Who Could Have Predicted Iraqi Chaos?
Tweet
Turns out, almost everybody could have.
U.S. intelligence analysts predicted, in two papers widely circulated before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape the post-Saddam era.
The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, turbulent challenge.
Democrats said the documents, part of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released Friday, make clear that the Bush administration was warned about the challenges it now faces as it tries to stabilize Iraq.
“Sadly, the administration’s refusal to heed these dire warnings _ and worse, to plan for them _ has led to tragic consequences for which our nation is paying a terrible price,” said Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
21 Responses to “Who Could Have Predicted Iraqi Chaos?”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Holy mackerel.
Just soak that in and think back on the dozens of times Mr. Rumsfeld stood in front of the press and feigned surprise at so many unexpected events.
Boggling.
You know what? Most people on the left knew this from the start. The meltdown in Iraq is pretty much as I expected. The only major prediction that hasn’t come true involved the Kurds declaring indepenedence. (And that could still happen.)
At this point, I think people need to go to jail for this. I don’t know who, but that’s why the Congress was given oversight duties.
I thought most people on the right knew it too, given the end of the first gulf war.
Predicting a negative outcome is virtually Standard Operating procedure for bureaucrats.
Milton Friedman explained it well in “Free to Choose” (with regard to FDA), one of those rare moments when a laissez faire economist was given a few hours on Public TV.
What in Haruhi’s name are you talking about?
I thought most people on the right knew it too, given the end of the first gulf war.
I was under the impression it was the biggest reason why George I didn’t storm Baghdad in 1992.
The reasons Pres.Bush 41 didn’t go into Baghdad were: He thought he would lose the Arab nenbers of his coalition, and he didn’t want troops involved in street fighting.
What we now know is that the “Arab members” idea is irrelevant, and that street fighting has been a heck of a lot more difficult than the Republican Army mop – up we pulled off this time.
Why is it that I knew that when we went into Iraq we would be inheriting our very own Gaza Strip and West Bank writ large, but the Bush administration did not?
I don’t even know if you’re right, Tommy, but even if you are, anyone can predict anything, and as the saying goes, “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day”.
With all the suicide bombings and car bombings going off in Iraq on a daily basis, you don’t even know if I’m right?
Anyone can predict anything, but in this case, the cakewalk predicters were way wrong and thousands of American soldiers are dead along with tens of thousands of Iraqis. A broken clock? More like the Bush administration was a digital clock that wasn’t even plugged in!
What you are saying is that you “predicted” that the War in Iraq was going to be tough.
It could either be tough or easy — you picked tough. That’s your twice a day.
Would you expect any Administration to give the public a pessimistic prognosis of what they expected to happen in Iraq?
I’d call that naïve, not clever.
What you are saying is that you “predicted” that the War in Iraq was going to be tough.
It could either be tough or easy — you picked tough. That’s your twice a day.
It wasn’t just a binary prediction of “tough or easy”, it was also a matter of what would happen that would cause it to be tough or easy. And the events unfolded in the way that the opposers of the war predicted. And all it took was a simple understanding of the social structure of Iraq and the grievances of the various sects that inhabit the country, rather than looking at them all as “evil brown people”. Basically, the war mongers didn’t fail a Nostradamus style prediction, they failed at basic resonable deduction (i.e. predicting that if one were to smash their own hand with a hammer, it will hurt).
Would you expect any Administration to give the public a pessimistic prognosis of what they expected to happen in Iraq?
I’d like them to be truthful to the public which they work for, yes. Or even better, not to have hoisted this stupid war on us in the first place.
Ah yes, here we go again — “everybody” knew that military action in Iraq was doomed to fail; “everybody” knew that Saddam had no chemical or biological weapons and no nuclear research program; “everybody” knew that the Senate didn’t really expect the President to use military force when they voted to give him the authority to use military force; “everybody” tried to warn the President — yada, yada, yada. *yawn*
The CIA continually questioned our ability to neutralize Osama Bin Laden during the 1990s. The CIA repeatedly squelched plans to kidnap or kill Bin Laden based on concerns about the risks involved. So we rigorously followed a “zero risk” model with respect to stopping Al Qaeda.
Maybe you could ask employees of the World Trade Center how well that policy worked out.
No, I did not predict that Iraq would be “tough.” I predicted that the drive to Baghdad would be rather easy, which it was, and that in the occupation we would experience what the Israelis experience, suicide bombings, car bombings and other terrorist attacks against our soldiers and Iraqi civil society. That’s not a vague guess on my part.
Well,I guess you’re just special, Tommykey, too bad you didn’t make a record of it somewhere, so you could prove you knew all this in advance.
Instead, we had to rely on those dopey guys at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA.
Who did you say you worked for again?
Ah yes, here we go again — “everybody” knew that military action in Iraq was doomed to fail; “everybody” knew that Saddam had no chemical or biological weapons and no nuclear research program; “everybody” knew that the Senate didn’t really expect the President to use military force when they voted to give him the authority to use military force; “everybody” tried to warn the President — yada, yada, yada. *yawn*
Translation: “So I was wrong about the entier war. So what if 600k+ people are dead, big whoop.”
The CIA continually questioned our ability to neutralize Osama Bin Laden during the 1990s. The CIA repeatedly squelched plans to kidnap or kill Bin Laden based on concerns about the risks involved. So we rigorously followed a “zero risk” model with respect to stopping Al Qaeda.
Translation: Quick! Look over there!
Maybe you could ask employees of the World Trade Center how well that policy worked out.
Translation: 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11
Well,I guess you’re just special, Tommykey, too bad you didn’t make a record of it somewhere, so you could prove you knew all this in advance.
Like I said earlier, it didn’t exactly take brain surgery to figure out what was going to happen.
Who did you say you worked for again?
Translation: “Since you don’t work for the government, you’re wrong about everything. The same doesn’t apply to me, however, because I’m a jackass.”
Zython: Who appointed you my personal pest?
“Predicting a negative outcome is virtually Standard Operating procedure for bureaucrats.”
But they were right. Their warnings were ignored because they were inconvenient.
You can’t just dismiss these facts because you don’t like them.
CSS: Predictions aren’t facts.
Just because they were right about any or all of their predictions, doesn’t mean the administration should have listened to them and no one else.
That’s called “20 – 20 hindsight”.
Perhaps I should share with you Milton Friedman’s reasoning on the subject. It is easily transferable to the CIA in this situation.
“Imagine you work for the FDA”,he said, “dozens of drug test reports hit your desk every day.” If you approve a drug, and something goes wrong, the attention is drawn to you. Your career may be at stake, even your personal reputation”. So, Friedman continues, if there is any doubt which way for you to go, which way will you go? If you disapprove the drug, it will never be heard from again, and you will be safe. If you approve it, you risk everything.
What do you think he will do?
What did Joe Wilson do with the information that Iraq was shopping for yellow cake in Niger?
He “didn’t want to instigate a war” (his words), so he suppressed it.
Did you know that all broadcast weather people claim that more snow will fall than the Weather Service predicts? It’s the same reasoning. You don’t want to tell people there will be 2 inches of snow, and then there’s 8, and they can’t get home, do you?
The “facts” that CSS refers to are the fact that the warnings were ignored, not the warnings themselves.
“What did Joe Wilson do with the information that Iraq was shopping for yellow cake in Niger?”
I thought we already decided that was bollocks.
Did you know that all broadcast weather people claim that more snow will fall than the Weather Service predicts? It’s the same reasoning. You don’t want to tell people there will be 2 inches of snow, and then there’s 8, and they can’t get home, do you?
So what you’re saying is that the Bush administration should have told everyone about the dangers of going to war rather than talking about mythological WMDs and being showered with rose petals? Gotcha.
CSS: Predictions aren’t facts.
Just because they were right about any or all of their predictions, doesn’t mean the administration should have listened to them and no one else.
And I keep telling you, those “predictions” that you keep whining about were strongly based on a good understanding of the cutural structure of Iraq. ‘Deduction’ would be a better word. An equivalent analogy of what you just said would be:
“Even though you said drinking the stuff under the sink would be bad for me, I had no reason to believe you. It was 20-20 hindsight.”
It’s not like we asked Ms. Cleo what would happen.