# Why did Bush say, "We're not into nation building"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2006, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379 "2006-07-06T15:47:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/21 "2006-07-06T18:39:09Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] To be fair, he listed removing SH form power as a separate item from fighting against Islamic fundamentalism. But I agree that any attempt to link the two is absurd. [/QUOTE] My bad. Re-reading that post I can see that he was linking the two. I misunderstood the “side effect” part. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/22 "2006-07-06T18:55:14Z")
Just another example along the same lines of the principle that having conservatives who despise government itself probably won’t be very good at actually running it. People who scoff at nation-building will probably suck at it if hey end up trying to do it. Why would you have put much thought into something you think is dumb? Iraq was basically an exercise in tossing aside or ignoring every major lesson about nation building and democratization we’d learned over the years and basically making it up from scratch. This sort of “I don’t need to know anything: I’m in charge!” attitude has affected other things as well: for instance the whole court system that the SC just said boo too. As many JAG’s pointed out, the guy who came up with the policy (Addington?) seemed completely ignorant of many of the actual laws and protocols governing military justice. But he wouldn’t listen to anyone who tried to point this out, and indeed mostly developed the entire process in secret, surprising even people like Colin Powell when he came out with it. ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/23 "2006-07-06T18:55:32Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Well if he said it in 2000, that is before 9-11-01. And I would still agree with his statment, we are not into nation building, we are in the war against Islamic fundementalism, the act of removing from power and bringing to trail Sadam Husain and creating a democracy in the M.E. is just a side effect. [/QUOTE] Please explain what Iraq had to do with Islamic fundamentalism. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/24 "2006-07-06T19:54:04Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] Islamic fundamentalists were never a threat to control Iraq until the US came in. [/QUOTE] Funny wording, I take this to mean that I.F. was not about to seize power in Iraq, but now they can due to the US taking out S.H. Which really says nothing very poorly. I.F. opperated in Iraq underground under S.H. and S.H. either couldn’t do anythign about it or didn’t want to. Don’t you remember Al-Zarqawi, what has it been 2 weeks since we killed him? Guess where is was - in Iraq; guess what he was a I.F. terrorists leader. > [@](#): > > Is this trial worth the cost? Good question, and a fair one. Well we can look it in terms of total lives, would more people be dead if we didn’t invade, killed under Sadam H., or via the war. We could look at the hit to I. F. terrorism we made by killing Al-Zarqawi. > [@](#): > > On this morning’s “Early Show” CBS terrorism analyst and former FBI agent Christopher Whitcomb told co-host Hannah Storm that he believes the seized al Qaeda documents are believable, i.e. the ones where al Qaeda admits it’s losing in Iraq, and that the United States is making significant progress in the overall war on terrorism. From > **[Liberal Journalist Bruce Morton Retires from CNN](https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2006/02/17/liberal-journalist-bruce-morton-retires-cnn)** > > Longtime CBS and CNN political reporter Bruce Morton is retiring, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer announced after Morton filed his last piece (on the changing significance of the vice presidency) shortly before 5pm EST on Thursday’s The Situation Room. > [@](#): > > The memo says the insurgency is being hurt by the increasing capabilities of Iraqi security forces, a shortage of weapons and fighters, a lack of funds and internal divisions… > > …The document says to reverse this trend, insurgents must: > > • Use the media to improve their image. > > • Infiltrate Iraq’s security forces. > > • Reorganize recruiting efforts. > > • Lessen internal dissent and bolster respect for the insurgency’s leadership. From [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-15-raid-blueprint\_x.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-15-raid-blueprint_x.htm) > [@](#): > > A side effect yet to happen, if ever. I guess you missed the news about the iraqi elections, actually there were 2 IIRC, perhaps purple fingers will refresh your memory. [QUOTE=tomndebb] Hussein had nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism, so an attack on Iraq was a (costly) distraction from the main war. [/QUOTE] This is a pretty old talking point and can no longer stand, the Al-Zarqawi documents have foudn that I.F. Terrorism was/is in Iraq and I.F. Terrorism is loosing. [QUOTE=Malodorous] e should’ve just sent Saddam a billion dollars worth of weapons and he probably would’ve finished them off in his own country and then tried to take out the Mullahs in Iran. [/QUOTE] We did this already, S.H. used that to get chemical waepons and use them. So it didn’t work, why do you want to repeat this? [QUOTE=John Mace] Re-reading that post I can see that he was linking the two. [/QUOTE] Darn right I was linking the 2! [QUOTE=black455] Please explain what Iraq had to do with Islamic fundamentalism. [/QUOTE] In short by allowing it to operate underground, instead of stomping it out. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/25 "2006-07-06T20:03:55Z")
There’s a few things you seem to be unaware of, **kanicbird**. [Good reading material](http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/340fcefr.asp): 1. Zarqawi wasn’t “Al Qaeda” until after the US invasion. He changed the name of his outfit then as a recruiting gesture. 2. Before the invasion, his camp was in the northern no-fly zone - an area controlled militarily not by Saddam but by us. _Us_. 3. Bush, or perhaps it was just Cheney or Rumsfeld, cancelled plans to get Zarqawi in an airstrike during the runup to war, right at the time his presence was being extolled by them as proof of Saddam’s sponsorship of terrorism. 4. The insurgency has now blossomed to such an extent that he didn’t matter much anymore anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/26 "2006-07-06T20:39:19Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > should’ve just sent Saddam a billion dollars worth of weapons and he probably would’ve finished them off in his own country and then tried to take out the Mullahs in Iran. > > We did this already, S.H. used that to get chemical waepons and use them. So it didn’t work, why do you want to repeat this? Didn’t work? Iraq fought the largest and most powerful Islamic fundamentalist state in a brutal eight year war. As far as hurting the cause of Islamic revolution, it work splendidly. Of course my suggestion was facicious, there was then and would certainly be now a large bad side in bankrolling another Saddam led Persian War (further WMD development included). But my point was that far from being in cahoots with Islamic fundementalist, Saddam hated them, both in his own country and in his neighbors. Indeed, while a bastard and certainly deserving of being toppled, I’d argue that Saddam was the leading opponent of the Islamic Revolution during his time. Attacking him to strike a blow against Islamic Fundementalism is like attacking Stalin in '42 to stop Nazism. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/27 "2006-07-06T22:04:22Z")
Thanks for the linky **ElvisL1ves** , but forgive me if I take _The Weekly Standard_ with a great big fat grain of salt, but even so from your linky: > [@](#): > > . In 2002, the Pentagon had formulated a plan to attack Zarqawi’s operations in northern Iraq (where he had relocated after leaving Afghanistan) using cruise missiles and airstrikes Sounds like Clinton’s plan to get Bin Ladan, Which failed miserably and to this day is a symbol of US incompetence and unwillingness to commit troops. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/28 "2006-07-06T22:09:55Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Sounds like Clinton’s plan to get Bin Ladan, Which failed miserably and to this day is a symbol of US incompetence and unwillingness to commit troops. [/QUOTE] That had nothing to do with committing troops. All references to Clinton aside, you can’t seriously be still equating the invasion of Iraq with fighting Islamic terrorism. Even if we include Zarqawi (which is highly debatable), do we invade a country, sacrifice 2,600 of our soliders and 30,000 civilians to get one guy? I certainly hope that isn’t our policy. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/29 "2006-07-07T00:34:12Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Even if we include Zarqawi (which is highly debatable), do we invade a country, sacrifice 2,600 of our soliders and 30,000 civilians to get one guy? I certainly hope that isn’t our policy. [/QUOTE] See: Bush Doctrine Short answer: Yes we do ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/30 "2006-07-07T01:09:38Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Sounds like Clinton’s plan to get Bin Ladan, Which failed miserably and to this day is a symbol of US incompetence and unwillingness to commit troops. [/QUOTE] Is Bush’s failure to get Bin Laden also a symbol of incompetence? Or a declaration of resolve? ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/31 "2006-07-07T01:16:12Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > > [@John Mace](#): > > > > Even if we include Zarqawi (which is highly debatable), do we invade a country, sacrifice 2,600 of our soliders and 30,000 civilians to get one guy? I certainly hope that isn’t our policy. > > See: Bush Doctrine > > Short answer: Yes we do I don’t think much of the Bush doctrine, but that is a pretty slanderous summary of it, **kanicbird**. From [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine): > [@](#): > > The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. It’s not about sacrificing 32,600 innocents to get one guy. Zarqawi could have only dreamed of killing so many people. It would have been the height of moral stupidity for us to do the same just to stop him. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/32 "2006-07-07T01:54:34Z")
[QUOTE=Dumbguy] Is Bush’s failure to get Bin Laden also a symbol of incompetence? Or a declaration of resolve? [/QUOTE] Failure? When did we stop looking for Bin Laden? AFAIK he is still being hunted down hike the dog he is, hiding in a cave somewhere, totally ineffective as a terrorists leader in the mean time. [QUOTE=Tyrrell McAllister] It’s not about sacrificing 32,600 innocents to get one guy [/QUOTE] That was my short answer, and getting the ‘big guy’ Al Zarqawi not only means we get him, but we have retrieved information on terrorists contacts, tactics and that document that clearly shows that the I.F. terrorists know they are losing and their only hope is to manipulate the media to present a image that we are losing (basically), which is it apparent that some of you accept. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/33 "2006-07-07T02:42:27Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] It was in one of the [debates](http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html) with Gore in 2000. He didn’t exaclty say “we’re not into nation building”, but something close (empahasis added): > [@](#): > > . . . I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. [/QUOTE] Bush was actually right about that. An **army** is no good for nation-building. At best, it can only keep things quiet and orderly while the nation-building goes on. (Or else, it can’t.) But that doesn’t mean you can neglect the project if you want a stable nation to result. Maybe Bush should’ve beefed up the budget of the Peace Corp. At any rate they would’ve done a better job of it than Halliburton, etc. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/34 "2006-07-07T02:49:37Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Funny wording, I take this to mean that I.F. was not about to seize power in Iraq, but now they can due to the US taking out S.H. Which really says nothing very poorly. I.F. opperated in Iraq underground under S.H. and S.H. either couldn’t do anythign about it or didn’t want to. Don’t you remember Al-Zarqawi, what has it been 2 weeks since we killed him? Guess where is was - in Iraq; guess what he was a I.F. terrorists leader. [/quote] That was **after** the invasion. [**Before** the invasion, al-Zarqawi was operating in Iraqi Kurdistan](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/alterman) – outside Hussein’s control, and as opposed to his regime as to Israel or the U.S. Knocking out Hussein only **enabled** al-Zarqawi – enabled him to operate throughout Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/35 "2006-07-07T02:58:52Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] I guess you missed the news about the iraqi elections, actually there were 2 IIRC, perhaps purple fingers will refresh your memory. [/quote] Election != democracy. Iraq does not yet have a democratically elected government – it is **elected** but it is not a **government,** because it **can’t govern.** What Iraq has right now is what political scientists call a [“failed state.”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state) (We went over all this quite recently in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=377685&highlight=failed+state) thread.) [QUOTE=kanicbird] This is a pretty old talking point and can no longer stand, the Al-Zarqawi documents have foudn that I.F. Terrorism was/is in Iraq and I.F. Terrorism is loosing. [/quote] I assume you **meant** to write “loosing” in that sentence because you cannot possibly have meant “losing.” [QUOTE=kanicbird] We did this already, S.H. used that to get chemical waepons and use them. So it didn’t work, why do you want to repeat this? [/quote] Errmm . . . because it was good enough for Reagan? 🙂 [QUOTE=kanicbird] In short by allowing it to operate underground, instead of stomping it out. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: The only reason al-Zarqawi was able to operate in Kurdistan was because **we** made it impossible, after GW1, for Hussein to govern Kurdistan. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/36 "2006-07-07T03:05:06Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Failure? When did we stop looking for Bin Laden? AFAIK he is still being hunted down hike the dog he is . . . [/QUOTE] [Indeed?](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html) ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/37 "2006-07-07T03:08:53Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Failure? When did we stop looking for Bin Laden?.. [/QUOTE] Stop looking for him, or stop looking for him like we really want to find him? > [@](#): > > [C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html) > By MARK MAZZETTI > Published: July 4, 2006 > > WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. > > The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said. > > The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice “dead or alive.”… CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/38 "2006-07-07T03:32:48Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] See: Bush Doctrine [/QUOTE] [Indeed:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine) > [@](#): > > The Bush Doctrine was officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’. It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush had declared that the U.S. would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them,” a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11. Christ and Allah, haven’t we learned the folly of that kind of thinking **yet?!** It appears **you** haven’t . . . ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379/39 "2006-07-07T15:16:41Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Even if we include Zarqawi (which is highly debatable), do we invade a country, sacrifice 2,600 of our soliders and 30,000 civilians to get one guy? I certainly hope that isn’t our policy. [/QUOTE] Wow, that’s a worse ratio than when _al Qaeda_ attacked us! For 3,000 innocent civilians’ lives, 19 terrorists ended up dead. We can only hope the next al Qaeda doctrine steps up the ‘cut of my nose spite’ even higher than this Bush doctrine has. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-say-were-not-into-nation-building/363379.md?page=1)