Got it.

Dugger

You’ll see the goal set by RAND a few years ago — about or at least 125,000 trained Iraqi forces..

Globalsecurity.org shows you that they’re nearly there.

The Iraqis just seem a little slow in coming around and it sometimes appears that that ‘coming around’ happens only when we prod or provide an umbrella. H*ll, hope I’m wrong. Believe we need to stay the course, no matter I just don’t see the signs (yet?) that the fundamental nature of their society is changing. The bad guys are willing to die for their old, outdated, vicous way of life, whereas the good guys don’t seem to be flocking to freedom’s banner.

Dugger, Been Wrong Before

.

While the terrorists are attacking military and “new – style” administrative officials, what is it they are not doing?

They are not just blowing up innocent civilians, except as collateral damage.

They are not blowing up mosques or othe religious symbols — in Iraq.

They are not blowing up the schoolhouses and other buildings being built with American – Iraqi cooperation

In other words, they are afraid of pissing off the locals, something that, in Viet Nam, for example, was no problem.

I think I know why, and if you think about it, you’ll know why, too: We’re winning.

Maybe I’m wrong. But I just don’t see any evidence that we were actually prepared to go set up a democracy after the dictatorship was destroyed.

but maybe they felt like they could improvise, given Iraq s oil resources

Well, what I mean here is, if nation-building was the reason, wouldn’t we see evidence that they spent some time thinking about how to do that?

Instead, we went through a couple of viceroys, kept the Iraqi army intact…no wait! disbanded it, and seemed to be making up the transition as we went.

It’s almost as if we were thinking of something else.

I tend to agree with your logic here, but maybe they felt like they could improvise, given Iraq’s oil resources. Don’t know. I think Neocons miss the boat sometimes when they think the rest of the world wants or believes in our founding ideals. I do, and you may, but man-in-the-street Baghdad may not. He may not be steeped in anything other than Islamic orthodoxy and/or obey-the-dictator-before-he-kills-your-family-ism People like that aren’t just going to seamlessly pick up the baton of freedom and democratic government. Can’t be too arrogant about that idea, however, because I probably would have felt that way about post-war Japan or Germany. Some of those “neocons” back then were right.

Dugger

Frank’s challenge isn’t the first time I’ve considered the question of what I believe to be the “real” reason for the invasion.

The overwhelming majority of the justification we heard before the war dealt with the threat that Iraqi WMD could fall into the hands of terrorists. Let’s give team Bush the benefit of the doubt and say they believed–just like all those Dems who said similar things–that Saddam did have WMD and was willing to use them.

I can’t accept that as the primary reason for the invasion for several reasons. The Bush team didn’t portray the evidence in a calm, measured way, pros and cons, certainties and qualifications. No, they carefully presented the worst case and aggressively disputed those who raised questions.

This is not the behavior of people who are searching for an answer. This is the behavior of people who are defending a conclusion that has already been reached.

On days when I am most willing to credit the Bush administration with good intentions, I consider Dugger’s first proposition:

Conversion of Iraq into a modern democratic and progressive state in the middle of a part of the world that is the living antithesis to all of those ideals. Might be the first giant step in  fixing the mideast (the neocon keystone ideal, I believe).

It would be monumentally ambitious for an American president to choose military force as a way to re-create an entire region in our own image. However, as Dugger, points out, that has been the neocon fantasy for a long time.

If that was the reason, don’t you think there would have been better planning for the aftermath? If the whole point was to create stable, democratic societies in the middle east, wouldn’t the Bush administration spent more time figuring out how to set up the replacement for the corrupt regime being knocked down?

We’ve learned from many different sources that the planning for the aftermath of Saddam’s fall was nearly nonexistent. Hell of a way to “convert” a region, ain’t it?

After that, I descend into real tinfoil hat territory, not because that’s my inclination, but because that’s all I have left.

Why did the Bush administration invade Iraq?

I will tell you honestly: I have no idea why.

I can only tell you that the reasons offered publicly don’t really make sense to me. In some cases, the Bush administration carefully presented only those facts that supported their inevitable conclusions–even when contradictory facts were presented from reliable sources. In some cases, administration members worked to discredit those who questioned their case for war.

It seems to me that the objective to invade was set first, then arguments to support that objective were built from whatever data was available.

These beliefs leave me with a nagging question: If the arguments were constructed to fit the predetermined decision, then what drove that decision in the first place.

I wish I knew.

1) They (conservatives or Bush supporters) can’t say it was “A” because that’s not true; AND / OR

2) They (conservatives or Bush supporters) can’t say it was “B” because that’s not working.

So, you tell me. What was the nefarious plot? Why did the Bush administration invade Iraq?

I m still waiting for the left to come forward with the reasons we did go to war,

I’ll let you know, Frank. As soon as the Bush administration offers a story that’s even plausible.

Conversion of Iraq into a modern democratic and progressive state in the middle of a part of the world that is the living antithesis to all of those ideals. Might be the first giant step in ‘fixing’ the mideast (the neocon keystone ideal, I believe).

Terrorists and terrorist enablers are tied up in Iraq (and Afghan) and Americans are safer on their home ground. Our casulaties are dear, but this is war of attrition for Ts.

We rid the world of a horrible dictator and terrorist supporter, a man who if he did not have WMDs, would propbaly have used them WHEN he got them.

We demonstrate to the world, that America, a basic force for good, will take up arms for what it believes. This has an effect in places like Libya etc.

We help secure our overseas oil source is it all about OIL ? – no – but a little bit? – yes-)

We prevented further genocide against peole like the Kurds.

Dugger, Off the top of my Head

“Still, why is it dubious to have trusted Bush to do the right thing?”

Its not, but it is one thing to disagree and believe bad judgemnt was in play, another to believe that we got into the war all through the (evil) duplicitous manipulations of Rs (only). The real world isn’t like that. The Rs or neocons thought they were doing what was best for the country and they may yet turn out to be correct (I have my doubts, though). Why not leave it at policy disagreement instead of attributing bad intentions (and good intentions are not enough – good intentions don’t erase bad judgement).

Dugger

How can you get more current and credible than the Director of the CIA standing in your office telling you that it was a slam dunk?

Am I to understand that you find Mr. Woodward’s reporting entirely reliable, scratch?

Interesting.

When you have power, people tell you what you want to hear. If you shove people around and make it clear that you want them to tell you what you want to hear– including violently attacking them when they don’t– then all anyone will dare to tell you is what you want to hear.

Think for a moment about the biggest asshole boss you’ve ever had. Already knows what he wants to do. Needs some evidence, numbers, backup, some documentation and information he needs to “sell” his lie to others. Charges you with the task of going to find him some. It’s an impossible mission, because he is *wrong*. There is no convincing evidence. He is asking you to lie. You can’t do his task. If you fail, he will rip one of your balls off. If you tell him he’s wrong, he’ll rip BOTH of your balls off. And you can’t even must make shit up– he is being asked for hard factual evidence and it’s your job to go find him some.

What do you do?

Maybe you quit, which is the honourable thing to do. Maybe you can’t quit, or you just are too weaselly to do it. Maybe if you quit he will ass-rape the people who work for you, who have given you years of loyalty and you feel responsible for them– you can’t just abandon them to this guy.

So you go in with what you’ve got. He looks at you funny– he knows nobody is going to buy that load of crap. But you really want to keep your balls– both of them. You can’t tell him that’s the best you can get– he’ll send you away to go get more (minus one testicle), or just fire your sorry ass. So you tell him, “boss, it’s a slam dunk!!”

He looks at you funny again. So you say it again, “really, a slam dunk!!” (oh please please god why did you put me in this hellhole of a job…).

I dunno. A purely fictional account. From the very real experience of my own career. This is reality. Bosses are bosses and I’ve worked for more than a few Shrub’s in my day.

Still, why is it dubious to have trusted Bush to do the right thing? Shouldn’t that be what one expects of their president?