I’m going to answer these questions posted by conservative Dale Franks here and not in their comments because I know quite a few of the cons who read my site regularly ask the same questions (and by “ask” I mean regurgitate existing talking points), and even though I’ve made my views crystal clear for the last 5+ years (since before the war), here we go again.
And let’s dispense with silly arguments about whether we should’ve gone into Iraq in the first place. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Well, the history of this decision is consistently being rewritten by the right. As the war has gone worse, the decision has magically become more bipartisan. Certainly the Democrats were very very stupid to vote for the authorization, but it was the President who made the case for war based on claims of Al Qaeda – Iraq – WMD and it is he who made the final decision to move from authorization to walking away from the UN to war.
First, I’m wondering what you think the result of an American withdrawal would be? And we really have to ask that about two spheres, the internal Iraqi results, and the effect on America’s security.
There will be a bloody fight within Iraq for control of that nation. Whether that will be bloodier than the current civil war, I can’t say. But it will be a bloody confrontation without the added carnage of American troops. On the domestic front, it will be better to have our troops not playing – essentially – pattycake with Iraqi forces who would just as soon betray them. Instead we would be back on track hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building. The postwar plans, if you can call them that, thought we would prop up a guy like Chalabi and Iraq would have some kind of democracy (everybody remember Bush’s second inaugural speech?). That isn’t going to happen. They want Sharia law. They don’t want a secular, progressive republic. They’ll pick what they want.
Do you reject the “you broke it, you bought it” idea?
I didn’t outright, but it’s clear there’s nothing we can do to fix what we broke. The simple act of us being there is preventing that, either through the Iraqis leaning on us to clean up all their messes or resentment provoked by having their country occupied by the world’s sole superpower. The moment to fix it has passed us by.
Do you think the Iraqis will find a way to cobble their state together? Do you think it will descend into a civil bloodbath? If so, then why don’t we have any responsibility to try and prevent it?
As I stated above: this is going to happen. Either it happens when a Democratic president withdraws or it happens 10 years from now. The only difference is the amount of U.S. troops who die in the process and the gaping holes in U.S. security that linger on. I’m saying we pay up front instead of the 30 year mortgage.
Compare and contrast with Kosovo and Darfur.
In neither situation are Americans actively occupying and being killed. In Darfur, it’s clear work has to be done internationally but there’s no clear mission militarily. Even so, the general idea of helping the dispossessed militarily is not invalid, but if we’re going to do it it ought to be clear what the endgame is supposed to be (and sold honestly instead of with talk of mushroom clouds and terrorist cells a plenty, cue Iran spin).
What if Iraq turns into a Taliban-like cesspool, and becomes a base for terrorist operation against the US in the same way Afghanistan was?
It currently is a haven, and that’s with thousands of American troops on the ground there. We can hunt terrorists, and that should be our armed forces primary mission until the Al Qaeda threat is eliminated. But it isn’t the time to build brand new nations now, not at this cost.
Do you think that the Iraqis can build a stable, functioning democratic state?
Maybe, I don’t know. But the path to get there is clearly not with American handholding. It just gives them a crutch and gives us a tangled up military with a consistent casualty count.
Are they just not suited for Democracy as a people? If so, what are their deficiencies?
They’ve shown little to no interest in a Western style democracy. They’re hamstrung by tribalism and religion (so is a lot of American politics, especially on the right, frankly). It’s all about the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, and Sharia Law. Us wishing Ben Franklin upon them does not make it so.
The other half of the question is what effect will it have on American security? Will it embolden terrorists? Will our withdrawal make it more or less likely that terrorists will begin marshaling forces for another 9/11 style attack? Why?
Withdrawal from Iraq will help American security, again, our forces will not be babysitting a nation but be engaged in fighting terrorists instead of nation-building. The reason we haven’t had another 9/11 is because the terrorists haven’t sought to pull of an attack like it. Do you really think it’s that much harder to commandeer a plane or ram a truck into a nuke plant or pull of some other spectacular attack now than it was six years ago? They waited 8 years between attacks on the World Trade Center, I don’t think our occupation of Iraq has really rocked their world so badly they’re not prepared to do it again. The way we and the rest of the world has been getting these guys is through precise investigative work or luck like with the Fort Dix and Miami crews. I guess the short version is: they’re already preparing for the next attack, I’d just rather us not be stuck in Iraq at that time so we can prevent it or avenge it.
On the Global War on Terror more generally, will a withdrawal from Iraq help or hinder that effort?
Help. See above.
Or do we need to make an effort at all, other than some Special Ops stuff here and there, and intelligence, prevention, and law enforcement operations otherwise? What would be the US’s military role after a withdrawal from Iraq? Does the US military actually have much a role beyond repelling an invasion?
A lot of this stuff involves more Special Operations and detective work than the random smashing of things, but for objectives like finding Bin Laden in the hills of Pakistan or wherever will require heavy military lifting. And that’s fine because that’s about protecting America and finding the terrorists at war with America.
Are we doomed to fail at achieving anything worthwhile in Iraq?
On balance, yes.
Why? Is it something organic to Iraq, or simply a problem with the current president?
It was never a good idea to invade and occupy Iraq in the first place. It was compounded by this president’s frankly idiotic leadership: the lack of planning, the political calculations involved in selling the war and spinning the reality of the war (especially leading up to the ‘04 and ‘06 elections), and just overall frankly criminal behavior. War in Iraq? Bad. War in Iraq led by Bush? Disaster.
Would another administration be able to achieve some reasonable level of peace and stability?
Nope. Either we get out and salvage what we can or we stick with the failed Bush strategy. The choices are now Bad and Worse. Bad means less American deaths and our forces no longer tied up in nation building.
What if you’re wrong?
Putting aside the fact that I was right 5 years ago (along with a lot of the nation) that it was wrong to invade Iraq, the idea that we should keep doing something stupid in favor of an idea that’s more sane yet untested is kind of silly. We’re hitting ourselves in the face, and while we don’t know what will happen if we stop, at least if we DO stop we’ll at least stop hitting ourselves in the face.
I mean, you’re advocating a policy change that will have wide-ranging effects. It’s not enough to say that everything will be OK. You have to show your math. You have to explain why you’re not just whistling past the graveyard.
See above. We’ve tried it the conservative way for a long time now. It isn’t working. Greeted as liberators. Stand up, stand down. Surge, etc.
And, keep in mind that you are essentially betting the future of left-liberalism’s credibility on national security on the outcome of that policy.
Considering the alternative and what it has produced, I say “all in”.
There’s a reason why the Democrats were kept away from the national security switches and levers for 12 years after Jimmy Carter, and were only allowed to return when we were having a holiday from history in the 1990s.
It’s not my fault America was stupid enough to vote for Ronald Reagan. And in a lot of ways Reagan, and to a greater extent, Bush I, were sane about these things. Neither was dumb enough to launch a preemptive war of occupation in the middle east. When President Bush I invaded Iraq he had a goal and an exit strategy backed up by overwhelming force. Neither one of those Republican presidents had the stupidity to invade and occupy a country based on “trust me”. And yes, President Clinton presided over more or less peace and prosperity. Imagine that.
So, other than sunny optimism, what assurances can you give that the consequences of quick pullout from Iraq will be relatively painless?
Nobody said it would be painless or bloodless, nor am I optimistic about the near future at all thanks to the repercussions of our current situation. But again, it’s going to be hell anyway, the question is how much American lives, money and security are we willing to throw into the mix. If there was any hope of a decent outcome, there would be support for it. But we’ve screwed the pooch. We are in the abyss and I don’t see the sense in digging any deeper in hopes of finding a pony because its not there.
Questions for warmongers:
1. What assurances can you offer that pursuing the president’s policy will produce anything aside from more American deaths and debt?
2. If you can’t offer any assurances, why are you insisting that the democrats provide assurances for their alternatives?
3. If we do follow the president’s policy, and if after a F.U. or two the situation is as bad, or worse, what assurances do we have that you would not be repeating the exact same “you broke it you bought it” arguments ad infinitum?
In other words, what would it take for even you to say “enough is enough”?
Excellent answer.
If Dale Franks, et. al., believe we should stay in Iraq, they need to answer the question of where we get the resources, the people and the funding. They also need to predict what will happen to terrorism around the world and against the United States during that period. Terrorist attacks during the Iraq War have increased and in the meantime the image of the United States has only worsened.
So that all of America can make the cost benefit analysis appropriately, Frank also needs to predict the major possible outcomes and assign probabilities to those outcomes. Chance of major win and what the win looks like, change of major lossage and what the lossage looks like, chance of … and what … looks like. Given that, America can determine the expected costs and return on her investment in each of these outcomes.
Finally, I am hopeful, yes hopeful, that withdrawal from Iraq will look like withdrawal from Vietnam. No domino. Repressive Hell for many years. Gradual encouragement to join the world in trade followed by opening of the culture.
Wow, Mr. Franks advocates a wildly costly (monetarily, but especially otherwise), led by an authoritarian boob. This is your pseuso-libertarian (read: Republican) in action.
That’s Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, October 10, 2002.
The only “rewriting” of facts occurred when Democrats realized that they could weaken Republicans politically by pretending that they were strongly opposed any military action in Iraq all along, but were tricked into voting for the war through lies and deceit from the Bush administration.
But as Senator Clinton’s speech clearly shows, Democrats were united in their desire to give the President necessary authority to fight terrorism, and they were united in their belief that Saddam was a menace who cooperated with terrorists and who had never destroyed his stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and who had never abandoned his nuclear weapons development program.
Sorry Oliver, but thanks for playing anyway.
Ok… at least this is a fair conversation on this. Let’s face the facts, neither side knows which way will bring the best outcome. It is a guess. On a general note, nice to see at least some on the left have a real discussion on real issues without using name calling as the main reason for doing something.
The problems in Iraq certainly have in some part resulted from mistakes made by the US. I don’t pretend otherwise. In fact, you can’t read history without encountering major mistakes in every military campaign undertaken by the US. I also believe that we mistakenly thought that Iraqis would work together to destroy Al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorist invaders, rather than trying to enlist foreign terrorists to help their various factions gain control of the government. That is a mistake that we have paid dearly for.
But I have yet to see any clear evidence, other than 20/20 hindsight fantasy or election year rhetoric that demonstrates a consistent, permanent Democrat opposition — whatever the cost — to using military force to topple the Hussein regime. And I have yet to see any clear evidence of consistent, permanent belief by Democrats that Saddam had no biological or chemical weapons, and that he posed no threat either to his neighbors or to the US.
In short, I have never found any evidence that President Al Gore would have done anything different from President George Bush.
Correct me if I am wrong, but only use quotes and evidence that existed prior to March 2003.
Mike: you are mistaken about Gore. For example, had Gore received the 6 August 2001 PDB, he wouldn’t have responded by going fishing.
Also, Gore’s not an empty suit dumbass figurehead.
So there’s that.
Uh, Mike, before discussing your alternative history novella, what’s your evidence that:
a) Al Gore would have let the terrorism report languish for 9 months
b) Al Gore would have received the August 6th PDB and ignored it?
c) Al Gore, on vacation, would have been briefed by two members of the CIA and responded, “okay you’ve covered your asses”?
d) Al Gore would have responded to 9/11 by invading Iraq?
e) Al Gore would have pulled troops from Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden and redirecting them to invade Iraq
f) Al Gore would have pulled the inspectors from Iraq before they could assess the situation
g) Al Gore would not have listened to Shinseki and found the 400,000 troops necessary or changed his plans
h) Al Gore would not have followed the military victory with increased peace keeping troops
i) Al Gore would not have kept the military arms depots safe instead of guarding the ministry of oil
j) Al Gore would not have solved the electricity problem much sooner
k) Al Gore would have let Abu Ghraib and Gitmo create the situations they do
l) Al Gore would not have engaged Iran right after 9/11 when they came to us and Syria when they were more open to us a few years ago with diplomatic efforts intended to open up those countries, shutdown aid to Iraqi insurgents, and close the borders.
And on and on.
Present those pieces of your alternative history novella, and we’ll supply the intro, that Al Gore, et. al., we’re just as gung ho about invading Iraq as youse guys (even though the no fly zone was working pretty well and the Kurds doing pretty well on their own) and then we can sell it and make a nice movie and we can all own ponies.
k thx bye.
Deserves mentioning:
Oh, and Al Gore’s CPA and Al Gore’s Paul Bremmer would have released the captured Iraqi army, created no jobs or works programs, intentionally not given contracts to local Iraqis, bring in contractors that run roughshod over the local populations and cannot be held accountable, hired only young inexperienced republican ideologues into key positions of the CPA, ….
Show us all how Al Gore would have done that.
Do all of that, I will write the first chapters for you, how Al Gore wanted to kill Saddam Hussein to avenge Hussein’s attempted killing of Al Gore’s father.
The problems in Iraq certainly have in some part resulted from mistakes made by the US. I don’t pretend otherwise. In fact, you can’t read history without encountering major mistakes in every military campaign undertaken by the US.
Mike, stop blaming America for mistakes made by a few who insist they are unaccountable and that to question them is unpatriotic and treason.
Why do you hate your country Mike?
Oh. And Al Gore knew from the Gulf War that to be a War President would help him get re-elected and would also solve some daddy issues Al Gore had ever since he found out that daddy was a genuine war hero and he, Al Gore, had evaded his responsibility in Vietnam as well as blowing off his domestic duties in the Air National Guard.
So we have a deal?
You cannot simply brush aside the utterly dishonest and illegal decision to invade Iraq as irrelevant with the “well, we’re there now” argument. A major component of our current problems with terrorism is simply a question of blow back over U.S. foreign policy. We are seen as imperialist aggressors intent on looting the national resources of the weak and defenseless. Honestly, it’s hard to deny that we pretty much throw our principles under the bus the second there’s a buck to be had. Americans are loathe to admit that their country has a nasty history of treating the world as its personal plaything. The relentless brainwashing about being “the most awesomest force for freedom eva” has produced an endless string of apologists, particularly on the right. The 21st century has brought with it a change, however, that makes such a mindset not only naive, but extraordinarily dangerous. 9/11 may be the most extreme example, but examples of mounting resentment in the Middle East have been around for years, with the most obvious being the Hostage Crisis back in the 70’s. With advancements in technology, the ease with which even a single individual can create massive chaos is growing almost exponentially. Continuing to lumber along with the notion that we can bully our way through the modern world will only fan the flames and produce more attacks on American interests and, ultimately, something along the lines of another 9/11 or worse. The only long term solution is to radically restructure our relationship to the world. No more can we afford to pepper the landscape with military bases and lavish embassies with the understanding that we think the world beneath us and aren’t above solving even the smallest problems with our fists. The problem of terrorism, both domestic and foreign (and please, if you are going to trumpet the capture of supposed terrorists to support the “war on terra,” please do better than the Apple Dumpling gangs from Fort Dix and Miami), is that in order to truly “defeat” them (though that can never be done 100% so long as just 1 person with an explosive in their backpack can kill dozens, if not hundreds), you MUST eliminate any public support. Wars in Iraq and Lebanon, the not-so-covert effort to destabilize Iran, the Israeli/Palestinean problem all work to undermine our domestic and foreign security.
Getting out of Iraq is a solid first step toward building a more open, respectful relationship with the people in the Middle East and will go much farther in the long run toward bringing any semblance of democracy to the region than trying to bomb liberty into them. Of course it will be a long, bloody process. We’ve done everything we can (almost…Iran, anyone?) to ensure that there’s plenty of hatred to come back to haunt us for decades. Expecting a pull out to suddenly cause the roses to bloom and unicorns and rainbows to appear is the same wishful bs used to sell the war in the first place. Ironically, it’s now being fronted as an argument against pulling out. We invade, it’s all hugs and kisses and candy, but if we pull out, it’s nuts to think it will all be hugs and kisses and candy. Everybody catch that? Even if you only look at the occupation from the dispassionate side and argue about the impact on us economically, we can’t remain much longer. How can we hope to continue to keep pumping 100 billion or more into this fiasco every 3-4 months? Keep cutting taxes for the rich and gouging the middle class? Keep selling debt to China while our manufacturing base collapses, our brightest minds start moving abroad, and even our food becomes contaminated and potentially lethal?
Really, continuing this occupation is insane from every angle.
And hey, let’s not forget we created al Qaeda and Bush is now funding radical Sunnis, you know the 9/11 guys and the group responsible for 90%+ of the attacks on G.I.s in Iraq, in the hopes of taking down Iran and Syria.
FUBAR.
The naked greed and hubris of old, rich white men will be the death of us all.
I love when the Conservative licspittles pull out Bill Clinton’s speech and stance in 1998 to explain away what Bush did in 2003.
As we know now, Clinton’s 3-day long rain of cruise missiles on Saddam’s suspected and known WMD sites was successful beyond even Saddam’s wildest dream. We basically wiped them out.
And Clinton did not lose a single American life in getting that job well done.
These same Republicans stood on their chairs in the Congress then and chanted “Wag the Dog” at the President that day.
And now they have the nerve to pose stupid “questions for Liberals” as if they weren’t simple-minded sophomoric dorm-room partisan gambits designed with the sole purpose of embarrssing, playing games, politicizing, end gaining a cheap political edvantage.
There’s a reason why Conservatives were out in the Political wilderness for decades: Everytime someone gives them a chance to lead or contribute to any discussion they show they are just plain stoopid.
Not to mention despicable.
I love how you print that speech from Sen. Clinton and totally ignore this “it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
I don’t think Sen. Clinton should have voted in the affirmative, but she voted to give the president the authority to go to war. Only one man in the entire world made the final decision for this nation to invade and occupy Iraq.
His name is George W. Bush.
The whole idea of withdrawing now is frankly idiotic. We can’t leave behind an Al Qaeda ministate in Sunni Arab Iraq nor allow a massive bloodbath dwarfing what we’re seeing now, and the Dems understand that even if the netroots don’t. That’s why they’re funding the war after putting on a little show.
We’ve established what is a very liberal and democratic state for the Mideast (no, they won’t have the gay marriage debate or abortion on demand anytime soon, but this is Iraq after all), and are training up an Iraqi Army that can keep the country from devolving into civil war.
Now Iraqis have to sort out the mess from decades of sectarian war and repression. It won’t be easy or quick, but few today have remember how violent and repressive places like Germany, Japan, and South Korea were 50 – 60 years ago.
Oliver,
Hillary gave President Bush the authority to go to war because she, along with the other Democrat leaders at the time, publicly stated that the President should be allowed to conduct warfare against terrorism and terrorist-sponsoring states with as little interference as possible.
She also stated — as did every other Democrat who voted to authorize the use of force — that Saddam Hussein had been a problem for eleven years, not just in the months following 9/11. At that time, the overwhelming consensus was that, after the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraq posed the next greatest danger as a state sponsor of terrorism.
In case my point wasn’t clear, the notion that there was a clear, significant, mainstream view of Saddam Hussein being harmless and not worth messing with is simply fiction.
I don’t criticize Hillary for voting to give the President that authority. I don’t criticize the President for making his decision, because at the time, and given what we knew, and given our intent on enforcing Saddam’s 1991 surrender agreement with the UN, it was the right thing to do.
What makes me livid is the fact that Democrats now want to create a false mythology wherein “everyone” knew that Saddam was harmless (except for George Bush, because he is in denial and he is insane and he is the dumbest president ever) and “everyone” knew that toppling Saddam would create more problems than it would solve, and “everyone” tried to warn Bush but he was so stupid and blind and in denial and dumb and insane that he ended up bullying the sane, caring, sensible Democrats into voting for HIS war.
That is the biggest pile of steaming BULLS**T ever. Period.
As I said earlier, I’ll readily acknowledge our mistakes in Iraq. But given the overwhelming support that Democrats gave President Bush in the months after 9/11, and how passionately they argued about the threat that Saddam posed to the Middle East post 9/11, I am utterly unconvinced that Al Gore would have taken a completely different path. And for the nit-pickers, I’m not arguing about details, just the broad plan:
- neutralize Afghanistan
- give our government greater authority to investigate and apprehend terror suspects
- then neutralize Iraq
- continue to destroy or capture Al-Qaeda operatives around the world
Lets see…
Things will get immeasurably worse if we leave – Check
Iraq currently a free democracy – Check
Iraq Army being trained to stand up so we can stand down – Check
False equivalencies to WWII – Check
Reiteration of the same talking points used for the past four years, implying that they are correct now while ignoring that they were wrong then – Check
Smarmy attempt to distract the issue with, of all things, an abortion-joke – Check
Well Talldave looks like the application checks out completely, welcome to the Horseshit Argument Brigade. Cpt. Disalle over there will take you to RoflCopter training if you would please follow him.
Mike, why on earth would Gore have wanted to go into Iraq? Afghanistan of course to get Osama, but Iraq had no obvious ties, only the ones found by people already inclined to go there. There was legitimate dissent among the intelligence community about the validity of the information being presented, you’re saying Gore wouldnt have paid attention to the dissent and instead would have gone into war anyway? He’d have to want that war pretty badly right? Why then? What would have made Gore want the Iraq war so bad he would have ignored the Scott Ritters and Joseph Wilsons completely and utterly?
Bush had his reasons to go to war (PNAC leanings, daddy issues, whatever) that can explain (though not justify) his doing so, but what would Gore’s reasons have been?
What Rex said. Also, Gore, unlike W, is not a pathetic travesty of a mockery of a sham of a pseudo-statesman. So there’s that, too.
I see, so just calling all the relevant facts “horseshit” is your rebuttal. Well-said indeed.
So much for “reality-based.” Even the Dems are geting sick of “idiot liberals” who think we can just abandon Iraq’s democracy without consequences.
“Show us all how Al Gore would have done that.”
Go back and read all the complaints about the German, Japanese, and Korean occupations. They all had massive problems. It’s an incredibly difficult job.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, Bush is worst everything ever and anything bad that happens is either his malice or incompetence.
Well, have fun kids. Even your own party doesn’t take your moronic analysis seriously.
Gore would have ended up going into Iraq basically for the same reasons Bush did. It makes strategic sense to knock out Hussien, a known user of chemical weapons and a known supporter of terrorism. And Bush did it because Hussein was already weakened, and Gore would have ended up doing the same.
Actually, if Gore had been elected in 2000, and 9/11 had still occurred, (and there’s nothing really to indicate that it would not have), Gore would have had to get all medieval on lots of people just to keep from getting blamed totally for 9/11.
Run *that* little thought experiment.
Hell, I bet the US would have a draft by now, under Gore.
TallDave:
Some mysterious Right Winger hung the “reality-based” nickname on us Lefties.
Also, The Commander Guy/Decider’s decision to invade Iraq was really, really fucking stupid. It’s inconceivable that a non-President Bush, Jr. would have made that same decision. You dig?
Run *that* little thought experiment.
EB:
It’s been done. Seems unlikely that a President Gore would have ignored the 6 Aug PDB, or have employed an incompetent boob for NSA (see 25 Jan 2001 memo from Richard Clark).
As to whether or not Gore would have invaded Iraq? The answer to that is, undoubtedly: Fuck no.
I see, so just calling all the relevant facts “horseshit” is your rebuttal. Well-said indeed.
I see, so calling your horseshit “relevant facts” is your rebuttal. Marvelous deployment of the “Nuh-Uh” gambit sir, my hat goes off to you. And following up by calling people who disagree with you “idiots?” Work of pure genius. My but you’ve certainly proven yourself to be over the age of twelve haven’t you?
Go back and read all the complaints about the German, Japanese, and Korean occupations.
Here’s a comparative look there professor.
Now I realize you didnt expect anyone to do the actual reading you suggested, and you were just hoping that people would believe whatever you said by referencing history in “few today remember” language, and ordinarily being caught in filling yourself with horseshit would cause a person with morals and shame to re-examine what they think. However I’m sure that, as a valiant member of the Horseshit brigade, you wont allow such troubles to sway you. Who cares that all evidence shows your assertions of “relevant facts” to be completely false, the important thing is that believing in them really REALLY hard makes you feel better, brings Tinkerbell back, and enhances your sex appeal.
Oh, also, before I forget, die in a fire you pathetic excuse for a stupid fuckstick.
Gore would have had to get all medieval on lots of people just to keep from getting blamed totally for 9/11.
Hole in your thesis is that Clinton was blamed for 9/11 despite him doing more than Bush did to fight Al Qaeda. Gore would have been blamed for it even if he personally stopped it, and furthermore I’m fairly sure he would realize that, and wouldnt feel the reflexive need to prove to red-staters how big his war-cock is by invading an unrelated country.
At that time, the overwhelming consensus was that, after the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraq posed the next greatest danger as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Not in America, or the rest of the world. The consensus of the hawks and neocons, maybe. But most Americans saw Iraq as a bad country with a bad guy but not rising to the threat of Al Qaeda.
In case my point wasn’t clear, the notion that there was a clear, significant, mainstream view of Saddam Hussein being harmless and not worth messing with is simply fiction.
Harmless? No. Contained? Yes.
it was the right thing to do.
No, it wasn’t. Someone like me could see that in 2003 and I’m not any kind of supergenius.
That is the biggest pile of steaming BULLS**T ever. Period.
I didn’t think Saddam was harmless, but I thought a war of occupation right when we were facing a terrorist threat was just about the worst possible policy we could pursue. So did a lot of Dems, we who were ridiculed for asking WTF Saddam Hussein had to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda. The administration repeatedly said with certainty that a connection was there. Most of us on the left didn’t buy it, but a a lot of people did because people are prone to believe their president when he cites definitive evidence without any sort of caveats.
As I said earlier, I’ll readily acknowledge our mistakes in Iraq.
This is a recent development. Before the 2006 election the vast majority of conservatives swore up and down that things were going well and that it was the liberal media who was distorting the kickass victory in Iraq.
I am utterly unconvinced that Al Gore would have taken a completely different path.
Except that Al Gore has been the most prominent opponent of the Iraq war from the get go. He didn’t get religion like too many Democrats but opposed it from the start. Frankly, Al Gore is too smart to have ever decided that invading and occupying Iraq when a terror threat looms was a good idea.
- neutralize Afghanistan
It was, until we decided to invade Iraq, now it’s slipping back into a warlord playland.
- give our government greater authority to investigate and apprehend terror suspects
There are clear ups and down to this, including the lessening of constitutional rights and probably illegal domestic surveillance.
- then neutralize Iraq
Iraq is not neutralized. More Americans are dying in Iraq than were ever killed by Saddam Hussein.
- continue to destroy or capture Al-Qaeda operatives around the world
Bin Laden is on the loose. So is Mullah Omar. Getting the latest “Bin Laden #2″ is not doing the job.
Nicely played, Rex.
For the Dems to say that they didn’t authorize the President to go to war is disingenuous at best. You can’t give someone the keys to your car, tell them to use the car if they want, and then report the car stolen when they drive off.
Here are some simple facts:
Hussein had no tangible ties to Al Qaea.
Hussein had no WMDs. There were UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq prior to invasion that said all US leads were pure garbage. So much for the bad intelligence excuse, we knew it was bad prior to invasion.
Bush failed to garner international support. Post invasion he faild to garner real international support.
Bush failed to send enough troops. Bush failed to secure the ammo dumps. Etc Etc.
The Iraq constitution is based on Sharia law.
The Iraq government has tenuous at best control of their country.
Corruption is rampant through most layers of the Iraqi government.
Cronyism and incompetence were the hallmarks of the US coalition provisional authority.
Torture and Abu ghraib were crippling blows to US pacification efforts.
All of the billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent on reconstruction has been essentially flushed down the toilet. No accounting, nothing to show for it.
It just keeps going.
Tell us the positive benefits the US has gotten from the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. I am sure it will be a very short and easily debunked list. (Hint: replacing a dictator with rampant and nearly unchecked chaos is not a positive benefit.)
Hi Oliver!
Pleased to make your acquaintance. First time visitor. Anyway, some replies:
Do you agree or disagree with the proposition that how we got in matters very little, if at all, to the question of what to do from here? You seem to take issue with Dale over his move to “dispense with silly arguments”, but even if I disagree with Dale superficially (I think that the argument over how we got in is very interesting and worth having on its own merits) I also agree with the broader point that he was making, namely that if we want to discuss how we got in, we should do that in a separate discussion from that in which we discuss what to do now. The two questions, each relevant, are distinct, and need to be handled separately.
What makes you claim that “the history of this decision is consistently being rewritten by the right”? Strange claim. The opposite seems more obviously factual. The Dems were (tepidly) for the invasion before they were (verbally only) against it, always trying to hedge their position against the twin political threats: that either Bush will succeed and claim the credit, or Bush will fail and share the blame.
Your history seems way off, as when you say “it was the President who made the case for war based on claims of Al Qaeda – Iraq – WMD”. You would obviously benefit from reading the force authorization, as actually passed by the senate. But don’t read it just for what is in it, read it for what is not in it – all of the alleged administration “lies” that supposedly snookered the senate into going along with the invasion. They’re just not in there. The case for war, as expressed by the senate, stands up just as well today as it did four years ago.
You might also want to read up on current military thinking on how we go about “hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building” (e.g. FM 3-24, hot off the presses). What you call “nation building” is at the very heart of how we hunt terrorists – it is not a distraction, it is the main event.
Do you really buy into your expressed pessimism, as in “the moment to fix it has passed us by”, and “the only difference is the amount of U.S. troops who die in the process”? Hard to believe. A liberal who has found a hard-luck case that just cannot be helped, even if we put our hearts into it? I don’t buy it – you don’t mean it. You are smart enough, and caring enough, to know that Iraq can still be helped, and that there are no limits on how bright Iraq’s future could be. That doesn’t mean that we must help them, of course, but you should frame your point that way – of course we could help, but for whatever reasons, you are opposed to actually doing so.
BTW, I like the picture you had up of Bush with his “mission accomplished” speech. Do you understand what that speech was about, to whom it was addressed, whose “mission” was accomplished, or what the military and legal ramifications of the president declaring the end of “major combat operations” were? It was the right speech, with the right message, at the right time. Oh, and by the way, the public forum wasn’t Bush’s idea – it was Tommy Franks’ (as he admits in his book). These things (phase 3 to phase 4 transition) are normally quiet adminstrative actions.
Sine cera,
Kristo Miettinen
Rex,
“I see, so calling your horseshit “relevant facts” is your rebuttal.”
Yes, brilliant. Okay, since you can only play word games., let’s make this simple enough for morons lilke you.
How many Mideast countries held elections deemed “free and fair” by international observers? How many allow protests? How many allow women’s rights groups?
Why does virtually every serious analysis of Iraq conclude that a U.S. withdrawal would lead to a massive bloodbath, including all U.S. military analyses and virtually all Mideast countries are asking us not to leave because their analsyses?
Either you already know all this and are ignoring it, or you’re just retarded.
“Go back and read all the complaints about the German, Japanese, and Korean occupations”
No retard-boy, I said read the COMPLAINTS. The ten million editorials saying we had “lost the peace,” that it was horribly mismanaged with refugees starving to death at almost the same rate as during the war, that everything was going horribly, that Germany would never become a pacifist democracy… all the same crap people like you keep saying about Iraq.
Do you agree or disagree with the proposition that how we got in matters very little, if at all, to the question of what to do from here?
I disagree with it because conservatives so blithely gloss over it. The reason we went to war has significant bearing on what to do next. The administration made the case on WMD, terrorism, democracy, depending on when the speeches were made and who the audience was. It matters a great deal. Democratic pols were way off base and stupid in their support of authorization. The Democratic base never was in favor of the conflict, and most Americans weren’t sans UN if you go back and look at the polling. That said, they voted to authorize the use of force but only one person made that final decision – I’m not sure why this is such a difficult concept.
What you call “nation building” is at the very heart of how we hunt terrorists – it is not a distraction, it is the main event.
Perhaps in areas like Africa were we are actively able to engage the trust of the people, but that’s nothing like the situation in Iraq where we are an occupying power.
You are smart enough, and caring enough, to know that Iraq can still be helped, and that there are no limits on how bright Iraq’s future could be.
I was disabused of those notions long ago. I thought even though the war was a bad idea our leadership was smart enough to plan for after the fighting. They weren’t and four years later we’re no closer. At some point idealism has to give away to reality.
It was the right speech, with the right message, at the right time.
Even Bush doesn’t now think so. Furthermore it was a p.r. gimmick to push his re-election. He and many others thought the war was over, that we had “won”. And then a few months later they had to release the “Victory” strategy. And then there was the Stand Up/Stand Down rhetoric, and now there’s the Surge and in six months it will be some other b.s.
Just not credible anymore, based on pas actions.
four years later we’re no closer.
Yeah, it’s not like Iraq had three elections, established a constitution, or trained and equipped 325,000 ISF. No progress at all! Especially not in Anbar, where military officers are calling recent progress (which you say doesn’t exist) a “miracle.”
At some point idealism has to give away to reality
Bwahahahahahaha! Let us know if that ever happens to you.
Yeah, the recent “progress” (like all those Iraqi battalions that were supposedly raring to go back in 2004) that will be debunked in a couple weeks.
And if not, hey, just one more thing to ignore.
Here’s a babysitter who took time out from playing pattycake to write Instapundit:
I’m actually sitting about 30 feet from Michael Yon as he types his dispatches, here in the town of Hit, Al Anbar province. As one of the soldiers in Task Force 2-7, I have to say it’s really heartening to have a journalist of his caliber out here reporting with us. Hit, along with Anbar generally, has settled down tremendously in the 4 months I’ve been in country this tour. It’s surreal to compare my first two months in downtown Ramadi – incessant gunfire, explosions, and unending violence – to the peacekeeping and institution-building we finally have underway here in Hit. You wouldn’t get that reading the papers, with their constant focus on the (obviously tragic) sectarian violence in Baghdad, but frankly what has happened in Anbar is near-miraculous – it’s a story that deserves to be reported far more heavily than it has so to date.
I just want to emphasize how much it means to the guys on the ground out here to have our story told by people like Michael Yon. I’m sure sitting through tedious city council meetings and governance/rule of law/economic strategy sessions with the battalion’s staff officers is a bit boring for Mr. Yon, but isn’t that a tremendous thing that we’re in that situation?
Thanks,
Captain Michael Mulvania
Task Force 2-7 Infantry
Don’t worry, I’m sure he’ll be debunked soon. Keep your fingers crossed that he’s either lying or it gets a lot worse again — and remember, you support the troops and are bowing to reality.
They’ve shown little to no interest in a Western style democracy.
Except for, you know, braving death threats to vote three times.
Contrary to popular belief, this is not even Iraq’s first democratic government: they once had a parliament and elected a leader though a reasonably legitimate plebiscite.
Yes, one segment of Iraq is pacified, while another flares up. You act as if the last 4 years haven’t happened.
Yes, one segment of Iraq is pacified, while another flares up. You act as if the last 4 years haven’t happened.
And we’ve adapted to that problem by establishing permanent joint bases in pacified areas instead of clearing and leaving. You act as though our military strategists were idiots.
I’m not the one ignoring 3 elections and 325,000 trained ISF.
A lot has been said here. Nothing for me to add. But, I’m curious. Where are the snappy comebacks for Kristo Miettinen?
Can’t handle the F-A-C-T-S, eh?
And, “Kristo” thanks for stepping up to the plate so these malcontents can bitch and moan.
I did mine in Long Binh ‘69 – ‘70.
fd10801, you think Kristo is “stepping up to the plate” by writing things like ” there are no limits on how bright Iraq’s future could be?”
This is why liberals are serious on national security and conservatives aren’t: conservatives have adopted the quasi-hippie notion that anything is possible if we “believe” and have “will.” So liberals want to do what’s in America’s interest (leave Iraq); conservatives want to sell out America’s interests because they cling to the stupid hippie fantasy of an occupying force imposing peace on Iraq…
Here’s some reference materials for the “we haven’t accomplished anything” crowd:
FM 3-24
Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force
Okay, since you can only play word games…
You are aware that you started it, right? I mean you can’t have missed that.
Why does virtually every serious analysis of Iraq conclude that a U.S. withdrawal would lead to a massive bloodbath, including all U.S. military analyses and virtually all Mideast countries are asking us not to leave because their analsyses?
Either you already know all this and are ignoring it, or you’re just retarded.
While I find it interesting that the only analyses considered “serious” are the ones that say Iraq is going wonderfully in spite of the evidence on the ground daily, the fact remains that nobody is pretending that leaving will make things immensely better and avoid bloodshed. I haven’t ignored it, and nuh-uh you’re the retard cause you’re so stupid poop!
No retard-boy, I said read the COMPLAINTS…all the same crap people like you keep saying about Iraq.
I realise that, dummy-dum-dum-stupid-head, but your focus on the complaints themselves in trying to equate the Iraq to Germany and Japan sort of requires that they be in similar positions for those complaints to be interpreted the way you like. As I showed, Germany and Japan had existing governmental/bureaucratic infrastructure and cultural factors (among myriad others) that helped them stabalize that Iraq, quite simply, doesn’t. Your analogy, therefore, is a false equivalency so obviously wrongheaded that the only thing more remarkable than it is that you continue to push it after the evidence of the equivalency’s falsehood is exposed. Either you already know all this and are ignoring it, or your mother is a fat diseased whore.
I’m not the one ignoring 3 elections and 325,000 trained ISF.
You act as if voting for a government that has no influence over the country (otherwise we wouldn’t need to be there, after all) and an Iraqi Security Force that cannot operate independently of US aid (last year they went from 1 self-sufficient batallion to 0) in any way constitute progress of the kind you’re pretending.
Wow, you found a propaganda site to back up your propaganda. How un-original of you.
they cling to the stupid hippie fantasy of an occupying force imposing peace on Iraq…
Yeah, just like the stupid hippie fantasy that an occupying force could turn Japan and Germany into liberal pacifist democracies or create an oasis of freedom in South Korea.
The biggest irony in all this is that American “liberals” are actively working to get Iraqi liberals (the people trying to make it a decent country) killed.
Mr. DAVID BROOKS (The New York Times): But the leading morality, though, is–and I hear this from military people there–that they have people helping
them every day.
Mr. WOODWARD: Yeah.
Mr. BROOKS: And they look at the eyes of those people and they say, `If we pull out, they’re dead.’
Okay, since you can only play word games…
You are aware that you started it, right? I mean you can’t have missed that.
No, I stated facts and your brilliant counterargument was to say they were “horseshit.”
. As I showed, Germany and Japan had existing governmental/bureaucratic infrastructure and cultural factors (among myriad others) that helped them stabalize that Iraq, quite simply, doesn’t
Yeah, they say that NOW. Very easy to assert this factor or that was determinative with 50 years hindsight. At the time people made the same wrong predictions about how hopeless it was. Just like they’re doing right now.
While I find it interesting that the only analyses considered “serious” are the ones that say Iraq is going wonderfully in spite of the evidence on the ground daily,
Huh? They don’t say things are wonderful, they say things are challenging and that withdrawal will make them far worse.
a government that has no influence over the country
Yeah, they just have a few billion a month to spend and a few hundred thousand troops to order around. No influence!
Iraqi Security Force that cannot operate independently of US aid
According to our military, they carry thousands of independent operations. Yes, they still need help; that’s why we can’t leave yet. But they get measurably stronger every month.
Yeah, just like the stupid hippie fantasy that an occupying force could turn Japan and Germany into liberal pacifist democracies or create an oasis of freedom in South Korea.
This would make more sense if the situation in Iraq was in any way analogous to those situations, but it ain’t.
I often say that conservatives know we can’t “win” in Iraq, and the reason I know you know it is because you are unable to explain how we can “win” based on the actual situation. Bush, for example, often describes the mission in Iraq as protecting the government from Al-Qaeda. But Bush knows that Al-Qaeda is a minor factor in Iraq, and that the government has no legitimate authority. Since he knows this, I assume he knows we can’t “win” or he would have to make up facts to pretend we can “win.”
So, based on the fact that Iraq is in a civil war, that Al-Qaeda and foreign terrorists are minor factors in Iraq, and that the elections have led to no real government, how can we “win,” TallDave?
Actually, M.A., no. I thanked him for “stepping up to the plate” because his eMail is a military one, indicating that he is in the military.
Actually, M.A., no. I thanked him for “stepping up to the plate” because his eMail is a military one, indicating that he is in the military.
Ah, okay, fair enough. (He’s still wrong, of course, but it’s hardly unusual for a government employee to be wrong.)
M.A.,
This would make more sense if the situation in Iraq was in any way analogous to those situations, but it ain’t.
Right, all occupied by U.S. forces trying establish self-governing liberal democracies. Other than that, nothing.
Not sure where you get “no real government.” They have a parliament and have established various ministries, which are carrying out their various functions. They’re not models of effectiveness, but it’s not easy to build a government from the ground up in a year. I doubt many year-old governments have done much better.
Al-Qaeda and foreign terrorists are minor factors in Iraq
Um, they’ve killed thousands of people and tried to make themselves leaders of Sunni Arab areas. I guess one could call that “minor.”
how can we “win,” TallDave?
Obviously we “win” the same way we “won” previous occupations: establish a government that is more or less democratic and relatively liberal and can defend itself from illiberal, nondemocratic forces internal and external who are trying to seize power. At this point, with the constitution and government mostly established, that basically means training up the ISF to the point they’re competent and loyal enough to handle the job with minimal U.S. support.
Also, a pony.
BTW, re the Iraqi gov’t’s reality or lack thereof, Maliki’s last approval rating was about 60%. Kurds and Shia generally think his government’s doing a pretty fair job. Sunnis are understandably less happy, since their benefactor Saddam isn’t buying their loyalty with oil money anymore.
Oliver,
Let’s leave John Edwards out of this.
M.A. “A government employee”. I guess you’re one of those liberals that respects the military, like Sen. Kerry.
Also amusing: Most Iraqis apparently don’t realize their country is a hellhole of despair, as more than half of Shia and Kurds say life is “quite good” or “very good.” (again, Sunnis feel very differently).
TallDave, the government has no authority, nor ability to enforce anything it does. Bush is a lousy President, but he does have legitimate authority in that he has the power to command an army, have his orders carried out, etc. Maliki has no such authority.
And the foreign terrorists, again, are a minor factor. There are maybe a few thousand of them in Iraq. Most of the violence is carried out by home-grown Iraqis, and it’s not within our power to stop that. However, one thing we could do is leave, which would defuse Al-Qaeda (which is a minor factor in Iraq, but is only there because we are). So if Bush wanted to hurt Al-Qaeda, he would leave Iraq; instead he wants to help Al-Qaeda by staying. (But that’s not the biggest reason why we should leave, since Al-Qaeda is semi-irrelevant in Iraq anyway.)
M.A. “A government employee”. I guess you’re one of those liberals that respects the military, like Sen. Kerry.
Fd10801, I respect the military much as I respect other government agencies that keep us safe. (Which is more than conservatives do, with their rabid hatred of every government agency except the military.) But just as we shouldn’t continue a bad policy because federal bureaucrats like it, we shouldn’t refrain from acting in America’s interests if the troops support a policy that is contrary to America’s interests (staying in Iraq).
Of course a soldier is more than just a government employee, but a government employee is certainly one of the things that a soldier is. And like all government employees, soldiers work for our interests; we shouldn’t sell out our interests (in this case, leaving Iraq) to keep them happy.
And the fact that you think that Sen. Kerry doesn’t respect the military shows that, like many conservatives, you confuse support for the military with support for stupid wars. Bush, who supported the Vietnam war but was too cowardly to fight in it, and now lies about the current conflict in order to continue killing Americans, is a lot less supportive of the military than Kerry, whose main crime seems to have been his perfectly accurate testimony about Vietnam atrocities (Oh, no! Kerry pointed out that war is not nice and cute and atrocity-free! He hates teh troops!)
Yup, that seems about right…
Nice to see some have truly absorbed the lessons of history.
Hi Oliver!
Fascinating: “The reason we went to war has significant bearing on what to do next.” Can you elaborate, hypothetically?
Let’s say Hillary or Obama wins the next election, Bush forgets to clean out a closet full of secret stuff in the White House, and we all discover that the only reason he decided to invade was that he was confused by the similar spellings of “Iraq” and “Iran”. How does that change Hillary’s or Obama’s reasoning about what to do next?
Under what scenario does the next president say “Oh, well I was going to order action X for reason Y, but now with this new revelation I am forced to change my mind and implement action Z?” Especially if X and Z are polar opposites, like withdrawing all troops as opposed to continuing the occupation, it just shouldn’t matter. But I await your example to make it all clear to me.
I agree (and I already stated) that the question of how we went to war is interesting. It matters. I’m just poking at your linkage of the two questions.
BTW, when you say “not sure why this is such a difficult concept”, I go back and reread your paragraph over and over – and I don’t see it. What are you saying? What is the simple concept that I’m missing? There seem to be many things jumbled together in your writing. Maybe the reason it is “such a difficult concept” is that it isn’t one concept at all, but many?
I’m sure that there were many speeches, to many audiences, both before and after the invasion. But let’s be clear, what matters (from the perspective of accusing the administration of wrongdoing in leading us to war) is what the administration said to the senate, in its various official capacities (the administration is not a monolith – it speaks with many voices at many levels), in securing the war authorization. What we have by way of evidence in assessing this is what the senate actually published in their war authorization bill. I have read it. I suggest you do the same. The senate was not fooled. The reasons given by the senate for war authorization, based on information provided to them by the administration, were valid then, and remain valid today, and they’re not what you’re talking about. You seem to be taking various senators who regret their votes at face value when they say “the reasons we authorized war are A, B, and C”, but you can check the record. The real reasons were spelled out by the senate in very extensive detail, and do not support current revisionist views.
BTW, if your “simple concept” that I keep missing is just that no matter what the senate did, it was all Bush’s decision in the end, then I disagree. It is true that the senate did not compel the president to invade, just as the president did not compel the senate to authorize invasion. It took both branches of government acting in unison to invade. Each branch had a veto. Neither branch did it alone, they did it together. They knew what they were doing at the time, and they knew why they were doing it.
You didn’t address my point on nation building. I accept that we can do it (and are actively doing it) in some parts of Africa as well. But it does not follow that we cannot do it in Iraq. What does occupation prevent us from doing? It changes tactics, techniques, and procedures for sure – but with the appropriate adaptations, “nation-building” is just as feasible – indeed in some ways more feasible – in occupied territory as it is non-occupied territory. Not that this is an argument for occupation, mind you; I’m just pointing out that you have yet to make an argument against nation-building (which is what you originally claimed).
On your “disabusement”: what, pray tell, convinced you that Iraq cannot be helped? I’ll grant you that there have been some colossal failures in judgment concerning how to manage post-war Iraq (most notably the doctrine, published in JP 3-0, that said that planning for phase 4 should begin in phase 3 rather than sooner, and Bremer’s push to give Iraq modern political institutions rather than relying on the traditional ones already in place), but there is nothing wrong with the development effort that can’t be fixed with better management. Maybe that management will have to come from Democrats, maybe it will come from Republicans, but why your fatalism? To argue from “they screwed up” to “it cannot be done” is a non sequitur.
On the “mission accomplished” speech, you really don’t seem to know what was going on. Have you read Franks’ book? Or at least looked the incident up in his index? And, as I asked before, do you understand the significance of the “end of major combat operations”? I suspect not – most Americans don’t. But you don’t seem to want to know either, which would also be OK, except that you want to keep the speech in the public’s eye. I can accept forgetting about it, or else learning about it, but you shouldn’t simultaneously bring attention to it and also not understand it.
There are two separate issues – the presidential order transitioning from phase 3 (major combat operations) to phase 4 (stability operations), and the decision to make a public speech on the topic. Do you have any issue with the phase 3 to phase 4 transition, or only with the speech being public? As I have pointed out, the latter was not Bush’s idea, nor was it politically motivated. Was it politically useful? Sure – but no more so than every otherwise doing-my-job action of a politician in the run-up to an election.
Sine cera,
Kristo Miettinen
No, I stated facts and your brilliant counterargument was to say they were “horseshit.”
No, you states unsubstianted claims that have been repeated ad nauseum as Republican talking points which, at the very least, are in heavy dispute, as though they were objective fact, and I was calling the act of you doing as much in lieu of actual argument “horseshit.”
Yeah, they say that NOW…
…okay, now you’re suggesting that Iraq actually did have an intact civic infrastructure, a tradition of civility, and no external sources of insurgent violence? Or that Germany and Japan didn’t actually have these things? I’m not sure which part of history you’re trying to revise here, could you please clarify?
But fine, yes, doomsday predictions about Germany and Japan that ignored those factors (or simply didnt grasp their importance since there was little precedent perhaps) were, yes, wrong to do so. I would argue then that rose-colored glasses predictions that ignore these same factors (or the lack thereof) in making “trust me, it’ll be awesome at the end” predictions are equally wrong-headed. What say you, Kreskin?
Yeah, they just have a few billion a month to spend and a few hundred thousand troops to order around. No influence!
Yeah, Iraq has an Oil-wealthy upper class and citizens who want to shoot at people. Miraculous! Who’da’Thunk!?
According to our military, they carry thousands of independent operations.
This I’m actually very curious about. As I said, a year ago (Feb 06) we went from 1 self-sustaining batallion to 0. Last May there was a gunfight between two units, one Kurdish and the other Shia (though the skirmish was not necessarily sectarian). From what Ive seen the very best thing you can say about the ISF is that they are woefully disorganized as a cohesive fighting force, so I’m wondering exactly what you based your claim on. Are there now independently operating batallions? How many, and how many are we supposed to need?
Right, all occupied by U.S. forces trying establish self-governing liberal democracies. Other than that, nothing.
“Right, apples and oranges grow from trees, take in nutrients and provide vitamin C. Other than that, theyre completely different.”
I know you’re being sarcastic, but that is completely the truth. The only common factor between Iraq and German and Japanese reconstruction is US involvement. Iraq didn’t have the civic infrastructure that Japan and Germany had (we took care to blow it to pieces when we came in) nor the cultural imperative to working together (I know, its almost as if people in the middle east have a hard-on for fighting each other for some kooky reason) nor the distance from terrorism sponsored groups, nor the absense of internally divisive factions.
Kristo, one reason why the reasons for going to war matter is that the Iraqis themselves know that we had no good reason for invading.
One reason why our occupations worked in Japan and Germany is that the people, or at least many of them, had to grudgingly admit that we had a reason for being there: they declared war on us. The Iraqis know that every reason we gave for occupying them was false (WMDs, Al-Qaeda connections). Conservatives thought that wouldn’t matter because the Iraqis would be so grateful for us for getting rid of Saddam, but that doesn’t work out because Iraq is currently by any objective standard worse off than under Saddam’s tyranny.
So the Iraqis know that we had no good reason for invading, and that we’ve made their lives worse by doing so. That being the case, they’ll never forgive us for being there, and they’ll never cooperate. The only way to make an occupation work is if the people on some level accept your presence. Because our reasons for invading were illegitimate, the occupation was doomed.
As for whose fault it was: Democrats who voted for the resolution deserves blame, but in our system the responsibility lies with the guy who made the decision, namely the President. Bush’s uniqueness is in his attempt to blame others instead of taking responsibility (trying to blame Clinton for 9/11 or the CIA for Iraq), but that’s because Bush is an unmanly coward.
Nice rundown. When it comes to the right, I’m sick of the shifting rationales for invading and occupying Iraq on the one hand and the never-ending slander on the other (Dems are traitors, not supporting the troops, etc.). There are a few thoughtful conservatives out there, but all the dead-enders are read/meet are either fanatics, hacks, or both.
M.A. When it’s Pres. Bush, it’s his fault, but when it’s Pres. Clinton, it isn’t his fault?
Let me go way out on a limb here and guess you’re a Democrat.
Am I right?
unsubstianted claims
Right, the elections in Iraq are unsubstantiated.
could you please clarify?
The point was that pessimistic predictions made during the time of occupation were wrong. As they are now. As for intact infrastructure, you must be joking; Japan and Germany were carpet-bombed, S Korea was mostly mud huts and fishing villages, and Germany was so broken it nearly suffered mass starvation in the early years of the occupation. “Tradition of civility?” Auschwitz? Rape of Nanking?
Iraq has an Oil-wealthy upper class
Huh? Do you think Iraq is populated by Exxon executives or something? And what does that have to do with whether the government has “no influence?”
Are there now independently operating batallions? How many, and how many are we supposed to need?
The “independent” number you’re citing is the highest of four levels. At that level, they need absolutely zero support — no air, artillery or logistics. Since they don’t yet have many of those weapons, obviously few battalions are in that state. At the next two, they are operationally independent or can do joint patrols, but need some logistical help and heavy backup. Most IA are in two and three.
The only common factor between Iraq and German and Japanese reconstruction is US involvement
The only common factor between Japan, Germany and South Korea was also U.S. involvement.
TallDave, the government has no authority, nor ability to enforce anything it does.
Right, because majority popular support, a few billion dollars a month, and a few hundred thousands troops is “no authority and no ability to enforce anything.”
So the Iraqis know that we had no good reason for invading, and that we’ve made their lives worse by doing so.
Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Mostly only Sunni Arabs feel that way, and they’re only 10-15%. Shia were generally glad we deposed Saddam, and Kurds are so happy we;re there they wave American flags (yes, that’s right: they greeted as liberators).
And the foreign terrorists, again, are a minor factor. There are maybe a few thousand of them in Iraq
Again, you don’t seem to understand how Iraq and AQ work. Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization; they swim in the sea of Sunni Arabs. The number of foreign AQ isn’t that important if they have support among the millions of Iraqi Sunnis. Also, a small number of foreign suicide bombers can kill a lot of Shia Iraqis with suicide car bombs.
Sunni tribes in Anbar belatedly figured out living under AQ really sucks and are throwing in with the coalition, forming a council to work with us. Similar movements are underway in other Sunni Arab provinces.
Right, the elections in Iraq are unsubstantiated.
we are talking about my response to your first post here, and in that post you did not mention the elections. You come closest when you said Iraq was democratic, but by any measure that statement requires more than the existence of elections, it requires the people accepting the will of the people as a whole, and… look I don’t have time to explain what a democracy actually looks like to you, but suffice to say there are fewer exploding cars.
As for intact infrastructure, you must be joking
As I quoted: “Except for the military, the Japanese government remained intact at all levels, and the Japanese had a tradition of democracy and civil society on which to draw…the German civil bureaucracy remained largely intact with a tradition of liberal, democratic government on which to build.”
Honestly, have you actually read a single fucking thing Ive been saying before deciding I must be lying by dint alone of my disagreeing with you?
“Tradition of civility?” Auschwitz? Rape of Nanking?
Yes, horrible instances of course, but outliers in the histories of, respectively, Germany and Japan, which contain by and large positive events in this regard. By comparison, the whole of the middle east itself has relatively few such positive events to speak of, what with the constant exploding people and whatnot.
The only common factor between Japan, Germany and South Korea was also U.S. involvement.
For… what, the third time? Fourth? Whatever it is, I again say that what those countries also all had in common which Iraq lacks is:
Distance from Terror states.
Inclination to pull together in spite of personal differences.
Existing civic infrastructure.
Cultural predisposition to… look why are you making me repeat this time and time again? Have you just entirely missed it when I say these things over and over again or are you intentionally ignoring them to avoid a personally uncomfortable realization?
Right, because majority popular support, a few billion dollars a month, and a few hundred thousands troops is “no authority and no ability to enforce anything.”
If the situation has been steadily deteriorating over there with casualties continuing to mount at an increasing rate, what does that tell you about the value of this “authority” you keep on about them having?
Great post, Oliver. Thanks.
Here’s my question to the ultra-cons that started this stupid war in the first place:
You were wrong about WMDs, Al Qaeda links, troops being showered with rose petals, it only taking 3 weeks and 200 troops, and all that crap. Why the hell should we trust your judgement now?
“… if we want to discuss how we got in, we should do that in a separate discussion from that in which we discuss what to do now.”
I’m sure others have pointed this out but it bears repeating. How we got into this war is not separate from what we do now because the people who lead us to war are still in charge. it has to do with trust and competence. If the Bush administration is both untrustworthy and incompetent, as I believe their pre-war and post-war actions are ample evidence of, that has a direct bearing on the kind of weight we should give any policies or proposals they come up with. They need to be held to a higher standard now than they were before, in other words.
So, Mr. Pipeline, are you suggesting that they must now earn your trust?
And how will they do that?
Ordeal by fire?
Walking on coals?
In this case, your trust problem is yours to deal with; not President Bush’s.
…are you suggesting that they must now earn your trust?
And how will they do that?
1- Admit when you’re wrong and apologize, and be the bigger man
2- Endeavor not to be wrong in the future, learning from past mistakes
Nothing seen thus far suggests either the President, or his groupies in the apologist pundit class, are inclined to do either.
Rex Mundane: While Pres. Clinton must have broken a record for Apologies Issued While In Office, I don’t recall that he ever apologized for one of his own policy decisions.
My question was rhetorical.
I don’t recall that in my lifetime, any President ever did either of the two things you recommend.
I am no scholar of the American Presidency, but I’d feel safe betting that no American President has done either of those things.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Now, if you are going to tell me that no President but Pres. Bush has ever erred, I will send you my address and you may come and shoot me.
I have replied to your post on my own blog here.
Um, I think the point is that there is nothing they can do to restore trust. They expended it on this war and subsequent attempts to justify it, none of which bear up under any scrutiny. SO they must be held to a higher standard of proof for their policies if they want get them implemented. It should no longer be enough to say “We’re winning” and ask for billions more in funding.
Oh and Frank, do you ever stand by anything you say, ever:
What an idiot.
Dear M. A.,
I agree with you, the reasons for going to war matter. What I am pushing back against is the idea that they make a material difference in the decision of what to do on the ground in Iraq today or in the foreseeable future.
When you claim “the only way to make an occupation work is if the people on some level accept your presence”, you are correct. When you follow with “because our reasons for invading were illegitimate, the occupation was doomed”, you are doubly incorrect. First, there was nothing illegitimate about the invasion (your opinion notwithstanding), but apart from that, the Iraqis are quite sophisticated enough to be forward-looking: they are much more interested than you seem to be in the question of what we can do for them, what we are planning to do, and most importantly, how they can build their own future within the framework that we do (or don’t) provide for them. They are watching our internal debate closely, and making real-world decisions about work, family, investment, etc. based on what they think we will do in the medium term.
Anyway, to your “he’s still wrong, of course, but it’s hardly unusual for a government employee to be wrong.” Well, sure, I could be wrong. But am I? Let me list what I have claimed, that nobody here has taken knowledgeable issue with:
(1) Why we went to war matters a lot. It is a matter of record, that we can look up. I have looked it up. The reasons for going to war have stood the test of time well.
(2) Why we went to war has little bearing on what we should do now. Plans for tomorrow, next month, and next year should be based on what is going on today, and should be responsive to what happens in the future.
(3) “Nation building” is an important part of the fight against terrorism. Iraq is not hopeless. Have we made mistakes? Sure. But Oliver’s point, which he keeps hammering, that those who think success is possible are somehow ignoring the past four years, is a non sequitur. Your similar claim, that the occupation is “doomed”, is just wishful (in a Bush-bashing sense) thinking. Reality is much more flexible than you imagine. We may yet succeed. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
(4) The “mission accomplished” speech, which really was a public announcement of the transition from phase 3 to phase 4 (per our warfighting doctrine, JP 3-0, 2001 edition, not the rewritten 2006 edition), was reasonably timed and appropriate. It might have been politically wiser to just downplay the transition (as was done in Afghanistan), but legally and militarily it was the right thing to do, at more or less the right time. The publicity aspect, the one part that might be open to some criticism, was Franks’ idea, not Bush’s.
BTW, I like the quasi-hippie moniker. I have often claimed, in discussion with liberals of an older generation, that we are like the Peace Corps with guns (not that many hippies bothered to join the Peace Corps, but I considered it, and I respect the few who did it). Same mission, different techniques. Maybe we can succeed where others have failed, or where others haven’t bothered trying. Maybe not. But fatalism is unjustified – the future is largely still unwritten.
fd10801, thanks for your service! I was too young for ‘Nam, but I grew up with the sense that I had missed out on something real and meaningful. My best instructors at Benning were all Vietnam vets, as was my first 1SG. All very knowledgeable, worldly, practical, and ethical leaders. Men whose legacy is tough to live up to.
Sine cera,
Kristo Miettinen
PS this might be the place to ask a simple question: what are Bush’s notorious “lies”? I can hear the eyes rolling out there, but really. I recall reading an article while I was in a medical waiting room, I think in the Atlantic magazine, that was somebody’s attempt to document, for the record, Bush’s most egregious lies, and I was surprised at how lame they were. Mostly on the level of accentuating the positive, downplaying things that the critic thought were important, but nothing concrete.
“The reasons for going to war have stood the test of time well.”
Really? Which ones?
I was directed to your response from the original post. I wnated to read your repsonse at least 2 times before responding to get my knee-jerk reactions out of the way before I wrote. I stopped reading this site a few years ago because life is too short to get stressed over the opinions of people you disagree with, but I did want to respond to a few points expressed here. I ignored all the comments because it was quickly eveident that the commenters are polarized and talking past each other for the most part.
Bottom line up front: I think you have avoided answering a lot of the original questions, or come up with answers that I feel can be summed up as, “Who cares what happens, just get the troops out.” Maybe I have misread you. I don’t agree that the situation there is hopeless, I also feel it will be at least 5 more years before anything like “peace” breaks out in Iraq. I am sure that most Soldiers will tell you that Iraq is not worth the life of the comrades we have lost, and aren’t likely to break into Hollwood speeches about the greater good. At the same time, most of us still believe that the mission in Iraq, and the Iraqi people, are worth fighting to succeed in completing.
I am career Soldier, and I can honestly say that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had a huge impact on my time in uniform since 1990. The MIddle East has been a key area of study for me because of this, and it is frustrating to read of the preconceived notions and ignorance on both right and left, as though Iraq just showed up in people’s awareness in March 2003. You’d probably call me idealistic, or plain stupid, but in light of all the inhumanity the Iraqis suffered under Hussein’s regime, it was better that he was removed from power.( we should have done it back in 1991 when we had almost twice as many people in uniform, and genrally more international support and approval, but that is a moot point as well.)
In short, while I do agree that the planning for the war was greatly lacking to say the least, I feel that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a very good thing in the end. After two tours in Iraq, where I served as a translator, most Iraqis agree that it was as well. That doesn’t mean they approve of the present situation. NO, Iraq is still a dangerous place, and there are no corners to tuen, just a long walk to the end of the road. THe military is still wiling to walk that walk, but I fear that too many Americans are are willing to walk along with us.
Soldiers are generally pragmatic and not much for excuses; we get dropped into bad situations of varying degress and work to acomplish the task, THEN we go back and figure out what went wrong and who’s to blame. Because of that mentality, I have to agree that the arguments for going to war really are moot at this point. If we never get beyond the question of whether we should have invaded or not, we’ll never address the situation at hand.
Before I go further, I’d like to emphasize an often overlooked point; the problems facing US forces in Iraq are not easily defined. Almost from one town or city to the next, the “Enemy” to use a catch-all term, can be hardcore Al-Qaeda types, Iraqi nationalists or Baath-Party holdovers, sectarian militias, even simple criminal groups of no particular ideology; one solution does not fit all. Also, Iraq has really been a counterinsurgency since about May 2003. I’d encourage commenters to make an effort to read about counterinsurgeny operations in the past to gain an informed opinion.
Oliver writes,”On the domestic front, it will be better to have our troops not playing – essentially – pattycake with Iraqi forces who would just as soon betray them. Instead we would be back on track hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building.” In my experiences in Ninevah and Al Anbar provinces, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) were initially nonexistent, corrupt, poorly led or equipped, often composed of Iraqis not from the areas they were working in and therefore not integrated with the local populace, or any combination of the above. Over the course of many months, to years in some places, the ISF has become a capable and more trustworthy force, oftentimes drawn from the local populace and backed by them. In places like Ramadi the ISF and US forces are working together and getting rid of the Al Qada types, as well as establishing security in the city. Looking back at the news from places like Ramadi, Hit, and Habbaniyah, from 2006, during my last tour, it was considered the “most dangerous place in Iraq”. Before I left it had greatly improved, and the unit that relieved us has also seen greater stability and infrastructure improvements, increased cooperation, and greatly reduced attacks. IN fact, once the locals had determined that the US forces were willing to stick around and take on Al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and after being victimized by those terrorists, they turned against terrorist intimidation and starting doing exactly what the Amrican people and Congress want; they started taking responsibility for their own situation and worked to improve it. It’s taken a year, in one city, and over 5,000 troops to produce these results. Yes Ramadi is still dnagertous, but comapre last year to this year, it has improved. This is not spin, this is what I have seen with my own eyes.
Nation-building is directly tied to a positive outcome in a place like Iraq, and Afghanistan, in Counterinsurgency they cannot be separated. In short, if all we wanted to do was kill as many Iraqis as possible, we’d already be home.
You correctly mention the “detective work” vs. “random smashing of things” Hard to do detective work if the crime scene is under fire, and the witnesses are being intimdated or killed. Warfighting, nation-building, and police work are all part of the whole that is counterinsurgency. If the “random smashing” is your term for firefights, raids, and searches, it is disingenuous at best. Certainly things great and small to get shot up, blown up or otherwise destroyed, but that is hardly the first action taken in every situation.
I also disagree that Iraqis are somehow unable to embrace democracy; again, most Americans are unaware of Iraq before this war, and therefore unaware of what life under a totalitarian regime is like, as well as the effects of the removal of such a regime. I think readers should look at the break up of Yugoslavia after Tito. How long did that civil war last without international intervention? More than 10 years after the cessation of hostilities there, democracy is not in full bloom, and there are problem based on ethnicity and sectarianism, but people are rarely killing each other now. Is that a success or a failure, was US intervention there worth the effort?
Regarding possible future interventions. Oliver writes, “In Darfur, it’s clear work has to be done internationally but there’s no clear mission militarily.” So if we send humanitarian aid, for example, and the Janjaweed militias or Sudanese government block them or confiscate them, what is the appropriate repsonse? Take the military option off the table and I doubt that the convoys will be useful. Diplomacy only works if the aggressor believes that “Jaw Jaw is better than War War”.
Maybe you don’t think the US needs to get involved in places like that, but if you believe that the “international community” will effectively intervene and not use at least a threat of military action, I’d like some examples of success in the past before I agree. Again, stupid or idealistic, I believe that failure to intervene in what is a preventable humantitarian disaster is wrong.
I don’t believe that the US military is the answer to ever problem, BUT they are the only US agency that can be ordered to go soemwhere and less than peaceful, and have the ability and resources to get there and be effective. Many other US agencies are staffed with great people with the best of intentions, but they don’t have to go to a war zone. Look at the military’s ability to respond in comparison to the civilian sector in response to the 2005 Tsunami. Of course, civilian agenicies can often marshal greater resources for a sustained operation, and sometimes even have true experts in various fields to address problems, but their initial response is usually slower.
Last, sticking around to achieve success in IRaq is more than just a pissing contest with Al Qaeda and Sadr; if we turn withdraw on any terms other than our own, and any point short of a stable Iraq. It WILL reinforce the idea that the US has no heart for the fight, has no perserverance, and no loyalty to those who stand alongside it. If you think that it’s hard to get people to support US action now, just wait until next time if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq.
Thank you, Sarge, and thus ends another chapter in the Saga of the War Weary Non – combatant.
Now,back to making fun of Pres. Bush!
Yes, very well put SFC SKI. Likewise Kristo.
Oliver — Thanks for taking a swing at the questions. I’ve been anti-war and progressive most of my life, but I switched sides when Iraq came up. Since then I have had difficulty understanding whether the anti-war side has thought this one through and how. Like SFC and Kristo, I just don’t see Iraq in such bleak, black-and-white terms as you do, and I follow the news closely.
Forget actually signing up and going to Iraq. Where has any dead ender ever put his money where his big fat mouth is and advocated even funding the war through a tax hike? This endless war is going to bankrupt the country, or at the very least saddle future generations with the bill for the dead enders’ reckless bellicosity.If this war is so fucking important to continue until the last Iraqi is dead, is it not unreasonable to at least expect the advocates to pay for it?
But no, all we hear is the classic “mistakes were made” bullshit, coupled with immediate spreading of blame to any and all Democrats for not confronting Bush on his mendacity and inocmptence at the time (though it might have been more culpable had any Democrat who had the termerity to question Republican lies not been immediately targeted for slanderous attack ads branding that person a coward, fifth columnist and friend of OBL). Oh, and let’s make sure we drag in Jimmy Carter, too.
Being Republican means never having to say your sorry. If there were some way to conscript these people into the war, I’d advocate it in a New York minute. One of two thing would happen: you’d finally have the number of troops remotely necessary to win (or at least not lose) the war, or we’d be out of Iraq before th first planeload of chickenhawks left Fort Bragg. My money would be on the latter outcome.
Does anyone else realize that most of the questions posed by Dale Franks are exactly the types of question he and his bushtard ilks defiantly and arrogantly refused to answer when the war started four years ago?
also note that the majority of demcorats in congress voted against even the auhthorization to go to war, where as nearly ALL republicans voted for the iraq war authorizations.
the emegency iraq supplemental that past on thursday night, was overwhelmingly apposed by house democrats (infact if 12 more were on the side of the American people, it wouldn’t have passed).
The past is prologue, folks. It’s not just a matter of who in their right mind thinks this administration can bring about peace and democracy. It’s also: Who in their right mind thinks this administration is even interested in peace or democracy?
Democracy is supposed to happen in Iraq in 5 years, or 10, with American help? Right. Americans have watched this administration play games with elections and wipe their @sses with the Constitution–and we’re supposed to think they’re fans of democracy?
Moreover, however small-minded he is, Bush does recognize what an ass he’ll look like for all time if he loses a war he didn’t even have to be in. And that’s a cause for which he’s perfectly happy to sacrifice soldiers until he runs out of time, or soldiers.
Whatever high-minded purpose anyone would like us to fulfill in Iraq isn’t going to happen without the Administration backing it. Unfortunately, siphoning money into the pockets of RNC contributors and stroking Bush’s ego IS is this administration’s mission in Iraq. That’s all–not democracy, not stability, not fighting Al Queda, not clapping for Tinkerbell. Any objective observer can see it. And in this regard, they’ve been brilliantly successful.
I know I’m probably coming too late to this party to get any dessert, but I figured I’d mention that my answers to the questions are here.