None of those “noble” reasons are out the window. They are or were (or were not to the cynics) noble because of the perceived motivations. The “why”. That motivation is not changed by how events have subsequently gone. And things aren’t getting radically worse. To me, a better way of saying it is that aren’t improving as fast as we would like and we are worried that they may never improve enough or that we can even define what “enough improvement” is. If there is a real problem here, IMO it was with the perhaps original idea of invading and thinking we could change something permanently in the character and nature of Iraqi society.

Dugger

I’m sorry you think my response was so knee jerk. But the fact of the matter is, for a variety of reasons, none of the arguments for IRaq as a noble cause are operative anymore. Homeland security, a more stable middle east, a free and democratic Iraq, it is, sadly, all out the window. That’s exactly why aksing the question is so important. Let’s talk about where we are at and where we are going today, let’s set aside the good intentions of yesterday. If Bush meant well, fine. But whatever nobility existed in the initial gesture, if you can call a preemptive invasion a gesture, is gone, lost not by anything the vast, vast majority of our troops have done (there’s still abu ghraib, let’s not forget) but because the people who planned this thing have done such a piss poor job of following through. The facts on the ground have changed radically for the worse and continually repeating the same thing about our “noble cause” only continues to blind Bush to the reality of what’s happening.

And as to the legality of the invasion I believe it’s possible for anyone to consult the mutiple treaties and organizations we belong to that strictly forbid, exactly what we did. It isn’t my opinion.

Some of that was pretty good anlysis. Some of it a little ideoloically formulaic. This is true, however: “we did not invade Iraq solely to liberate the Iraqi people.”

Myself, I support none of the Bush lied or its about oil arguments, but I do sometimes wonder how the original case for going into Iraq holds up today: UN Sanctions – OBE’d; WMDs – we expected to but didn’t find any; part of the WOT – maybe but why not Syria or Pakistan or wherever. I believe the Neocons regard the Iraqi action as the cornerstone for a long term strategy of “modernizing” the Mideast; to eliminate as a perennial world trouble spot. In doing so, they belive this will actually, almost coincidentally, win the WOT. If Iraq could become a model modern democratic Mideast state, it might start a good domino effect. It would be much easier to leverage other countries into something similar. This is a rather noble underaking (if at all true) but it is also a gamble. People foregt that Iran under the Shah was a relatively progressive Mideastern state. It reverted to a backward theocracy. I hope it will, but why will Iraq be different?

Dugger

Were you in the service ?

Now these statements likely reflect your own personal opinions, but do not reflect some universal truth, unavailable to us, the unwashed and unenlightened.

You’re right; we do not have access to a universal truth unavailable to others. Leaving aside the issue of whether the administration lied in the run up to the war, there is no doubt that the planning for the war was woefully inadequate. The looting that occurred immediately after the invasion is one indication; the inability of U.S. troops to accomplish the deliverables they were assigned (protect the oil; re-build the infrastructure; prevent terrorism and an insurgency from rising up, and capture Saddam Hussein’s sympathizers) is another more glaring piece of evidence. Let’s not forget the lack of proper armour for the troops themselves.

And by planning, I don’t just mean ensuring the necessary resources in terms of troops and administrative support; I mean actual planning and forecasting of what was to come. Planning would include activities such as studying previous such actions and anticipating with some degree of accuracy the outcome of such action; planning for expected and unexpected risks and developing mitigations and risk management plans. These involve basic project management skills. Yet at every turn this Administration went against the advice of career professionals, touting the moral necessity of maintaining a rosy outlook, and going so far as to suggest that Americans would be welcomed as liberators.

Everything I have said so far is easily verifyable and this information is available to anyone with access to a computer or a newspaper.

As for the legality of this war, I expect that you put little or no value in the opinions of Kofi Annan or a previous UN Secretary, so allow me to quote someone who was, until recently, a Bush Administration familiar and favourite on November 19, 2003:

…influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been “no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein”.

This is also available via Google.

I would like nothing better than to believe that the government of the most powerful nation on earth invaded another country with the best of intentions. If I believe that, then the only conclusion I can come to is that they are incompetents of an as-yet uncharted level.

In a way, we are giving them a bit of credit for having the intelligence to harbour ulterior motives. It’s almost a comfort to believe that there is some great big secret that will one day explain the blood spilled in the name of America.

Hence the demand for the Noble Cause. Even if it’s one we will abhor, let there at least be a Cause of some kind, noble or not.

Your own words belie your preconceptions, as being the holder of an unassailable truth, ie. “at least one half of this noble cause was a lie and the other was, to put it bluntly, woefully naive and misguided”, or “It s without doubt that Bush violated international law by invading Iraq without explicit UN authority”.

Now these statements likely reflect your own personal opinions, but do not reflect some universal truth, unavailable to us, the unwashed and unenlightened.

Suffice it to say that both Dugger and Jay C believe that it is a noble cause to liberate a people from a ruthless dictator while, in the process, ensuring our own national security. You will get no disagreement from me there. But (ya knew it was coming) is that indeed what we have accomplished or are accomplishing in Iraq? Have all our noble intentions achieved anyting noble at all — except, as Dugger points out, once again revealing the dogged commitment, perserverance and sacrifice of our men and women in the military? Certainly, a majority of the Iraqi people have shown themselves willing to face grave danger to participate in the democratic process. That’s certainly shows they are possessing of outstanding qualities, as well. Sadly, it seems that all this real nobility may go to waste because at least one half of this noble cause was a lie and the other was, to put it bluntly, woefully naive and misguided.

I think Mouse has done most of the work in exposing just how out of touch Jay C really has become — “scattered terrorist attacks”? 4,000 innocent Iraqis have died in the last five months — but naturally I’d like to throw my two cents in here.

It’s without doubt that Bush violated international law by invading Iraq without explicit UN authority. No matter how ruthless Hussein was he represented the sovereign government of Iraq. Still, there’s no point in arguing about the morality of doing a bad thing to do an even greater good thing, so let’s move on to the fact that one of the greater goods put forth by Bush — and echoed by both Dugger and Jay C — was that removing Hussein from power would make America safer. It clearly hasn’t. Hedley talks about Lebanon, Libya, Gaza and Iran as if they were all democracy dominoes just waiting for the right push to fall. It is indeed, the dominoe theory in reverse. And yet the government of Iran seem eeven more emboldened, not chastened, in its pursuit of nuclear power. North Korea has certaintly not been cowed by our show of force. In lining up his dominoes, Hedley quickly forgets every other contributing factor to the developments he cites, putting the invasion of Iraq at the top of the list, forgetting the years of UN economic sanctions that crippled Libya before it finally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and moved to rejoin the world community. In the case of Lebanon he forgets the assassination of former prime minister, Rafik al-Hariri, as the final straw of Lebanese tolerance of Syrian involvement in their affairs. I ask you, if Syria had cracked down instead of withdraw what would the US have been able to do to stop it? What would we be able to do military with all our resources tied down in Iraq? Nothing. And the Syrians — and the Iranians — know it. We are now in a more precarious position in the middle east than we have ever been. What happens if Bush decides to bomb some Iranian nuclear facility and we kill some number of Iranian Shiites? How well would that go down with the Iraqi Shiites we’re trying to help? An argument could be made that our involvement in Iraq has radically limited our strategic options in the region even as it has emboldened our enemies because they know that our military is strecthed too thin and that we are too embroiled in sectarian politics to do anything. So no, I don’t think we are safer. Certainly, London wasn’t. And I haven’t gotten to the main problem with the “ensuring our national security” part of the noble cause: At the time of the invasion, Hussein was no threat to us whatsoever.

BUt what of HUssein now? First off, Hussein may be in jail, in defiance of all prognostications circa 2003, but we have not removed the threat of his regime. His regime still terrorizes the Iraqi people on a daily basis. Only ten percent of the terrorist fighters in the country (let’s not quibble over semantics) are foreign born. Most of the rest are, indeed, former members of the Baath party, Sunni extremists and other Hussein loyalists. We are indeed at war, Hedley, with the very same people we’ve been at war with since we crossed Iraq’s borders. They have evolved and reformulated their attack. We, sadly, have not. Not because our soldiers on the ground aren’t capable of doing so, but because George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have not given them the ability to do so. Why? I’m sure I couldn’t say but we’ve all long since put to rest the idea that Bush was actually listening to the “commanders on the ground.” So in placing all of the attention on Huseein himself as an individual, Bush and his administration misread the bigger picture. As a result, Hussein’s supporters are still killing Iraqis.

Which brings us to the woefully naive and misguided problem with the noble cause. Dugger himself says it best: “I also think that, practically, we can t go to war over every noble cause.” Everyone knows that we did not invade Iraq solely to liberate the Iraqi people. We invaded Iraq to secure America and the region and liberating the Iraqi people was the way were going to do it. Well, once the securing America thing went out the window with the phantom WMDs and the insurgency, all we were left with is liberating the Iraqi people. Not a bad consolation prize but where are in that process at the moment? At best we can expect an Iranian-style theocracy to emerge. At worst, total civil war. That is are our last best possibilities proves that Bush and his team of supposed foreign policy “adults,” didn’t have the slighest idea what they were getting themselves and the country into. And once they were they, they had no idea what to do or how to do it. They took your noble cause, Dugger and Hedley, and pissed it away.

Which brings me to my final point. Despite the often inspiring acts of nobility that we have seen along the way the invasion of Iraq was no noble cause, it was, at best, Bush’s folly.

These things did happen. Don t start moving the goal posts and saying I have to prove a direct link between the two.

What I’m asking you to prove is whether these things (ie. changes in the “region”) happened as a result of the action in Iraq (the failure comment was my own snark). And yes, you do have to show a causal relation to support your claim that Our actions in Afghnistan and Iraq laid the foundation for some of the things we are seeing in that region..

Please note that you did nothing to refute what I said.

What I did was systematically debunk much of what you presented as evidence of the successes in Iraq which people, like yourself, seem to trot out whenever the Noble Cause question is asked.

Somebody asked a question and I answered it.

You did not answer the question, you posted your opinion of what that answer is. You are of couse entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to disagree with it. The end result is that the Noble Cause appears to be whatever someone thinks it is. How convenient.

Sorry if I don t consider bombing women and children as part of a rebellion.

Well, then how about the bombing of an occupying army? Wouldn’t that qualify as insurgency?

Oh that’s rich. Show a causal relation between something you already conclude is failing? These things did happen. Don’t start moving the goal posts and saying I have to prove a direct link between the two.

Not an insurgency huh? Amazing that even Fox News calls them insurgents, along with the rest of the Bush Administration. The Brookings Institute also calls them insurgents.

Well good for them. An insurgency is defined as a rebellion of sorts. Sorry if I don’t consider bombing women and children as part of a rebellion.

It was a non-starter in the U.S. because for some reason the media didn t report on it. Practically everywhere else in the world it was a sensation.

Of course it was. A good conspiracy theory about the US government is going to be lapped up all over.

So, you want to try answering that Noble Cause question again? (this time with feeling!)

Please note that you did nothing to refute what I said. All you did was complain about the level of the successes. You cherry picked particulars.

Somebody asked a question and I answered it. It’s not like anything I was going to say was going to change anybody’s mind.

Our actions in Afghnistan and Iraq laid the foundation for some of the things we are seeing in that region.

Care to provide some evidence? Because I should let you know that I lived in Lebanon, and still have family there and your view of what is going on there is very different from ours. As for the rest, you’ll need to show a causal relation between the failing action in Iraq and the changes in the Middle East before your assertions can be taken seriously.

A new Iraqi army of nearly 200,000 would be in place

According to the Brookings Institute, only 94,256 Iraqi troops are trained and effective (as of March 2005), out of a total of 171,913.

Iraq police are barely equipped to do their jobs. Of their various requirements, they have 41% of the weapons, 25% of the vehicles, 17% of the communications and 31% of the body armour.

…scattered terrorist attacks (it is not an insurgency)…

Not an insurgency huh? Amazing that even Fox News calls them insurgents, along with the rest of the Bush Administration. The Brookings Institute also calls them insurgents. But as we all know, a rose by any other name, etc. These “scattered terrorist attacks” have increased from 8 a day in the month of June 2003, to 70 in May 2005. Violent incidents against the coalition and its partners have been on the rise consistently since the beginning of the war.

electricity supply is now higher than it was at pre-war levels

Technically, you’re correct. Pre-war level of generation was 3,958 Megawatts a day. As of July 2005, it’s risen to 4,583 MW. That’s the equivalent of supplying approximately 250 additional homes (about the size of a small neighbourhood). Not exactly a good return on investment.

The Downing Street Memo is a complete non-starter and proved absolutely nothing.

It was a non-starter in the U.S. because for some reason the media didn’t report on it. Practically everywhere else in the world it was a sensation. And although not a proof in and of itself, it provided further evidence that the Bush Administration was willing to “fix” the data around its policy.

So, you want to try answering that Noble Cause question again? (this time with feeling!)

First off, we removed a sadistic dictator that with his rhetoric and his past actions created the very ‘unrest’ in the Middle East, opponents of the war claimed would happen if we went to war. He encouraged terrorism. He offered to finance it.

Our actions in Afghnistan and Iraq laid the foundation for some of the things we are seeing in that region. Anti-Syrian protests in Lebanon. Qaddafi’s ending of Libya’s WMD programs. Israel agreeing to pull out of settlements in Gaza. Pro-democracy Iranians looking to make serious changes in their country. You think all of this happened by accident? Do you truly believe this would have taken place if not for what we’re trying to do over there? If anybody here would have said 2 years ago that at this time:

A. Saddam Hussein would be removed from power and ready to go on trial
B. Successful elections would be held in Iraq with participation higher there than in our own country.
C. A new constitution on the verge of approval
D. A new Iraqi army of nearly 200,000 would be in place

All of this with unfortunate deaths of less than 2,000 soldiers and with scattered terrorist attacks (it is not an insurgency) that are increasingly focusing on civilians making them increasingly unpopular amongst Iraqi citizens.

The Downing Street Memo is a complete non-starter and proved absolutely nothing. As for reconstruction, electricity supply is now higher than it was at pre-war levels. Oil exports are up and there’s just a host of stuff that USAID is doing on a smaller scale that is very positive.

That being said, Sheehan has not made any case for anything. There’s nothing to tell her because she has already reached her conclusions: That this is a war fought for oil, to enrich Bush’s friends and to satisfy some neo-con imperialist agenda in the Middle East.

And stop with the troll bullshit. I’ve been posting comments on OW’s blog for a years now.

How does someone’s political agenda undermine their credibility? For crying out loud that means Bush has zero credibility. Or don’t you believe that the president of the United States has a political agenda? What are you thinking?

“Kissinger stressed that the US should withdraw troops that were not necessary to the goal of stabilising Iraq.

‘But we cannot begin with an exit without having first defined what the objective is,’ he added.”

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=152678148&p=y5z678854

There you go again. I didn’t say anything about Sheehan’s moral authority being absolute. I clearly said that if there’s an argument to counter her belief that Iraq is a tragedy that needs to end now let’s hear it. Sheehan believes that her son died for nothing because this President abused his power, the American people and international law in pursuit of a corrupt agenda under cover of national defense. Can you present the case that she is wrong? There are plenty of facts to suggest she’s right on a multiple of fronts, from corruption to incompetence: the Downing Street memo, Halliburton’s massive accounting “irregulities,” billions of missing dollars in CPA funds, the complete lock out of Iraqis from their own economy when it comes to major reconstruction projects, the slow and irregular pace of those reconstruction projects, the complete and continuing failure to effectively deal with a rising insurgency and sectarian violence. Do you have any response to these charges? Sheehan definitely has a way with rhetorical flourish, let’s say, but the basic charges that brought her to Crawford remain the same and resonate with the American people. This president owes us an explanation. If you support the war, grieving parent or not, you need to make your case in the face of current reality in Iraq just as Sheehan has made her case that this is an unjust, corrupt, tragic misadventure that must end now. So Jay C, care to tell us in your own words what the noble cause is?

“What noble cause are we fighting for in Iraq?”

I’m not now a soldier, but my take would be that getting rid of a sadistic-murderous dictator and his legacy, democracy, stability and peace in the Mideast, and victory in the WOT are noble causes. I also think that in a “democracy” it is noble that a soldier does his duty and fights, yet does not have to agree with or “understand” all the reasons he is fighting. I’m sure some of those who did service during the Clinton years did not always agree with decisions but did their duty. But I also think that, practically, we can’t go to war over every noble cause.

Dugger