Iraq and Terrorism

There’s a member of my family who has, shall we say, an “impressive” collection of firearms (all legal Mr. FBI…no need to go visit him again…er, um…), and in fact among the men in my family, I’d guess the average number of firearms owned is about 4, maybe 5. I own one rifle, but it’s at my parents’ place…NYC not offering much in the way of free, legal target practice. Baptised in the “be prepared” propaganda of the Cold War, nearly everyone in my family has contingency plans, stockpiles of canned goods, extra batteries for the flashlight, etc., and would truly be prepared if catastrophe struck…or, as they might admit if pressed, their darkest fear/fantasy came true and their was need to overthrow an invading force or our own corrupted/threatening government. Again, Mr. FBI, there is no need to revisit…it’s a mindset, not an actual plot…

I mention this in response to the seeming surprise in the tone of the New York Times reporter’s account of the Khadamiya bazaar uprising in Baghdad yesterday:

Read more

Pentagon report on Afghanistan criticizes war strategy: report

A retired army colonel commissioned by the Pentagon to examine the war in Afghanistan concluded the conflict created conditions that have given “warlordism, banditry and opium production a new lease on life.”

Retired Army Colonel Hy Rothstein, who served in the Army Special Forces for more than 20 years, wrote in a military analysis he gave to the Pentagon in January that the US failed to adapt to new conditions created by the Taliban’s collapse, The New Yorker magazine reported.

“The failure to adjust US operations in line with the post-Taliban change in theater conditions cost the United States some of the fruits of victory and imposed additional, avoidable humanitarian and stability costs on Afghanistan,” Rothstein wrote in the report.

“Indeed, the war’s inadvertent effects may be more significant than we think.”

Read more

This is un-freakining-believable:

The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton’s files . . . from the [9-11] commission . . . . .

The commission and the White House were reacting to public complaints from former aides to Mr. Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld by the Bush administration. The former aides said the files contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration’s efforts against Al Qaeda.

The purported explanation (at least today) is that the documents are “duplicative or unrelated,” or contain “highly sensitive” information that “could be relayed to the commission in other ways.”

With all due respect, bullshit.* The 9-11 Commission is entitled to see the original documents, and draw their own conclusions — not be fed the information in another way. If some of the documents are “sensitive,” then procedures can be put in place to protect them. If some of the documents happen to duplicate other documents, so be it. (Though it appears that the number of possible “duplicates” is low.) Better to provide full disclosure to the 9-11 Commission, than risk withholding an important document that appears to be a duplicate at first glance, but isn’t. (And, from personal experience, I can tell you that a small difference between seemingly identical draft and final documents can speak legions.)

I find it impossible to defend the Bush Administration’s policies with respect to the 9-11 Commission. They’ve foot-dragged, they’ve denied, they’ve delayed, and they’ve selectively withheld information from the Commission and the public. They’ve acted in every way other than in the country’s best interests. They are endangering your and my safety with their game-playing.

von

UPDATED 11:11 a.m. EST: For clarity.

Read more

Interesting Goldberg File about that Palestinian teenager who almost became a successful suicide bomber:

Read more

Richard Clarke writes in “Against All Enemies” that,

On the morning of the 12th D.O.D.’s focus was already beginning to shift from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. was explicit now that Al Qaeda was guilty of the attacks, but Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy, was not persuaded. It was too sophisticated and complicated an operation, he said, for a terrorist group to have pulled off by itself, without a state sponsor — Iraq must have been helping them.

I’ve been doing more Lexis-Nexis searches on the Pentagon hawks’ reaction to 9/11. Once again, they provide strong circumstantial evidence that Clarke is telling the truth.

Read more

These are from Lexis Nexis searches, so I can’t provide links. Sorry about that.

These excerpts–and there are plenty more like them–leave little question that some of the hawks in the Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11. But the articles at the time suggest that they want to invade Iraq AND Afghanistan, not that they want to invade Iraq instead of Afghanistan. And when I re-read the Guardian article I linked to in the last post, that’s a perfectly plausible interpretation of the British ambassador’s remarks.

As far as timing–I’d say we had decided on war with Taliban (unless they unexpectedly turned on bin Laden) by September 20 at the absolute latest. That’s when Bush delivered his ultimatum in front of a joint session of Congress. And presumably they decided some time before he made his speech.

Blair also seems to have met with Bush on that date, so that’s probably when the conversation in which Bush promises to postpone Iraq “for another day” occurred.

Here goes:

Read more

A trip down memory lane, from an April 4, 2003 Grauniad* article:

Tony Blair has frequently played a pivotal role in the infighting in the US administration over Iraq, according to the recently retired British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.

Hawks in the Bush administration, mainly the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, pushed for an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11.

Sir Christopher, in an interview with the US public broadcasting system last night, said that the prime minister, arriving in Washington the week after an inconclusive discussion between George Bush and his key advisers at Camp David, swung in behind the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who saw Afghanistan as the prime target.

In the documentary Blair’s War, Sir Christopher, who returned to Britain last month, said that when Mr Blair met Mr Bush in the weeks after September 11, he urged him to deal first with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network and its protector – Afghanistan’s Taliban government – before tackling Iraq.

“Tony Blair’s view was, ‘Whatever you’re going to do about Iraq, you should concentrate on the job at hand’. And the job at hand was get al-Qaida, give the Taliban an ultimatum,” the former British ambassador said.

Sir Christopher added that Mr Bush took Mr Blair aside and promised he would keep Iraq “for another day”.

I remember my jaw dropping when I read this a year ago. But the U.S. press never picked it up, and I forgot about it until I saw Clarke’s interview.

Did anyone actually see that documentary? I haven’t, but assuming this is an accurate characterization–a few observations:

1. The retired British ambassador, and the retired terrorism advisor under four U.S. presidents, seem to be telling the same story, or at least quite consistent stories. One of them may tell the story under oath next week. If they’re not credible enough sources to at least take these charges seriously–who, exactly, would be?

2. A lot of people on the left gave up on Blair and Powell as moderating influences long ago–but if this is accurate, we have a lot of reason to be grateful to them. Fighting terrorism is fraught with uncertainty, but deep in the pit of my stomach I know that if we had attacked Iraq while bin Laden and the Taliban did as they pleased in Afghanistan–there would have been another attack on New York by now. And probably London too.

3. I wonder which side Cheney was on in this debate? And Rice?

4. One of the weirdest things about that Guardian article is the reference to Blair “arriving in Washington the week after an inconclusive discussion between George Bush and his key advisers at Camp David”. I remember being surprised that so much time passed between 9/11 and the first bombs falling on Afghanistan–was this really because we spent a full week deciding whether to bomb Afghanistan or Iraq? I find that bizarre beyond words, but it does seem possible.

5. Whether it was Blair or not, whether it was a close call or not–Bush did make the right decision that September. I suppose that should reassure me. But it doesn’t seem to have weakened the hawks in the administration at all, based on what’s happened since. It’s more like there was a grudging agreement that “we’ll give Tony and Colin this one, but then a next year it’s OUR turn and they have to support us.” And in the end, Iraq got more resources than Afghanistan ever did, by almost any measure.

UPDATE I’m doing some Lexis searches of news stories the weeks after 9/11. Briefly–it is very clear that the hawks in the Bush administration immediately wanted to go after Iraq. But it’s not clear that they wanted to go after Iraq instead of Afghanistan, rather than in addition to Afghanistan. The Guardian article strongly implies the former, but Meyer’s quotations could just as easily support the latter.

More on this…I don’t know exactly when. But soon.

Read more

The less worthy half of the right side of the blogosphere is having a severe case of “The people have spoken, the bastards!” over the Spanish election results today. Here are a few of the more egregious examples:

Stanley Kurtz: “Appeasement and shame, they[sic] name is Spain. This people lives an ocean away from us. Yet they have brought shame on all of us.”

Michael Graham: “Does anyone know the Spanish word for “coward?” “

Jonah Goldberg: “But when the Spanish people basically shout “We’re sorry” after having 200 of their people blown to smithereens, then the terrorists have won.”

Andrew Sullivan: “BIN LADEN’S VICTORY IN SPAIN–It’s a spectacular result for Islamist terrorism, and a chilling portent of Europe’s future.”

Instapundit: “TERRORISTS HAVE SUCCEEDED IN TOPPLING THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT. Jeff Jarvis observes: ” In any case, it’s a damned shame that terrorists can have an impact on the election and can help bring in the side they apparently wanted.”

Eric Olsen has more thoughts on what is, I’m afraid, a bad day for the forces of civilization.”

Roger Simon: “Meanwhile, it is a beautiful day in Los Angeles and I walk out on my deck, looking across the Hollywood Hills at Runyon Canyon, but my mind is in Madrid, at its splendid Puerta del Sol where I have spent so many wonderful days and where sadly fascists have walked before and for too long. But this time they are not under the flag of Generalissimo Franco. This time, ironically, they rally behind the words of a man, Osama bin Laden, whom El Caudillo would have reviled. But of course the cry of both men is the same: Viva la muerte!”

Read more