Did we win in Iraq? Does Bush get credit?

[Meadmaker]

...so would the reason for going to war the eminent threat posed to the US by those WMDs?

I don't know what the reason was, or if there was any real reason.

I remember reading about an incident in the White House in the fall of 2001, post 9/11 but before the attack on Afghanistan. A meeting was taking place on strategy. The President was not in the meeting, and the subject of Saddam Hussein came up, and his potential to interfere with future plans in the region. Suddenly, Bush, who was walking in the hall, popped his head in and said, "F___ Saddam. We're taking him out."


I don't know if the incident really happened. I don't know if I got the details right. However, what I believe is that George W. Bush just decided that the world would be a better place without Saddam, and the US military was going to do the job. I don't know why, and I don't know if he or his advisors knew why. Maybe Bush just found him annoying. I do believe that it had nothing to do with WMDs. I think all talk of WMDs and their threat was pure pretense.

 

[Meadmaker]

Two related reasons;

1) Armed force should only be used in self defense or as a measure of last resort in the face of a serious threat. Saddam was well contained, and posed no threat to anyone. There were ample forces in position to prevent him flexing his muscles.

So, something that is a kind of pacifism. War is so bad that nothing makes it worthwhile. It can only be justified if it appears inevitable anyway.

2) Maintaining the credibility of the UN as a forum for international cooperation is vital to maintaining global peace and security. When major members of the UN act unilaterally, without the backing of the UN, it causes significant damage to the UN's credibility and weakens its effectiveness in forcing rogue states to adhere to the will of the international community.

I'm not sure the UN has been exactly effective in reigning in rogue states, but I get your point. I will say that I agreed at the time that the lack of support from other nations was a significant argument against going to war.


I can say, without doubt, that I would not have gone to war with Iraq in 2003, but when it did happen, I was cautiously optimistic that something good would come out of it. I felt that the war would not have happened unless the people in charge of the war felt there was a very strong chance for a free, democratic Iraq. In the intervening years, I decided that the people in charge of the war were wrong, or were incompetent in achieving that goal, or that they didn't actually care about that goal in the first place. Today, I am once again reexamining my position on that subject. Things are looking up over there.

In my opinion, dictatorship is basically a sort of low level continuous war waged against the subjects of the dictator. Starting a real, live, shooting war may intensify the situation, and is undoubtedly a drastic step, but, for me, is not automatically a reason to say that it should never be done. Call me naive, but some things really are worth dying for.

People also say that you can't impose democracy through war, but it worked in Japan. I think it can be done. However, at the very least, events of the last six years show that it isn't as easy as waltzing in, hanging up the "Mission Accomplished" sign, and declaring freedom.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know what the reason was, or if there was any real reason.

I guess I am confused about your distinction between a reason and an excuse. That's why I posed it as a question. Why are WMDs an excuse, not a reason?

 

[leftysergeant]

Osama bin Laden won in Iraq.

He wanted Saddam dead, the USA broke and impotent in world affairs, and an Islamic Republic. The Shrub handed him most of that.

He invaded Iraq because he wanted to be a war president, and he wanted to show that he was a winner, and not the snivelling, lying little punk that most of the rational world sees in him.

History will laugh at the assertion that he was half-adequate.

 

[gumboot]

So, something that is a kind of pacifism. War is so bad that nothing makes it worthwhile. It can only be justified if it appears inevitable anyway.

No, not really. "Last resort in the face of a serious threat" does not necessarily mean "only justified if war is inevitable".

I'm not sure the UN has been exactly effective in reigning in rogue states, but I get your point.

The scale of warfare in the 60 years since the creation of the UN has been substantially smaller than the scale of warfare in the 60 years prior to the creation of the UN. This despite a phenomenal increase in the destructive potential of warfare and a substantially larger global population.

In my opinion, dictatorship is basically a sort of low level continuous war waged against the subjects of the dictator. Starting a real, live, shooting war may intensify the situation, and is undoubtedly a drastic step, but, for me, is not automatically a reason to say that it should never be done. Call me naive, but some things really are worth dying for.

I wouldn't disagree with you here. However the international community can't afford to interfere in every country where some feels there's a dictatorship. We have to reserve action for those that pose a threat to their neighbours or the wider global community.

People also say that you can't impose democracy through war, but it worked in Japan. I think it can be done.

I read an interesting article once on comparisons between Post-war Germany/Japan and post-war Iraq. There was an interesting case made for why the restrained warfare that is utilised now is a bad idea.

Japan and Germany were beaten, prior to occupation. When I say beaten, I mean soundly. Absolutely no citizen of either country could have maintained the most feeble illusion that their country was still strong. Their nations were brutally beaten to a soggy pulp, every inch of ground razed, every city shattered. Their nations had ceased to exist.

This tends to make an occupied populace fairly easy to rule, and the new state can be built from scratch however the occupiers wish.

In contrast, Iraq was militarily "beaten" before the war had even got up to speed. It happened so quickly, and so cleanly, the populace never experienced the taste of defeat. Many had not even been given a chance to do battle by the time the regime fell. Most towns and cities in Iraq were barely touched by the fighting. Even in those cities hit the hardest, casualties were measured in the mere hundreds, and it was only dozens of buildings destroyed.

Simply put, the speed, the precision, and the control of the US invasion prevented the breaking of the Iraqi will. Trying to occupy a people who feel like the battle is still waging is somewhat difficult.

Now let's imagine the USA sat back and bombarded Iraq for two years prior to invasion. Imagine they sent raids of a thousand B-52s carpet bombing every single town in the entire country. A new raid every night. Entire neighbourhoods wiped out.

Then, when the invasion came, it came in the form of millions of troops, marching silent and slow from the bottom of the country to the top, destroying everything in their path. Seizing cities house by house, riddling every living room and every market with bullet holes and craters.

By the end, when defeat came, the Iraqis would have lost all will to fight, and the occupation would have gone off without a hitch.

The problem is, of course, that the "old" way might lead to a clean and successful occupation, but it comes after a horrendously costly military phase.

The "new" way ensures a relatively clean and quick military phase, but it's followed by a much more violent occupation.

On balance, the new way appears to be the better choice, but preserving the will to continue the occupation in the face of ongoing violence is an issue.

 

[Meadmaker]

I guess I am confused about your distinction between a reason and an excuse. That's why I posed it as a question. Why are WMDs an excuse, not a reason?

Maybe "pretense" is a better word than "excuse". I'm using "excuse" to mean something you don't actually care about, but pretend to care about in order to justify your actions. A reason is the actual motivation.

I don't know exactly why GWB decided to go into Iraq, but fear of Iraqi chemical weapons wasn't it.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know exactly why GWB decided to go into Iraq, but fear of Iraqi chemical weapons wasn't it.

Oh. I'm inclined to think it crazy PNAC related ideology.

 

[gumboot]

Oh. I'm inclined to think it crazy PNAC related ideology.

This would be the PNAC that explicitly advises against what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? The same PNAC plan that called on Neocons to do exactly the opposite with military technology procurement that Bush's administration actually did?

 

[Upchurch]

This would be the PNAC that explicitly advises against what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? The same PNAC plan that called on Neocons to do exactly the opposite with military technology procurement that Bush's administration actually did?

No, I meant the other PNAC. The one I linked to their wiki article on.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oh. I'm inclined to think it crazy PNAC related ideology.

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, not really. "Last resort in the face of a serious threat" does not necessarily mean "only justified if war is inevitable".

What other serious threat would there be, other than the threat of war?

I wouldn't disagree with you here. However the international community can't afford to interfere in every country where some feels there's a dictatorship. We have to reserve action for those that pose a threat to their neighbours or the wider global community.

I tend to agree. I certainly wasn't enthusiastic about the Iraq War, but given that Bush et. al. seemed set on it and weren't going to be held back, I was cautiously optimistic that something good would come out of it.

I read an interesting article once on comparisons between Post-war Germany/Japan and post-war Iraq. There was an interesting case made for why the restrained warfare that is utilised now is a bad idea.

I guess I was more idealistic about the whole process. I thought that maybe Japan embraced democracy because most people would embrace it, given the chance. I didn't think they had to be beaten into submission so severely.

As I said in the OP, even if I end up giving Bush credit for success, I can't see myself singing his praises. If it works out in the end, I think it could have worked more quickly. I was very disturbed at the way our nation tried to monopolize Iraq after the war. If you read thread archives from that period, you can find a lot of people saying, "to the victor go the spoils" in justifying US commercial interests profiting form contracts in the area, and excluding such nations as France who did not participate in the war. Well, we got the spoils, all right.

On balance, the new way appears to be the better choice, but preserving the will to continue the occupation in the face of ongoing violence is an issue.

If it kills fewer people, but the end result is just changing dictators, that doesn't seem to be an improvement.
ETA:Come to think of it, you can't even compare outcomes. The "old way" is so horrific that it cannot be justified except by having it thrust upon a nation by an attack, and the "new way" accomplishes nothing, but it isn't quite as bad to get there. And, of course, if your daughter is among the dead, the "old way" and "new way" probably each seem equally bad.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Apparently, you believe the NLF and NVA were in South Vietnam to free them. They killed 58,000 Americans and countless South Vietnamese to force all to submit to Communism.

Um, to some extent, the NLF and NVA were freeing those in South Vietnam. Had the US not been backing a theocratic dictator, the hearts and minds of the South Vietnam citizens may not have found refuge in the NLF. Many South Vietnam citizens supported the north not because they supported communism, but because they supported the attempts to overthrow Diem.

 

[OMGturt1es]

How many people do you think have died since the invasion? Now compare that to the number who died and were dying before the invasion. The UN and WHO concluded that thousands of innocent men, women and children were still dying in Iraq every month shortly before our invasion. They were dying because Saddam was in power. And they would have continued to die at those rates (or even worse) as long as Saddam remain in power. By now we'd be talking about hundreds of thousands.

And, that's ignoring the future; when Saddam eventually lost power, it seems rather likely that things could have easily gotten far worse. I have a difficult time imagining any scenero under which inocent folk would not have lost their lives at increasing rates.

In my view, despite the fact that I don't agree with the administration's political motivations, our efforts in Iraq will almost certainly be worthwhile, so long as we don't abandon Iraq in chaos. We may lose money. We may lose power. Whatever. I don't care. These are human lives. It seems rather likely that US involvement in Iraq will be directly responsible for saving many lives, even if things are never perfect. I think that more able countries ought be willing to help those who are less fortunate. I certainly don't believe that our motivations were pure, but human lives are human lives.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

No, it means we were right ... or at least Obama was completely wrong back in 2007 and until just recently.

I don't think so. It just means we have the biggest, badest military in the world and we can force our views on others.

But this wasn't a preemptive war. It was merely the continuation of the one in 1991 with a new sense of urgency.

I disagree. The reasoning for the war was either a) to remove the threat of WMD use by a country hostile to the U.S. or b) to instill democracy in a country that wasn't really asking for it. The war in 1991 was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Full stop. They chose not to march into Baghdad because of the fear of what happened to the U.S. when it marched into Baghdad.

Leaving Pakistan out of the equation (because there has been some talk about invading them under the Obama administration), those other countries didn't applaud 9/11 and al-Qaeda like Saddam did. They weren't in communicaton with the Taliban and al-Qaeda after 9/11 like Saddam appears to have been. They didn't have al-Qaeda operating freely in their country like Saddam did (with apparently his tacit approval). They still had firm control of their WMD arsenal ... which apparently Saddam did not. And they weren't already at war with us (remember, the tapes that were captured of conversations between Saddam and his staff after the war, show that he and his staff still considered themselves to be at war). One more thing. It isn't completely established that Iraq had no role in 9/11. There are a number of coincidences that still haven't been explained.

Emphasis mine.

So no one in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and others didn't applaud the attacks on the U.S.? And, if they did, is that sufficient reason to attack them?

I don't think it has been ever proved that Al Quida had much to do with the government in Iraq. The only link between Iraq and Al Quida was after we started the war in Iraq.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, gave aid and comfort to Al Quida and I fully supported military action against them.

And what WMD did Saddam not have control over?

Obama has never indicated that he would invade Pakistan. He has not ruled out limited military action against Taliban and Al Quida elements in Pakistan if Pakistan doesn't step up.

And it hasn't been fully established that the Mossad didn't have anything to do with 9/11, either.

Not true. Bush said in his State of the Union Address before the invasion that freeing the Iraqi people was part of the goal.

Bush said a lot of things at various times depending on what spin he was working on at the time.

A trite statement generally made by those who don't already have guns pointed at them by their own government.

Yeah, and the U.S. didn't have guns pointed at them when they started their revolution.

I believed that was phony at the time. I don't know whether Bush believed that they had the WMDs. That was an excuse for going to war, not a reason.

Agreed, I am not sure he did or not. I know that he received a lot of intelligence that Iraq did not have any WMD, but whether he chose to ignore it because he had blinders on by that time or if he really wanted to start a war, I don't know. Iraq was an easy target and would could have shown early, tangible progress on the 'war against terror'. However, misguided.

 

[BeAChooser]

as Iraq was neither an ongoing nor eminent threat to the US

The first claim is debatable (Iraq was in contact with al-Qaeda) and, of course, you meant "imminent" in the second claim ... and even Bush never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat ... just that we needed to keep it from becoming one.

 

[BeAChooser]

I believed that was phony at the time. I don't know whether Bush believed that they had the WMDs. That was an excuse for going to war, not a reason.

If you're so sure that Iraq had no WMD, then you should have no trouble answering these questions:

1) Tell us the contents of those trucks that were observed going to Syria before the war (that a "credible" source told the ISG were WMD related)?

2) Tell us the contents of the concrete bunker that was built under the Euphrates in 2002 (that locals said contained WMD) and that was looted before the CIA (in all it's *wisdom*) decided to take a look at it in 2006?

3) Tell us why Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD? They did this both before, during and even after the invasion. What were they hiding?

4) Tell us where that binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED actually came from and how you know it was the only one?

5) Tell lus what the documents dated 2002 from Saddam that were found in Iraq but not translated until much later meant when they ordered "special" materials to be hidden ("special" materials was the way Iraq referred to WMD)?

6) Tell us why you think invading Iraq was only about finding completed WMD munitions, and not precursors and the means to produce them, as well? (You see the ISG concluded that Iraq had not given up it's pursuit of WMD and that Saddam planned to reconstitute his chemical munitions within six months to a year after the UN gave Iraq a clean bill of health and the sanctions ended ... which was bound to happen had we not invaded.)

 

[BeAChooser]

1) Armed force should only be used in self defense or as a measure of last resort in the face of a serious threat. Saddam was well contained, and posed no threat to anyone. There were ample forces in position to prevent him flexing his muscles.

But the problem was no longer simply a concern that Iraq would flex it's muscles in a traditional military way. For that, yes, we had Saddam contained. After 9/11, however, the concern became that Iraq might be a source to terrorists of WMD and WMD related materials. And David Kay who headed the ISG's inspection team immediately after the invasion concluded that in that regard Iraq was more dangerous than anyone had been thought before the invasion. That's almost a direct quote of Kay.

2) Maintaining the credibility of the UN as a forum for international cooperation is vital to maintaining global peace and security. When major members of the UN act unilaterally, without the backing of the UN, it causes significant damage to the UN's credibility and weakens its effectiveness in forcing rogue states to adhere to the will of the international community.

And we know that Saddam had essentially bought off key members of the UN organization and key UN member states. That takes away from the credibility of the UN as well. Also, documents found in Iraq showed that Saddam had spies in the UN's inspection organization. Which would seriously weaken it's effectiveness, wouldn't you say?

 

[BeAChooser]

It's a pretty standard practise, when analysing data to demonstrate the fallacy of a claim, to hedge unknown factors in favour of the claim.

That's also pretty standard practice when assessing threats ... you assume the worst and deal with it in that light. As Bush did.

I actually suspect history will show IBCs figures to be far more accurate than most people are currently willing to accept.

I agree. In which case, all those claims by the folks from John Hopkins, which were endlessly regurgitated by members of the left to attack Bush and the US, were tantamount to lies. Right?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
It isn't completely established that Iraq had no role in 9/11. There are a number of coincidences that still haven't been explained.

What would these coincidences be?

One: The Czech intelligence service said back in 2003 that it was "70% certain" Mohammed Atta (leader of the 9/11 terrorists) met with an Iraqi Intelligence agent named al-Ani in Prague just a few months before 9/11. See http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030729-093909-9839r.htm . Nothing has been published since to indicate they've changed their mind. Ani, by the way, was in charge of special projects.

Two: al-Ani's day calendar, which the Czech's seized after the Iraq invasion, listed a meeting with a "Hamburg student" on the very day the meeting between Atta and al-Ani was alleged (by an eye witness) to have occurred. What a coincidence that al-Ani listed "Hamburg Student" as his occupation on his travel documents.

Three: we know that Atta had visited Prague and met al-Ani several times in 2000 ... traveling as a "hamburg student". Both a few days after an earlier visit and a few days after the last alleged visit in 2001, Atta's bank account in the US received a very large deposit.

Four: Atta and several other hijackers just happen to reside within a few miles of the American Media building where the first case of 9/11 anthrax showed up. What are the odds of that? Several of the hijackers had met with the wife of the editor of the magazine where the victim worked. Atta and several hijackers ask about crop dusters at a time when they were already training to fly hijacked commercial planes into buildings. Atta sought a loan to modify a crop duster. To what purpose?

Five: Atta and another hijacker sought treatment for skin lesions in June that in hindsight (after 9/11) both the doctor who saw them (Dr Tsonas) and the pharmacist they visited said was "consistent with cutaneous anthrax". A memorandum, prepared by experts at the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, and circulated among top government officials, concluded that the diagnosis of cutaneous anthrax, which causes skin lesions, was "the most probable and coherent interpretation of the data available." The memorandum added, "Such a conclusion of course raises the possibility that the hijackers were handling anthrax and were the perpetrators of the anthrax letter attacks." When the contents of the memo became public, the conclusion was endorsed by D.A. Henderson, the top bioterrorism official at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Richard Spertzel, who presided over the inspection of Iraq's bioweapons program as part of a United Nations team.

See what I mean by coincidences? And none of them has been adequately explained. Now given that we have Saddam and his henchmen on tape in the mid 90's talking about the use of 3rd party assets to attack the US with WMD, are you sure that involvement of Iraq has been totally ruled out?

 

[BeAChooser]

I do believe that it had nothing to do with WMDs. I think all talk of WMDs and their threat was pure pretense.

Then like I said, you should have no trouble answering the 6 questions I asked you in my earlier post.