Scott Ritter and Sy Hersh on C-Span

[Bikewer]

Just watched the 1 1/2 hour interview-question-and-answer session that aired on C-span2 yesterday. Ritter has just come out with a book titled Iraq Confidential, and as most know, Hersh has written extensively both in NYTimes articles and books (Chain of Command) about the conduct of the war in Iraq.

A fascinating and rather depressing segment. Ritter maintains (as has Hersh) that "regime change" had been set in stone long before 9-11 (even going back to Clinton) and that the progam essentially became the property of the NeoCons.
Hersh has said as much as well in his book. Ritter maintains in his current book that the inspection process was sabotaged for this purpose.

Neither of these people had anything encouraging to say about the current state of affairs. I would not presume to extract anything pithy from the segment by memory, I might play through it to get some comments. I don't know if these programs are archived, but I found the segment interesting in a depressing sort of way.

There was a lot of commentary and questions on the conduct of the war, prospects for peace, potential widening of the conflict into Iran and Syria, the complicity of the US media by way of failing to ask or follow-up hard questions, and the complicity of the Congress ditto.

 

[Cain]

I wanted to watch this but somehow missed it! This weekend's BookTV was pretty goddamn enlightening. Was this a very recent event? I wonder if they have it available online.

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither of these people had anything encouraging to say about the current state of affairs.

Of course not. They've both staked positions that almost depend on its failure. What they have both said and done will look rather unflattering if Iraq turns into a success, so they (quite naturally) want to try to make sure it can never be percieved as such, regardless of how reality turns out. CYA, in other words. I don't see either of them being in much of a position to really evaluate what's happening over there right now. Has either of them actually spent any significant amount of time in the country since our invasion? How about since the January elections? Things have hardly been static.

 

[Bikewer]

I don't think either has been "in country" recently, but it's pretty obvious that Hersh at least has a large number of contacts in the military, intelligence, and government. His stories have been frequently disturbing (especially to the present administration), but also quite accurate.

I recall when he was "on tour" for Chain of Command last year; he made several predictions about the Abu Gharaib story that proved accurate, and also broke the fairly recent story about intelligence operations in Iran. The administration at first issued a blustery attack calling the report "full of inaccuracies", but did not deny the substance. Then they spun it by saying it was just part of normal "war game" planning....Don't worry.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course not. They've both staked positions that almost depend on its failure. What they have both said and done will look rather unflattering if Iraq turns into a success, so they (quite naturally) want to try to make sure it can never be percieved as such, regardless of how reality turns out. CYA, in other words. I don't see either of them being in much of a position to really evaluate what's happening over there right now. Has either of them actually spent any significant amount of time in the country since our invasion? How about since the January elections? Things have hardly been static.

So, the claims that the whole adventure was planned and anticipated long before 9/11?

 

[Ziggurat]

So, the claims that the whole adventure was planned and anticipated long before 9/11?

In what sense, exactly? Regime change was a policy started by both congress and the Clinton administration, well before Bush even ran for office. That's when planning started, as well it should have. Clinton wasn't willing to pursue that goal will all means available, but the idea that getting rid of Saddam was a US objective is really quite sensible, even if (like Clinton) you're not willing to invade to get it done. Do you really think that this objective was itself wrong? If so, why?

The fact that Ritter and Hersch say "regime change" was set in stone is, well, kind of obvious and public already, unless you didn't pay any attention in the 90's. But it doesn't actually tell us much about what the actual decisions about the invasion were or when they were actually made - it sounds like it means more than it does. So it's the perfect claim for war opponents such as Ritter and Hersch: it's factually correct (and so cannot be "refuted"), but it doesn't really mean what most of their fans probably assume it does.

 

[coalesce]

The idea of "regime change" being hatched in a previous administration doesn't bother me. I would tend to think that it would be in America's best interests to have "regime change" plans drawn up for all unfriendly governments (North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, etc.), regardless of who's in the White House.

What does bother me is that given all the time and preparation given to Iraqi "regime change" is how badly it's been thought through. This isn't some war college exercise or fancy theorem, these are people's lives on both sides that are beiing wasted because not enough thought was given to what happens after the "Mission Accomplished" banner is unfurled.

Michael