Iraq War a Mistake

[Skeptic Ginger]

This thread has to be evidence for parallel universes. People who think we are better off without Saddam; the war was an intelligence failure, not a purposeful deceit; that Obama lost the war, not Bush/Cheney; and that the surge was a success have to be living in a different universe from the one I live in. There's no other explanation for people looking at the same evidence and drawing two thoroughly opposing conclusions.

This is why the 'surge' was a failure:
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter bashes Iraqi forces for having ‘showed no will to fight’ during fall of Ramadi

“What apparently happened is the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight,” Carter said of the country’s defeat to ISIS in the key stronghold of Ramadi last week.

“They were not outnumbered; in fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force. And yet they failed to fight. They withdrew from the site. That says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight (ISIS) and defend themselves,” Carter said on CNN’s “State of the Union” during an interview that aired Sunday.

It's even more reason, as if we needed more reason, to judge the entire war effort doomed to failure before it started.

There was an intelligence failure of massive proportions, Bush/Cheney et al failed completely to assess just who it was they were liberating.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Hyperbole aside, those were failures. Not mistakes.

Invade Iraq = Peace and Prosperity for All. 2+2=5

Those were just failures, not mistakes!!!

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it was a mistake

Considering the cost and the incredibly bad results, why not ?

(And could you please answer without mentioning political affiliations ?)

OH snap, what am I doing, voicing common sense in this left wing echo chamber. I forgot. Just ignore me. I'll see myself out.

Insulting people who disagree with you right off the bat isn't very "common sense"-y.

 

[Toontown]

HAHAHAHAHAH again. So you admit the war was based on lies. Good to get that out of the way.

No. Your strained laughter cannot conceal the fact that everything listed in UNSCR 1441 was true. Iraq was in fact a Chapter 7 rogue in "material breach" of a number of UN resolutions and was in fact the object of a standing authorization to "use all necessary means", as bluntly stated by the resolution. Nor can your strained laughter conceal the ignorance of your belief that the invasion was about sowing permanent instability. Nor can your strained laughter conceal the superiority of the alternative I offered to your comically ignorant belief. Nor can your strained laughter alter the fact that there is no law that requires any nation to state every reason for an action, particularly an action that has already been authorized by the UN. To wit: "All member states are authorized to use all necessary means..." Note that there is no requirement that any nation electing to employ such means must state every reason it has for doing so. The reasons stated in UNSCR 1441 and previous resolutions were more than sufficient. I'm the one who should be laughing. You aren't really a lawyer, are you?

 

[anglolawyer]

No. Your strained laughter cannot conceal the fact that everything listed in UNSCR 1441 was true. Iraq was in fact a Chapter 7 rogue in "material breach" of a number of UN resolutions and was in fact the object of a standing authorization to "use all necessary means", as bluntly stated by the resolution.

Nor can your strained laughter conceal the ignorance of your belief that the invasion was about sowing permanent instability.

Nor can your strained laughter conceal the superiority of the alternative I offered to your comically ignorant belief.

Nor can your strained laughter alter the fact that there is no law that requires any nation to state every reason for an action, particularly an action that has already been authorized by the UN.
To wit: "All member states are authorized to use all necessary means..." Note that there is no requirement that any nation electing to employ such means must state every reason it has for doing so. The reasons stated in UNSCR 1441 and previous resolutions were more than sufficient.

I'm the one who should be laughing. You aren't really a lawyer, are you?

Funny you should bring up the question of legality when it hasn't featured in any of my posts. But, since you do, I should explain that, while I am indeed a lawyer, my specialism is not in international law. However, I have read a little about this and my understanding is that the better view is that 1441 did not revive the authority given by 678 (suspended by 687). To illustrate, the United Kingdom's attorney general's first written advice to her majesty's government (an opinion which was withheld from Parliament) was decidedly equivocal and recommended that a second resolution should be sought. As you may recall, that is what the UK did, encountering the veto of the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' (latterly, America's oldest ally and best all round buddy) whereupon Lord Goldsmith was whisked off to Washington to be told which way was up, resulting in a much shorter, far less nuanced opinion which was what the government wanted to hear and was deemed fit for publication.

Not all legal questions have straightforward answers. You are wrong to think this one does. The only place to find out is in court but, of course, such is the contempt in which the United States holds international law, there is no question of a trial.

I like the highlighted bit. Can you refer me to any contemporaneous neo-con warmonger's speech in which it was explained to the American public that the war was to be fought for declared and undeclared reasons? It's almost as though you are suggesting a conspiracy here. What were the undeclared reasons and what is your source of information.

By the way, my laughter is real but, as I detect it hurts your feelings, let me explain that I'm not laughing at the US but at the folly, stupidity, myopia, hypocrisy, inconsistency, evasions and mendacity of those who supported and, unbelievably, continue to support this war out of blind loyalty to a pretty bit of cloth with stripes and symbols on it.

 

[Toontown]

Invade Iraq = Peace and Prosperity for All. 2+2=5

that's a classic Nirvana fallacy.

Plus, that seriously needs a cite. I don't recall anyone in the administration promising that Iraq would be transformed into an earthly paradise.

If anybody has a bottle of that potion, the whole stinking monkeyball needs to be doused with it.

But nobody has any of that elixir, and I'm pretty sure nobody ever said they did. And a good close look at the monkeyball should verify the conspicuous absence of any such potion.

Those were just failures, not mistakes!!!

No, not "just failures". Failures can be very serious. The failures to deal effectively with Iraq, both by the UN, the world in general, and the US, spanning 3 US administrations, were very serious.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not all legal questions have straightforward answers. You are wrong to think this one does. The only place to find out is in court but, of course, such is the contempt in which the United States holds international law, there is no question of a trial.

I like the highlighted bit. Can you refer me to any contemporaneous neo-con warmonger's speech in which it was explained to the American public that the war was to be fought for declared and undeclared reasons? It's almost as though you are suggesting a conspiracy here. What were the undeclared reasons and what is your source of information.

By the way, my laughter is real but, as I detect it hurts your feelings, let me explain that I'm not laughing at the US but at the folly, stupidity, myopia, hypocrisy, inconsistency, evasions and mendacity of those who supported and, unbelievably, continue to support this war out of blind loyalty to a pretty bit of cloth with stripes and symbols on it.

Neocon warmonger and blind loyalty to the flag?

Why I believe you are citing the well know case of poisoning the well v. Straw man Corp! Well played.

Of course, nothing boosts an argument like spittle soaked name calling either.

 

[Toontown]

...I have read a little about this and my understanding is that the better view is that 1441 did not revive the authority given by 678 (suspended by 687).

The authority given by 678 was not "suspended" by 687. The authority was affirmed by 687, along with all the other resolutions, and further recalled and affirmed by 1441.

Nor did the authority need to be revived. It was already alive and well, as explained by 1441 here:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,...

...Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including
the obligations on Iraq contained therein,...

...declares that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of it's obligations under the relevant resolutions...

Therefore, the original authorization to use force must logically have remained in force. Any other interpretation would be logically inconsistent. It cannot logically be the case that 678, recalled and affirmed by 1441, could somehow be out of force when 1441 specifically recalled and affirmed 678 as a preamble for declaring Iraq to be in material breach if the obligations deemed necessary for the fulfillment of the purpose of 678.

What were the undeclared reasons and what is your source of information.

What is the source of your stated belief that the (undeclared) purpose of the invasion was to sow permanent instability in the region?

Your beliefs are in no sense intrinsically better than mine, and it is obvious that my alternative to your stated belief above is logically superior. To wit: the control of a fourth of the planet's primary energy reserve by a group of psychopaths was a deplorable predicament, and the sorry predicament was correctable.

By the way, my laughter is real but, as I detect it hurts your feelings, let me explain that I'm not laughing at the US but at the folly, stupidity, myopia, hypocrisy, inconsistency, evasions and mendacity of those who supported and, unbelievably, continue to support this war out of blind loyalty to a pretty bit of cloth with stripes and symbols on it.

No, your laughter does not hurt my feelings, nor do I believe it is real. I believe it is an obvious affectation. Hence the term "strained laughter".

 

[sunmaster14]

The authority given by 678 was not "suspended" by 687. The authority was affirmed by 687, along with all the other resolutions, and further recalled and affirmed by 1441.

Nor did the authority need to be revived. It was already alive and well, as explained by 1441 here:



Therefore, the original authorization to use force must logically have remained in force. Any other interpretation would be logically inconsistent. It cannot logically be the case that 678, recalled and affirmed by 1441, could somehow be out of force when 1441 specifically recalled and affirmed 678 as a preamble for declaring Iraq to be in material breach if the obligations deemed necessary for the fulfillment of the purpose of 678.

Don't forget UNSC Resolution 1483, which recognized the legitimacy of the US and UK as occupying powers in Iraq. This effectively gave retroactive authority to the war. It was passed by a vote of 14-0, but as Syria was not present for the vote, perhaps anglolawyer would quibble with calling it unanimous. It is a shame that Bashar al-Assad didn't get a chance to weigh in with his considerable moral authority.

 

[anglolawyer]

The authority given by 678 was not "suspended" by 687. The authority was affirmed by 687, along with all the other resolutions, and further recalled and affirmed by 1441.

I was going by the UK Attorney Gerneral's advice of 7th March 2003 which I linked before where he said:
Resolution 687 suspended, but did not terminate, the authority to use force in resolution 678.
Paragraph 7

Nor did the authority need to be revived. It was already alive and well, as explained by 1441 here:

Your quote does not dispose of the point. Again from the attorney general:

Law Officers have advised in the past that, provided the conditions are made out, the revival argument does provide a sufficient justification in international law for the use of force against Iraq. That view is supported by an opinion given in August 1992 by the then UN Legal Counsel, Carl-August Fleischauer. However, the UK has consistently taken the view (as did the Fleischauer opinion) that, as the ceasefire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687, it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred.

The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual Member States. I am not aware of any other state which supports this view.
This is an issue of critical importance when considering the effect of resolution 1441.
Paragraph 9.

Therefore, the original authorization to use force must logically have remained in force. Any other interpretation would be logically inconsistent. It cannot logically be the case that 678, recalled and affirmed by 1441, could somehow be out of force when 1441 specifically recalled and affirmed 678 as a preamble for declaring Iraq to be in material breach if the obligations deemed necessary for the fulfillment of the purpose of 678.

Once more from the AG

In order for the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 to be revived, there needs to be a determination by the Security Council that there is a violation of the conditions of the ceasefire and that the Security Council considers it sufficiently serious to destroy the basis of the ceasefire. Revival will not, however, take place, notwithstanding a finding of violation, if the Security Council has made it clear either that action short of the use of force should be taken to ensure compliance with the terms of the cease-fire, or that it intends to decide subsequently what action is required to ensure compliance.Para 12

Operative paragraph 2 of 1441 could not be clearer:

[The Security Council] decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Isn't it odd that the security council seems to have expected this enhanced inspection regime to operate in the middle of a war?

I should say I am using the AG's opinion for reference purposes only.

What is the source of your stated belief that the (undeclared) purpose of the invasion was to sow permanent instability in the region?

Your beliefs are in no sense intrinsically better than mine, and it is obvious that my alternative to your stated belief above is logically superior. To wit: the control of a fourth of the planet's primary energy reserve by a group of psychopaths was a deplorable predicament, and the sorry predicament was correctable.

My position is only surmise, I admit. Yours is hyperbolic. It may be the war had multiple purposes and served a variety of strategic goals. However, we seem both to agree that it was not fought for any of these purposes:

1 to locate and destroy Iraq's WMD
2 to aim a blow at Al Qaeda
3 in service of a principle of hostility to brutal dictators

If the true purposes were of a kind that had to be masked by lies, then they should turn out to be reasons which may not see the light of day. I can't see that in your reason. It should have been easy to present Saddam as a regional menace of such seriousness as to warrant all out war. But, of course, that would have been a lie since, at far less cost than the war itself, Iraq was already being satisfactorily contained by the no-fly zone, sanctions etc (which is why the UN was not willing to authorise a resumption of hostilities).

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't forget UNSC Resolution 1483, which recognized the legitimacy of the US and UK as occupying powers in Iraq. This effectively gave retroactive authority to the war. It was passed by a vote of 14-0, but as Syria was not present for the vote, perhaps anglolawyer would quibble with calling it unanimous. It is a shame that Bashar al-Assad didn't get a chance to weigh in with his considerable moral authority.

I assume you mean this bit from the preamble:

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the “Authority”),

I don't see how that made an illegal war retrospectively legal. Presumably, powers like France and Russia were reacting to the fait accomplis. So what? Have you any authoritative legal source for the proposition that, in law, the UN may retrospectively erase war crimes and, if so, do you know of a precedent?

 

[C_Felix]

A timeline* about the reasons to we went to Iraq:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline


*When initally typing the word "timeline" I had a Freudian moment and left out the 'n' and typed "timelie"

 

[Toontown]

I was going by the UK Attorney Gerneral's advice of 7th March 2003 which I linked before where he said:
Resolution 687 suspended, but did not terminate, the authority to use force in resolution 678.
Paragraph 7



Your quote does not dispose of the point. Again from the attorney general:

Law Officers have advised in the past that, provided the conditions are made out, the revival argument does provide a sufficient justification in international law for the use of force against Iraq. That view is supported by an opinion given in August 1992 by the then UN Legal Counsel, Carl-August Fleischauer. However, the UK has consistently taken the view (as did the Fleischauer opinion) that, as the ceasefire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687, it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred.

Perhaps the attorney general had a reading comprehension problem, or possibly a denial problem. The Council did find Iraq to be in breach of the cease fire requirements, and said so here, in 1441:

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire
would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including
the obligations on Iraq contained therein,...

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
(1991);.

There was never any cease fire in effect, because Iraq had been and remained in material breach of the prerequisites for a cease fire, as the Council stated bluntly in 1441.

Therefore the authorization to use "all necessary means" remained in effect.

If the true purposes were of a kind that had to be masked by lies, then they should turn out to be reasons which may not see the light of day. I can't see that in your reason. It should have been easy to present Saddam as a regional menace of such seriousness as to warrant all out war. But, of course, that would have been a lie since, at far less cost than the war itself, Iraq was already being satisfactorily contained by the no-fly zone, sanctions etc (which is why the UN was not willing to authorise a resumption of hostilities).

Nothing had to be masked by lies. UNSC 1441 enumerated good and sufficient reasons for the use of force.

All those reasons were part and parcel of the reasons for the decision to use force.

I'm simply suggesting that the primary reason was something else - the already existing US policy calling for the end of the Hussein regime and it's replacement by a legitimate government.

There was nothing secret about the policy. It was made a national policy goal by the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 1998.

Because it would have been moronic for the clowns running this Bozo Bus to leave a fourth of the planet's primary energy in the hands of a group of psychopaths, when there was a legal, viable alternative.

Again, your "surmise" is ignorant in the extreme, while mine is both logical and supported by facts.

 

[Toontown]

I assume you mean this bit from the preamble:

Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the “Authority”),

I don't see how that made an illegal war retrospectively legal. Presumably, powers like France and Russia were reacting to the fait accomplis. So what? Have you any authoritative legal source for the proposition that, in law, the UN may retrospectively erase war crimes and, if so, do you know of a precedent?

The highlighted part is where you attempt to poison the well.

You have not established that there was a war crime to be retroactively erased. Far from it. The recognition of the US and UK as the legal occupying powers effectively destroys your illogical claim that a war crime had been committed. It would be criminal complicity for the Council to declare war criminals to be the legal occupying powers of the victim of the supposed war crime.

Reduction to absurdity: By your reasoning, Iraq's occupation of Kuwait would have been accepted as a fait accomplis, and Iraq would have been declared the legal occupying power.

Your reasoning is illogical and obviously intended only to serve your personal vendetta.

 

[RandFan]

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

It wasn't a mistake. It was a lie.

 

[anglolawyer]

The highlighted part is where you attempt to poison the well.

You have not established that there was a war crime to be retroactively erased. Far from it. The recognition of the US and UK as the legal occupying powers effectively destroys your illogical claim that a war crime had been committed. It would be criminal complicity for the Council to declare war criminals to be the legal occupying powers of the victim of the supposed war crime.

Reduction to absurdity: By your reasoning, Iraq's occupation of Kuwait would have been accepted as a fait accomplis, and Iraq would have been declared the legal occupying power.

Your reasoning is illogical and obviously intended only to serve your personal vendetta.

Try to keep track of the conversation. Sunmaster cited 1483 in support of the notion that if the invasion was illegal, it was somehow ratified subsequently. I don't need to establish anything to question that claim, do I?

 

[grunion]

I wonder if Hitler thought that when he invaded Stalingrad his army would be hailed as liberators. He was ridding them of a murderous thug dictator wasn't he?

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

It wasn't a mistake. It was a lie.

The mistake was believing the lie.

 

[Toontown]

Try to keep track of the conversation. Sunmaster cited 1483 in support of the notion that if the invasion was illegal, it was somehow ratified subsequently. I don't need to establish anything to question that claim, do I?

You made a counter claim to the effect that the war was illegal, but the illegality was criminally swept under the rug by the UNSC.

I reduced your counter claim to the vendetta-driven absurdity that it is.

 

[anglolawyer]

Perhaps the attorney general had a reading comprehension problem, or possibly a denial problem. The Council did find Iraq to be in breach of the cease fire requirements, and said so here, in 1441:



There was never any cease fire in effect, because Iraq had been and remained in material breach of the prerequisites for a cease fire, as the Council stated bluntly in 1441.

Therefore the authorization to use "all necessary means" remained in effect.

You didn't understand my post, did you? A finding of material breach is not by itself sufficient to revive the suspended authority of 687. It is not for a state, like the US to determine for itself whether it may treat the suspension as lifted, as the US did. 1441 made it plain that the UN remained seized of the matter. Aside from the US, which other security council members considered that the resolution authorised war?

Nothing had to be masked by lies. UNSC 1441 enumerated good and sufficient reasons for the use of force.

All those reasons were part and parcel of the reasons for the decision to use force.

Wrong.

I'm simply suggesting that the primary reason was something else - the already existing US policy calling for the end of the Hussein regime and it's replacement by a legitimate government.

Rėgime decapitation is not a lawful reason for making war. Pretending to obey international law while subverting it is the action of a rogue state, which the US has become.

There was nothing secret about the policy. It was made a national policy goal by the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 1998.

Yes, I remember that rėgime change was openly spoken of. That will assist the prosecution when the US submits the war criminals for trial.

Because it would have been moronic for the clowns running this Bozo Bus to leave a fourth of the planet's primary energy in the hands of a group of psychopaths, when there was a legal, viable alternative.
Again, your "surmise" is ignorant in the extreme, while mine is both logical and supported by facts.

You keep making this idiotic remark. It doesn't improve with repetition. You seem to have trouble focusing on one point at a time. You are supposed to be arguing the war was lawful but you are instead admitting (as everybody knows anyway) that it was launched on a bed of lies for an illegal purpose.

If you want to have the: was it a good thing to do, lawful or not argument, the floor is yours. You can perhaps start by discussing how we are all better off with the prospect of ISIS taking over.

 

[RandFan]

You made a counter claim to the effect that the war was illegal, but the illegality was criminally swept under the rug by the UNSC.

I reduced your counter claim to the vendetta-driven absurdity that it is.

INAL

George H. W. Bush was able to build a coalition, in part, because many nations accepted the proposition that it was a just act to liberate Kuwait.

George W. Bush was unable to build such a coalition. IMO: It was because they sensed or knew that Bush was over playing his hand, lying and rushing to a war that would end up to be a quagmire without an exit strategy.