Just as well, really.

by

Remember that post I dumped yesterday to go with comity?

Turns out that it wouldn’t have been able to hold the coat of the one written by Donald Sensing on the same topic anyway:

Now, there’s lot to find fault with in Kerry’s interview overall, but in the point above, Kerry managed to hit the nail on the head, albeit clumsily. For what Kerry does seem to see is that the legal case, or casus belli for the Iraq War is one thing, and the strategic justification for it is another, especially the very long-term strategic rationale.

…

I continue to say also that talk about “going to war” with Iraq last year severely misstates what was really going on. It presumes that there was a peaceful status quo antebellum that was shattered in March 2003 when allied forces crossed into Iraq. This is false. The United States and the UK had legally and actually been at war with Iraq since January 1991, at least, and had both conducted military strikes against Iraqi targets many times between 1991-2003, always using existing national or UN legislation as the authority. When President Clinton ordered four days of intensive bombardment of Iraq in 1998, for example, he specifically stated that the Congressional authorization of 1991 were still in effect, and no additional Congressional approval was needed.

Hence, the decision both President Bush and PM Blair faced in late 2002 and early 2003 was not whether to go to war with Iraq, for at war with Iraq we already were. The decision was how to end the war that had been waged since 1991.

The Iraq War’s short-term objective and its long-term objective are linear, but not the same. The long-term objective is a natural, though difficult consequence of the short-term objective and in fact is a key, fundamental reason we went to war against Saddam’s Iraq, though it was not bundled into the casus belli by either the US or UK.

There are significant amounts of text in between, so go read the whole thing.

16 thoughts on “Just as well, really.”

  1. Hence, the decision both President Bush and PM Blair faced in late 2002 and early 2003 was not whether to go to war with Iraq, for at war with Iraq we already were. The decision was how to end the war that had been waged since 1991.

    Right, which is why a number of us have decidedly not referred to this as the “Second Iraqi War” or “Gulf War II” since this was a resumption of the hostilities which began in 1991 and temporarily ceased contingent upon the Baathist regime complying with the terms of the case-fire agreement. They decided not to comply with the terms of the cease-fire agreement and we decided to resume hostilities.

  2. More ad hoc hogwash. We didn’t really go to war, because we were already at war? Next I’ll be told our soldiers weren’t killed because they were already dead.
    There’s no link to al Qaeda, there’s no WMD, and there’s precious little to show for the blood and treasure expended except an open-ended commitment to spend more. The Iraqi people might someday be better off, or we might just end up replacing one tyrant with another. In the meantime, half our combat divisions are tied down, retention is down, and we’ve replaced a containment policy that cost $1 billion a year and completely disarmed Saddam with one that costs over $1 billion a week and may have made the situation worse.

  3. “More ad hoc hogwash. We didn’t really go to war, because we were already at war?”
    The correct summary of what Donald and Thorley said would be more accurately rendered as: we didn’t start a war, we resumed one.
    Moe

  4. “…a number of us have decidedly not referred to this as the ‘Second Iraqi War’ or ‘Gulf War II’ since this was a resumption of the hostilities which began in 1991….”
    Could you explain how this differs from the 1914-18 War with Germany (among many others) and the 1939-45 War with Germany (among many others).
    Did WWII not take place, then?
    (Though as I explain from time to time, I’d be perfectly happy to use “WWI” to refer to the Napoleonic Wars, “WWII” to refer to the Great War, “WWIII” to refer to the Anti-Communist War, and “WWIV” to refer to the present War Against Islamo-Fascism.”)

  5. “Could you explain how this differs from the 1914-18 War with Germany (among many others) and the 1939-45 War with Germany (among many others).”
    Well, from the USA’s point of view there was a valid peace treaty ending your two examples, as opposed to the almost-immediately violated ceasefire agreement. We should have gone back to active campaigning as soon as it was clear that Hussein wasn’t living up to his violations*.
    Moe
    *I lay most of the blame that we didn’t on Bush I. Clinton was much more sinned against than sinning when it came to Iraq; he did what he could.

  6. “Well, from the USA’s point of view there was a valid peace treaty ending your two examples, as opposed to the almost-immediately violated ceasefire agreement.”
    True, excellent and relevant point. However, the Versaille Treaty called for numerous obligations to be fulfilled by Germany; the Germans, not entirely unlike Hussain, never complied with some obligations, and subsequently violated others.
    I’d have to read at least some of the treaty again — something which I’ve done several times, by the way, and commend at least a single skimming with good dips to all; many of the details are fascinating, and help explain a lot of subsequent political developments — remember what punitive measures were included, by I’ve several other long documents I’m currently ploughing through, so probably not immediately.

  7. Wot the hell, it took about two minutes.

    (1) At the expiration of five years there will be evacuated: the bridgehead of Cologne and the territories north of a line running along the Ruhr, then along the railway Julich, Duren, Euskirchen, Rheinbach, thence along the road Rheinbach to Sinzig, and reaching the Rhine at the confluence with the Ahr; the roads, railways and places mentioned above being excluded from the area evacuated.
    (2) At the expiration of ten years there will be evacuated: the bridgehead of Coblenz and the territories north of a line to be drawn from the intersection between the frontiers of Belgium, Germany and Holland, running about from 4 kilometres south of Aix- la-Chapelle, then to and following the crest of Forst Gemund, then east of the railway of the Urft valley, then along Blankenheim, Valdorf, Dreis, Ulmen to and following the Moselle from Bremm to Nehren, then passing by Kappel and Simmern, then following the ridge of the heights between Simmern and the Rhine and reaching this river at Bacharach; all the places valleys, roads and railways mentioned above being excluded from the area evacuated.
    (3) At the expiration of fifteen years there will be evacuated: the bridgehead of Mainz, the bridgehead of Kehl and the remainder of the German territory under occupation.
    If at that date the guarantees against unprovoked aggression by Germany are not considered sufficient by the Allied and Associated Governments, the evacuation of the occupying troops may be delayed to the extent regarded as necessary for the purpose of obtaining the required guarantees.
    ARTICLE 430.
    In case either during the occupation or after the expiration of the fifteen years referred to above the Reparation Commission finds that Germany refuses to observe the whole or part of her obligations under the present Treaty with regard to reparation, the whole or part of the areas specified in Article 429 will be reoccupied immediately by the Allied and Associated forces.

    The whole Treaty is here.

  8. I should probably clarify that I wouldn’t read or attempt to argue that the above, or anything else in the Versailles Treaty supports the notion that, legally, the Great War did not end, or that violating it restarted the war, per se. So I drop my query and thank Moe.

  10. Moe — what do you think changing the language from “going to war” to “resuming the war” actually proves? What substantive point is being made? If it has to do with the war’s legality, etc., why did we bother with 1441? Was that just PR? If it was just PR, why did we not even try to go for a second vote? If it wasn’t PR, what was it?

  11. “Moe — what do you think changing the language from “going to war” to “resuming the war” actually proves?”
    Excuse me, but you don’t get to set the terms of this debate. It is indisputable that we were at war in ’91; that we had a ceasefire; and that we acted as if we had made peace with Iraq. The no fly zones and bombing campaigns under Clinton drew their justification from the same arguments that Bush used: that we were still authorized to use force from our 1991 decisions, because in a very real sense the war was still going on. Do we really have to recap 2 years of debate over the necessity and justification of acting in Iraq?
    ” If it has to do with the war’s legality, etc., why did we bother with 1441?”
    An exercise designed to satisfy the UN fetishists (doomed to failure, but nobody asked me) and to give Tony Blair some cover (he’s still in office, so it may have actually helped). Besides, it bundled up everything nice and neat.

  12. Oh, and Mithras: just so you know, if you must quote softcore masochism porn while having a political discussion, we of the VRWC much prefer Ayn Rand. 🙂

  13. Would you say, then, that the difference between our strikes in the no-fly zone, etc and the invasion in March 03 was a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind? (At what point does an extreme difference in degree become a difference in kind?)
    Also, if we had determined that Saddam was in compliance with 1441, would we have been justified in going to war with him?

  14. Oh, and since it seems like a lot of this presidential campaign (at least on weblogs like OW) is going to focus on Kerry’s ability to fight terrorism, etc, and a lot of that discussion is going to look to the war in Iraq, then yes, it seems like we’re going to end up rehashing much of the debate about the war.

  15. Do we really have to recap 2 years of debate over the necessity and justification of acting in Iraq?
    Only if we care about the entire WMD debacle.

  16. I would agree that Gulf War II was a resumption of a conflict that was not fully resolved with Gulf War I. The same can be said and has been said about many wars (Amer. Revoloution — War of 1812; WWI — WWII)
    But to claim we were waging a continuation of the same Iraq war is just flat wrong. Gulf War I was intentionally limited to evicting Saddam from Kuwait — not regime change. Turns out that the limited goal was less than palatable to the architects of Gulf War I, so they decided to follow up with a more expanded war goal in Gulf War II. As Wolfowitz so aptly put it, the WMD stuff was just bureaucratic window dressing for that decision.

Comments are closed.