I wonder how scared we all would have been if, in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration had vigorously argued: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a hope of one day starting weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.” A new report on Iraq’s weapons programs (and dreams for more) is about to come out; let the spinning begin:
In its current form, [a new report on Iraq’s illicit weapons program] reaffirms previous interim findings that there is no evidence that Iraq possessed stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the American invasion in March 2003, the officials said. Prewar intelligence estimates that said Iraq actually possessed chemical and biological arsenals and was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program were cited by the Bush administration as the major rationale for war.
With the presidential election campaign in its final weeks, Republicans and Democrats are likely to seize on separate aspects of the report in an effort to score political points.
President Bush, who has said Iraq posed a threat to the world whether or not it possessed illicit weapons, will probably draw attention to the conclusion that Mr. Hussein sought to acquire illicit weapons. His political opponent, Senator John Kerry, who has accused Mr. Bush of misleading the country into war, will probably highlight the conclusion that Iraq had not begun a large-scale production program.
Name one dictator on the planet who doesn’t dream of possessing WMD. Now, I know Hussein had actually used them and that makes him worse than the others. I agree with that. But given the mess we’re in now (see von’s round-up here), it is very important to reconsider just how important it was (or was not) to invade Iraq…those who don’t learn from history, and all that….
Admittedly, I am firmly and proudly in the so-called peacenik branch of the Democratic party (what’s the alternative? a war-hungry branch?). I will always believe that war must be fought only as a last resort. That means only after every other conceivable alternative has been utterly exhausted. That’s a very high standard, I agree. It should be and must be. We rushed into Iraq. We must set the bar higher. Dictators dreaming of getting weapons one day do not justify the deaths of thousands of innocents, let alone the utter chaos our botched efforts have created.
We must set the bar higher.
Yet Bush still says that knowing all of this, he still would have gone to war. Is it not true that in the months and weeks leading up to the war, he was claiming that the decision had not been made, and that if Saddam “came clean” on WMD’s he could avoid it? Is it not true that we were “sold” the war based on the hidden WMDs? Maybe I dreamed all that and the 50% of patriotic Fox-Watching Bush supporting Americans have it right. Otherwise, he is now admitting that all of that was a lie, and the WMDs were not the real rational-as he now says, he would have gone to war anyway.
Is it not true that in the months and weeks leading up to the war, he was claiming that the decision had not been made, and that if Saddam “came clean” on WMD’s he could avoid it?
That remains the most damning part of the rationale to go to war, in my opinion. If indeed we would have not invaded should Hussein have “given up” his weapons, as was stated, then all the other rationales become mute.
We would not have invaded to liberate the Iraqis. We would not have invaded to stop Husseins abuses. We would not have invaded to spread democracy.
Either that or Bush was lying.
Oh come on now. We had to be manly men and show that we’re not going to be pushed around any more. Everyone knows that’s how the real world works.
Myself, I can’t wait for Sebastian to perform some more semantic parsing magic that explains all this away in a nice, throbbing testosterone puff of devastating logic. And then I can sit down to a nice dessert of Von’s “Well, it ain’t that bad and although it’s all FUBAR I still am going to vote for Bush because Kerry’s a wimp”.
Maybe, if I’m lucky, I’ll also get another helping of kerning if I sneak back down to the kitchen.
A little context can’t hurt here…
These decisions were made in light of 9/11.
I think his rational was clearly stated in his SOTU address.
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
Blue,
That rationale would be fine if there were no human consequences. If we were simply marching in and arresting the madman without killing thousands of innocent civilians.
When innocent lives are at risk, the standard has to be higher.
Hal, I believe my views on the importance of defeating Saddam are fairly well documented. They can be found here and here. (Both of which are reproduced somewhere on ObsidianWings.)
No need to guess. As for dreaming of WMD, Saddam was still not a garden variety tyrant in that respect. He has a history of using banned chemical weapons against armies (Iran) and civilians (his own). He has a history of hiding advanced weapons programs (the unpleasant surprise of one of the most advanced nuclear programs in 1991–a program which was far more advanced than anyone had guessed). He was seeking uranium for unknown purposes from the Niger. (And please see the word ‘seeking’). He also obstructed inspections for years.
It isn’t at all shocking that suspicion would fall on Saddam, and that we would decide that he wasn’t worth the risk in light of the way 9/11 changed our outlook on risk factors involving groups and nations that publically say they hate us.
edward, that’s twice you’ve said thousands.. it’s tens of thousands (20,000+ Iraqi civilian dead according to MSNBC’s Hardball last week which is 8 WTC’s worth of innocent dead).
edward, that’s twice you’ve said thousands.. it’s tens of thousands (20,000+ Iraqi civilian dead according to MSNBC’s Hardball last week which is 8 WTC’s worth of innocent dead).
…in a country with one-tenth the population of the United States. Which means that, if those numbers are accurate, we’ve inflicted the proportional equivalent of seventy WTC bombings on the Iraqi people.
[Which isn’t to say that the Iraqi war was or was not justified — lord knows how many WTCs-worth of people Saddam would have killed these past two years — but it’s always useful to put things in perspective.]
edward, that’s twice you’ve said thousands
I’ve heard conflicting reports, so I err on the side of not inviting arguments on what is a tragic number no matter how you look at it.
Anarch: Riverbend of Baghdad Burning makes that very point:
We have 9/11’s on a monthly basis.
How many of those WTC’s worth of fatalities have the “insurgents” committed?
Odd that I even have to ask this for you.
“No need to guess. As for dreaming of WMD, Saddam was still not a garden variety tyrant in that respect. He has a history of using banned chemical weapons against armies (Iran) and civilians (his own). He has a history of hiding advanced weapons programs ”
Fine. An argument could be made for the invasion based on this sort of rationale. However, that was not the argument which was made. Do you disagree that the overwhelming justification actually made by the administration was, in fact, the presence and concealment of WMD’s? That being the case, by saying that he would have invaded even knowing that WMD’s did not exist, is Bush not admitting that he lied to the country by making this the prime justification?
Fine. An argument could be made for the invasion based on this sort of rationale.
I disagree. An argument could be made for strigent containment policies based on this sort of rationale. Not for invading a nation, thereby risking the lives of so many innocent people. And ESPECIALLY NOT, given that such an action would be a war of choice, doing so with such half-assed plans for winning the peace.
Sebastian – “He was seeking uranium for unknown purposes from the Niger.”
…while under sanctions specifically not to, another violation of the sanctions.
Edward – “That rationale would be fine if there were no human consequences. If we were simply marching in and arresting the madman without killing thousands of innocent civilians.”
This will be the eternal ethics debate. Edward, I can’t honestly disagree with you. I really can’t. But the question of how long do you wait given the weapons in this day and age? How many times do you turn the other cheek? How long do you negotiate diplomatically that appears to despise your very existence?
Or do you take the opening, the justification, the time and place of world events and strike out as we did. Should we make the horrible decision of sacrificing our young soldiers and many of the innocent citizens of the enemy? Or should we wait until such time where might possibly be too late. There’s nothing in this country that attracts consensus like a tragic calamity causing the death of thousands or whatever the potential for that number to be. What I truly don’t know is would that be too late.
How many of those WTC’s worth of fatalities have the “insurgents” committed?
Does it matter?
If you’re the average Iraqi, it probably doesn’t.
Certainly, it makes news when insurgents use a car bomb and kill 50 people. But it’s less reported when the US or UK use cluster munitions and/or air strikes against various neighborhoods.
“I disagree. An argument could be made for strigent containment policies based on this sort of rationale.”
I didn’t say a good argument could be made, or even that I agreement with the argument. Just, an argument. Again, the problem is that this was not the argument that was made, and Bush seems to think that does not matter – he was going to invade regardless. Basically, it is OK to invade another nation based on false information (gee, not our fault, that damn CIA, oh, well, nobodies perfect), so long as we can come up with justification after the fact. I am outraged at this, but feel that we are living in Orwell world where historical rewrite is no problem. No WMDs? No problem, just rewrite the rationale.
But the question of how long do you wait given the weapons in this day and age?
How long do we wait? Until all other conceivable options are utterly exhausted. The UN Security Council consent can be the indication to the world that we’ve reach that point.
Hans Blix was asking for more time. That option had not been utterly exhausted.
Be forewarned.
I’ve just been informed that I am now being taxed as though I made $180k this year.
Apparently the Bush administration found out that I want to make $180k and feels there is enough evidence to tax me at that number.
Of course they also found out that I am not INTENDING to vote for the president so I have also been labeled an enemy combatant under the same logic.
Carsick: Apparently the Bush administration found out that I want to make $180k and feels there is enough evidence to tax me at that number.
😀
Hey, so long as your tax refund check is paid out on the evidence…
Jadegold,
It seems that the average Iraqi has a different understanding of the situation than you.
Six dead in second car bomb attack on Iraq police station
Friday, 21-Nov-2003 11:50PM PST
Car Bomb Kills More Than 50 at Iraqi Police Station
By EDWARD WONG
Published: February 10, 2004
Bombing at Iraq Police Station Kills 20
Sat Sep 4, 7:25 PM ET
So despite, the bombings the Iraqi citizens keep going back to the police stations for work. Obviously, the average Iraqi knows that his life is threatened standing out in front of a police station, but they keep going back. Their courage should be admired, not dismissed.
They haven’t given up on trying to rebuild their country and that should serve as an example to the rest of us.
Blue: Despite your cheerleading efforts, the average Iraqi does not share your optimism. Polling, albeit imperfect in Iraq, shows 2/3 of Iraqis view the US as “occupiers” rather than “liberators.”
Similar numbers say the US occupation is doing more harm than good. More alarmingly, Iraq is evenly divided on whether deposing Saddam was worth the cost.
But you’re missing the issue of civilian casualties; the average Iraqi doesn’t feel better if his family was killed or his home destroyed by a US or insurgent bomb.
The fact Iraqis keep trying to get police jobs is not necessarily a function of hope or patriotism as much as its a function of the desperation of unemployment. I’d also remind you that our efforts to train police forces have been fairly unsuccessful; see Falluja.
That’s silly. Of course they haven’t stopped trying to rebuild their country. It’s not like they were just going to crawl in a hole and wait for Medicare, regardless of their opinions about the occupation. I’m not sure how their interest in putting their lives back together proves anything one way or the other.
If you’re the average Iraqi, it probably doesn’t.
Nor, apparently, does it matter to the those who just casually lump it all together and call it the fault of the US military. Inaccurate, yes, but it makes for excellent agitprop.
Inaccurate, yes, but it makes for excellent agitprop.
Given the fact insurgent carbombs or other attacks are routinely front page articles while civilians killed in a US/UK airstrike are consigned to page A18 and back, I’d say it’s pretty ineffective agitprop.
Speaking of agitprop–isn’t it rather strange the WH keeps claiming low civilian casulaties in Iraq despite the fact the Pentagon says it doesn’t track civilian casualties?
Slarti
The US policy is to be an occupying force in Iraq. If the people there do not feel we are providing for their security then there’s a good chance they may want us out of their country. Otherwise, what do they get out of our occupation of their country?
It’s worth pointing out that had the US military not invaded Iraq, those bombs likely would not be going off.
Now. . morally. . that’s somewhere between ‘it’s our fault’ and ‘if you didn’t have troops in Chechnya, we wouldn’t be shooting these naked children in the back’, but nevertheless I’m sure it’s a factor in Iraqis’ evaluation of the US presence.
Edward, I wish I shared the confidence you have in diplomatic measures. It seems over the course of history the track record isn’t that memorable.
Vida, the tired and baseless ‘you lied to me’ refrain is the reason John Kerry will be retiring to an Alpaca farm in Switzerland shortly.
Edward, I wish I shared the confidence you have in diplomatic measures. It seems over the course of history the track record isn’t that memorable.
I have the same misgivings about the efficacy of war, blogbudsman. It seems to solve just as little over the course of history. Diplomacy’s obvious advantage over war, however, makes it an easy Plan A for me though. Also, I believe we’ve yet to really develop our diplomatic muscles. With an effort like that we put into defense, I suspect we’d see much greater returns.
blogbud
If you exercise the opinions gained from your view of history…
“Edward, I wish I shared the confidence you have in diplomatic measures. It seems over the course of history the track record isn’t that memorable.”
…then you must have a lot of dead or wounded family members, co-workers, neighbors, and perhaps clients strewn about your life path.
“Vida, the tired and baseless ‘you lied to me’ refrain is the reason John Kerry will be retiring to an Alpaca farm in Switzerland shortly.”
If it is baseless, why not answer the question. Its really pretty simple: If Bush would have invaded anyway, even knowing no WMD’s existed, how can that be reconciled with his pre-war position that WMD’s were the primary rationale for invasion? Or are you really saying that a majority of Americans only care about lies on important topics like sex?
“Edward, I wish I shared the confidence you have in diplomatic measures. It seems over the course of history the track record isn’t that memorable.”
I’m not going to consider the entire sweep of recorded history, given limitations on bandwidth, but actually I think the track record of diplomacy is routinely underestimated by the right. And in this particular instance, it had produced some very serious inspections that were proceeding quite well. We did not have to “trust the word of a madman”; we had to trust Hans Blix. We did not have to “wait until Saddam struck us”, we had to wait until inspections were done. And before anyone says “oh, ha ha, inspections, what did they ever accomplish?”, we should note that every single weapon of mass destruction that has been found and destroyed in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War has been found and destroyed by inspectors, not by our army.
Hilzoy,
“…it had produced some very serious inspections that were proceeding quite well.”
Quite, well?
But, that statement isn’t accurate. Atleast not according to the U.N. and Blix.
“Blix Says U.N. Weapons Inspections “Produced Little” Prior to War
Chief weapons inspector submits final report to the Security Council
United Nations — Sending his last report to the Security Council, the chief U.N. weapons inspector for Iraq said that the inspections launched four months prior to the war in Iraq did little to solve the mystery of Baghdad’s unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction.
Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said in a report released June 2 that, despite more than 730 inspections covering 411 sites and numerous conferences with Iraqi officials, “little progress” was made in the effort to certify that Iraq no longer had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or long-range missiles or programs to produce such weapons.”
Common, let’s be real about what who we were dealing with… it is commonly acknowledged that Iraq was playing a game of cat and mouse with the inspectors. Iraq never allowed for full inspections that came any where near what the South Africans allowed. That would have shown good intent.
But, Hussein didn’t choose that path. I can sort of accept the argument that Bush rushed to war (just too tired to argue it anymore) after 12 years of the U.S. trying to contain Hussein and going to the U.N. on numerous occassions and putting troops at his front door for years and warning him over and over again, but to say the inspections would have ever worked just seems inaccurate.
Can we atleast agree that after 40 something years of sanctions against Cuba they haven’t worked? Is that what we should have done in Iraq?
Yes, inspections had an impact. But, it is not acceptable to me that after 9/11 we should trust Hans Blix or the U.N. to make sure Hussein was being honest and kept honest. Nothing Has Blix could have ever done would have ever ensured that.
“We did not have to “wait until Saddam struck us”, we had to wait until inspections were done.”
Really? What about NK? We had a nice little treaty with them that didn’t really slow them down too much.
The evidence has atleast shown that Iraq was keeping the capability in place so that it could quickly reconstitute the programs… most likely after the inspections were done.
I am curious what you think would have happened in Iraq after the inspectors were done?
At what kind of level should we have kept the inspections and for how long and what would we do if he broke any rules?
Again… North Korea.
gone for the night… be back tomorrow
Ah, no carsick, I don’t?
Edward, maybe neither work. That’s probably why war after war, although one nation may emerge temporarily as the victor, nothing much really changes. An ethical delemna that has no end. Humankind rushes predictably headlong to its end. It makes you nuts, like carsick. I have to call it a night. Golf game early. Watch this one!!
Sadly again today…
Saturday, September 18, 2004 Posted: 8:30 AM EDT (1230 GMT)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — A suicide car bomb detonated Saturday in front of the Iraqi national guard headquarters in the northern city of Kirkuk, killing 19 people and wounding 39 others, including guardsmen and recruits, according to Iraqi officials
“”I’m not sure how their interest in putting their lives back together proves anything one way or the other.”
It proves that many Iraqis are willing to do the work and willingly putting their lives on the line.
It proves that many Iraqis are willing to do the work and willingly putting their lives on the line
It proves nothing of the kind. It proves only two things: the situation in Iraq is highly unstable and getting worse and Iraqis, with high levels of unemployment, are compelled to try to find work where they can.
I guess I just don’t get you…
“are compelled to try to find work where they can.”
Me:
“It proves that many Iraqis are willing to do the work and willingly putting their lives on the line.”
You seem to be acknowledging on one hand that they are willing to work, but on the other you deny they are putting their lives on the line to do it. But, they obviously are.
You question their motivation in doing so… fine.
Tell me Jade, what’s the starvation rate of Iraqi’s? Is there a famine going on?
How many Iraqi’s don’t have water?
How many Iraqi’s are homeless?
And have no way of getting water?
And how many of those in the lines are starving and going without water?
If one had food, water and shelter and thought standing in line in front of a police station would get themselves killed… I wonder what else would motivate them to stand there and volunteer.
I’m not a cheerleader, but I am also not a pessimist.
I’m not arguing that many aren’t desperate to be employed, but IF you are trying to argue that they don’t feel any pride or desire to rebuild their nation that can’t be an accurate analysis.
It seems to me that since they keep targeting these guys… the insurgents must really fear them.
If the stories about Sudan w/ Syria’s help gassing civilians in Darfur are true, it will be interesting to see which is most effective: the UN resolution approach or the “wait until there is a crime committed and then arrest the perpetrators, if they can be identified, but we are not absolutely sure about what happened and who was involved” approach.
or some other alternative
Blue: Iraqi unemployment is as high as 70%. Believe what you wish.
Insurgents/terrorists pick targets of opportunity. If you 50-100 people all queued up, in a relatively unprotected area, I’d say that’s a pretty ripe target.
I’d also point out there’s no love lost between Iraqi police and occupation troops.