unfortunately for you that involves pointing out your dismissal of inconvenient facts, your unnecessary and inappropriate dependence on hypotheticals instead, and your post-hoc rationalizations. The problem there isn’t us.

52

You mean the inspectors who were spying to gain intelligence for the U.S.?

Have you forgotten the inspectors who were in Iraq just prior to the war?

53

This is the first two paragraphs of his speech.

…he had invaded Kuwait, planned assasination of former Presidents, and presented a threat to the region.

Planning is part of an attempt. Meaningless distinction.

No, against Israel, who is a long-standing ally of the US.

No it isn’t.

Nope, never implied any such thing. You are seeing things that aren’t there.

That’s both wrong and irrelevant.

Failure to cooperate is a violation of the inspection regime. Attempting to obtain WMD is a violation of the inspection regime. Possession of WMD after the first Gulf War is a violation of the inspection regime.

George Tenet, director of the CIA, disagrees with you. He said the case for Iraq possessing WMD was “a slam-dunk”.

Putin said that Iraq was planning attacks on the US. Tenet said they probably possessed WMD. The fear was (read the cited speech) that Iraq would provide WMD to terrorists, as Saddam had already shown that he supported international terrorists, had a history of contacts with terrorists (including al-Queda), and so forth.

Cripes, the knots you people tie yourselves into to try to misunderstand history.

Regards,
Shodan

54

Well, we’ve had excellent teachers.

For instance, you go on and on about UN inspection protocols as a justification for war, and yet blithely assume no one knows the difference between US and UN. Perhaps you would be so kind as to reference the UN authorizing the US to enforce such resolutions at its discretion? Wouldn’t that require a Security Council Resolution to that effect? Like the one we didn’t get? Did they miscount the votes?

The UN has passed numerous resolutions regarding the behavior of Israel, which it has ignored. Are you suggesting that Belgium may invade Isreal at its discretion, given that Israel has disregarded such resolutions?

“…Planning is part of an attempt. Meaningless distinction…”

Sheer drivel. We have, no doubt, plans to invade N. Korea, should such a ghastly enterprise prove necessary. Surely you don’t mean to suggest that we are attempting to invade N. Korea?

And, please advise, at what point in time did “Vlad the Impaler” Putin become such an unimpeachable source, in your estimation?

55

I’ll let others shred the rest of your post. But, just at a very high level, it seems to me that when one group of people ends up being so spectacularly wrong on something (the possession of signifcant WMDs by Iraq) then it is probably that group of people who needs to go back and figure out how they misunderstood things. It is not the group of people who were saying that the evidence on WMDs was less than certain and that, at any rate, the evidence for Saddam posing a significant threat to us was non-existent. History so far has vindicated us, my friend, and no amount of dancing around is going to make it otherwise.

56

I think they learned that terrorism is ok as long as the terrorists are only killing people in Iran. It’s a valuable lesson in realpolitik.

57

Oh yeah, and along those lines of your side trying to understand how you were so off-base, Mr2001 has posted an important link in that regard. One reason why many people were so sure Saddam had WMD is that they couldn’t understand why, if he didn’t (or wasn’t planning to re-establish his programs), he “kicked out” the weapons inspectors in 1998. However, the problem with that logic is it is based on a “history” that is factually incorrect. Saddam did not kick out the inspectors but rather they left, pulled out by the U.N. so that the U.S. and Britain could launch bombing raids in retaliation for Iraqi’s not being very cooperative with the inspectors. Now, this may sound like a distinction without much of a difference except once you learn the reason why Iraq was being uncooperative - that they claimed the inspectors were being used to spy on them for the U.S. and Britain, charges that were subsequently reported to be in fact true in major U.S. newspapers based on sources within both the U.S. government and the U.N.

If the public at large had understood this full history in early 2003, they may have been less willing to presume Saddam guilty until proven innocent in regards to having substantial WMD stocks. However, they did not know this because the Bush Administration and the “liberal media” seemed intent on not letting them know a true accounting of the facts.

58

Maybe the real urgency to the invasion was to invade before the inspectors could complete their work? In fact, I still to this day can’t understand why we botched so much or our war planning by refusing to budge the invasion timetable even by a few weeks. What WAS so desperate that, after more than a decade, we had to go in those few weeks? Given that we were planning on staying for the sandstorm season anyway, it’s not clear that that was a good enough reason, since the actual invasion still would have been over before then. But we would have had the country far better in hand by the time it rolled around.

59

I don’t have any alternative explanation for that either, Apos. Bush couldn’t afford to let it be officially confirmed that his stated primary *casi belli * were fabricated until the commitment of forces had already been made. And I hate, deeply hate, having to think so.

The loyalists have, in fairness, on occasion offered up that “we couldn’t just keep the troops there indefinitely” - as if (1) another 2 weeks mattered, and (2) a good-enough reason to go to war is to keep the troops from getting bored. But, I have yet to hear that statement defended further when challenged, either on this board (that means you, manhattan) or elsewhere.
jshore, we’ve also gone several times into why Saddam acted as if he had the stuff when he didn’t. We’ve always come down to his being a dictator who ruled by fear and intimidation, and therefore didn’t dare act otherwise. The warhawks (**Sam ** being as prominent as any here) had instead always insisted that he was simply insane, without minimally trying to understand what motivated him or even acknowledging that could be was even any method at all in his “madness”.

60

The only one of those that comes even tangentially close to being a threat to the US is the assassination stuff, which was of 1 former President (not Presidents), and which we also have known for a long time was a fabrication by Kuwaiti intelligence. Maybe you missed that.

We have plans to invade Canada. That is not a threat. We aren’t going to do it.

“An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.”

We (well, except you) know now he was full of shit. We know somebody, if not Bush then somebody he’d trusted, should have probed his assessment a little deeper - but they didn’t. Why else could that be except that they wanted some substance behind a decision they’d already made?