Asymmetrical Information

Any country that has a "q" in its name without a "u" following it needs to be invaded. Secondly there is a war on terrorism that is going on. After Afghanistan, Iraq was the next place to do battle. Hopefully Bush will be reelected then the next country invaded needs to be Syria. Then we need to confront Iran, and if they don't straighten out we need to kick their ***. It's really that simple.

blogged my answers here:

http://varifrank.com/archives/2004/09/iraq_its_not_fo.php

and Here:

http://varifrank.com/archives/2004/10/snappy_answers_1.php

My views on this line up pretty well with Den Beste's Iraq outline. Since I presume you've already read that, and you seem to remain unconvinced, I doubt anything I could say would convince you.

When Bush first began talking about invading Iraq, I was apolitical. I'd moved to a new city, and had tuned in NPR because I hadn't yet found a good FM music station to listen to. At first, I was sceptical of invading Iraq. I spent several weeks listening to the news, listening to Bush make his case, and listening to pundits debate his case. I spent several weeks in agonizing internal debate, furiously making up for years of indifference to politics and world affairs. I had no political affiliations going into 2003. Even post-9/11, I hadn't really thought much beyond "Al Qaeda bad, bombing Afghanistan good".

I was, in short, about as "independent" observer you can find. And after about a month of the three-way interaction between me, NPR (my exclusive news source at the time), and President Bush, I had discerned--quite coherently indeed!--the reason for administration's obsession with Iraq.

That reason, quite simply, is that the Administration views terrorism as an unplesant--and unacceptable--side effect of evil regimes. The idea of dealing directly and forcefully with state sponsors of terrorism, and forcing regime changes, and fighting to replace tyrannies with democracies, permeated all Bush's speeches on the subject, implicitly and explicitly, from before the war all the way up to the present time. And he shows no sign of letting up on these principles.

I'm voting for Bush because I agree with this. To me, every counter argument and alternative anti-terrorism plan seems inane and empty of hope by comparison.

The problem with dicussing Iraq is that there legimately are about 25 reasons for invading it, as the Kerry campaign has oft-mocked. Each one individually may not be enough to convince everybody, but the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Jane, there was a perfectly lovely graphic demonstration of "why Iraq first" for which I've sadly lost the link. But you can get the gist by looking at any map of the Middle East: mentally color red all the states that have been so damnably difficult in the last thirty years; you'll see a monolithic block of red that goes from Pakistan to Morocco.

Now, mentally recolor Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan white. What you get is a new map, with Iran isolated, and the lines of communication and logistics through the Middle East broken badly by a big gap in Iraq and another in Libya.

"Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics." Iraq has broken the back of UBL's, and to a great extent Hizbollah's and the PLA's, logistics.

I tend to side with Maniakes on this one. The Iraq invasion was necessary for long-term strategic reasons rather than short-term tactical ones. Den Beste has written extensively on this subject and if he can't convince you in 50,000+ well-reasoned words, there's no way I could do it in a short post to your comments section.

Perhaps you might want to start with the Den Beste analysis and then suggest where your views diverge?

I don't know if 'obsessed' is the right word. In my view, the Bush administration is correct in the following analysis:

1) It IS a great threat to the US to have a defeated enemy tyrant doing everything possible to convince the rest of the world that he was able to resist UN enforcement of the most important term of his surrender.

2) Nuclear material flowing from one enemy state to another enemy entity like AQ is a reasonably assumed possibility when said state obfuscates direct inquiries and inspections.

3) Containment in the absence of verifiable compliance is not a solution.

4) The reestablishment of a real military threat to the regional dictator was necessary. The dictator only understands fear for his life. Sitting on oil, he will always have money, much of it coming from the World Community in the form of UN monitoring of Oil for Food. Having money, he doesn't fear sanctions. Launching 15-20 Tomahawks, Clinton style, helps rather than harms the dictator's position. You have very little chance of hitting him personally, he gets to claim that you blew up a school for blind children, and the more civilian losses he has the better, as that just improves his claims of US as war criminal #1. Only boots on the ground sufficient to destroy his army and hunt him down matter. Prior to the invasion, there was no credible threat of this type in existence.

As for the perceived obsession, I think you are seeing a Bush administration belief that #1 above and #3 above, which are conditions predating 9/11, should have been enough by themselves. Add the other considerations brought about by a successful attack on US soil, and you have to take care of business.

I'm willing to listen to the argument that Iran was a bigger threat, but the notion that this is all about AQ in Afghanistan and then you're done is a misapprehension of the scope of the problem in my eyes.

The administration may or may not have been obsessed with Iraq. It doesn't matter. The Iraq front on the Global War on Terror (GWOT) was the next logical step after the fall of the Taliban.

On September 20, 2001 our president while addressing a join session of congress had these words to say: “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

There is the entire justification for the Iraq front of the GWOT terror in three short sentences.

In WWII we went to war against Germany and Japan. Two sovereign governments who had countries, borders, armies in uniforms and established governments. Even then our first ground battles were fought in Africa, not in Germany or Japan. We needed a foothold overseas from which to stage our campaigns. Why do you think both sides fought so hard for the control of a few select South Pacific Islands?

Today’s war is different, we aren’t facing a enemy who wears uniforms and has a country with borders to defend. We now face an enemy that is still well-trained, well-armed and well-funded. But this enemy does not make war against the military of the United States, they make war against every man, woman and child in this country. We’re engaged in a fight against an enemy that will kill indiscriminately, hide themselves and their weapons in schools, churches and hospitals. Terrorists would rather attack innocent civilians than our military, because the military shoots back. Civilians just die, sometimes by the thousands.

As much as the today’s political correctness says that profiling is bad, we have profiled the terrorists who attacked us. They have one thing in common; they were all Islamic extremists who were funded or support by many of the leaders of the Middle East Countries.

So the administration had two choices stay in Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden, while waiting for the next strike here at home. Or, take the fight to the enemy. Chase them down where they live, and where they are supported and destroy them. So we branched out into a two front war, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why Iraq? Why not? We needed a foothold and Iraq was a ruled by a despot who had used WMD against his own people, killing hundreds of thousands. He had invaded his neighbors. He regularly paid off terrorists in other parts of the world. (He regularly paid the families of Palestinian Homicide Bombers $25,000). He repeatedly violated ceasefire terms by shooting at our airplanes. He had 14 existing UN resolutions against him. And it was just a lucky coincidence that he had tried to arrange the assassination the President’s Daddy a few years earlier.

So maybe GWB had an obsession about Iraq. If he did, it was a deserved obsession. After all if you want to be a playground bully who beats up the little kids and steals their lunch money, you shouldn’t be too surprised when one day the, starting linebacker decides he’s had enough of your crap and wipes up the floor with you.

So Sadam had it coming, and we needed a centrally located foothold from which to start spreading freedom and democracy to the entire Middle East. Because that it what it is going to take to end this war. When the entire Middle East from the duely elected leaders of the governments of the countires to the lowest fruit vendor loves his freedom and abhors terrorism as much as we do, the war will be over.

Now part 2, “Why doesn't this presage equal problems in the second term?” Who said it doesn’t? Iraq is not going to be the last front of the GWOT. I suspect that before this is all over, we will have either combatant troops, or diplomatic advisors in Syria, Iran, and eventually even Saudi Arabia. I would like to hope that it will all be over before George Bush’s second term ends. But I doubt it. The next one, two, maybe even three administrations are going to have to finish this war. Otherwise it’s back to buildings falling and innocent American citizens dieing in our streets again.

I really don't understand the choices made by the Bush administration. There must be more information that isn't being made public.

My feeling is that Bush will want to act against Syria and Iran if he has a second term, but I don't see how he could get Congress to support further foreign adventures.

One thing to consider, though, is that Kerry might feel he has to win in Iraq so that he can show he has a strong foreign policy. Lyndon Johnson got the US embroiled in Vietnam for this reason.

Others have done well in addressing your "why Iraq" question. Let me try the last part, "Why doesn't this presage equal problems in the second term?" This question implies Bush has been irrational in his dealings with Iraq and/or has been unable to properly focus on other, more serious, problems because of his obsession.

If we accept your premise (which I don't) that Bush was "obsessed" with Iraq, now that Iraq has been "dealt with" his obsession should be gone. So, there should not be "equal problems" in a second term because Bush is unlikely to be obsessed with another country. That is, if the Yankees were gone, it is doubtful that Red Sox fans would suddenly become obsessed with another baseball rival -- it would require several decades of frustration before Red Sox fans could be expected to develop a similar level of obsession with another team as they now have for the Yankees.

Jane, you're begging the question. You're taking it as a given that the administration paid more attention to Iraq than they should have. This is obviously untrue. We were in a state of war with Iraq when Bush was inaugurated. An actual shooting war. Not a big war, granted, but little wars have a way of becoming big very quickly. So a significant amount of attention was warranted.

After 9/11, a much greater amount of attention was warranted. After the fall of Afghanistan's regime, Iraq was the world's sole remaining unequivocal state sponsor of terrorism. Even Iran, long believed to be the most serious terrorist threat of all, was grudgingly cooperating with international efforts to bring known terrorists to justice and shut down terror camps. Iraq alone refused to cooperate in any way, shape or form.

So the amount of attention we paid to Iraq was not unreasonable. If anything, we erred by dilly-dallying around with the UN and, in particular, with Turkey for far too long.

I would like to add to Charlie's map if I may.

Let's look back at the situation at the time. Sanctions were collapsing under pressure from Germany, France, Russia and China. Saddam was paying $25,000 for successful "martyrdom" operations against Israel - a powerful incentive in an impoverished population. He had shown he was perfectly willing to attack his neighbors, use nerve gas on any perceived enemies and destroy oil fields rather than let them escape his control. This is just for starters.

Now look at the map. Imagine Iraq, free of sanctions and rearmed. They threaten Kuwait, lightly defended Saudia Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE. Control of the Persian Gulf could choke off Iranian oil. If they encourage political rejection of the U.S. in Saudia Arabia, then retake Kuwait, they take the only toehold that U.S. has in the area. Attacking him, even with vastly superior forces, becomes risky and horribly expensive.

Would the U.S. have the political will to expel him again? I seriously doubt it. Suddenly, Saddam, or his sons, have a chokehold on over half the world's oil and the U.S. economy - and war machine - are to an extent under his control.

About this time you are thinking my tinfoil cap needs adjusting. Look at the map. No really - go get the map and look at it. Now look at Saddam's actions over a 30 year reign and look inside his head. Be honest. Put aside the assurances that no sane person would attempt such a thing. WWSD?

Of course, if you believe that a seed democracy in the Middle East, providing a relatively stable model for Arab reform and a beacon of hope for Iranian dissidents, is all just wishful thinking, nothing is going to convince you.

I think Bush truly believes there is a chance to change the world for the better here. A chance that may not come again in our lifetimes, and to fail to seize it, because we are too afraid or self absorbed - that would be the true crime against humanity.

"Who dares, wins." - SAS motto

Gentlemen,

All excellent points. As I've said in previous posts, as soon as Bush declared the GWOT, my immediate thought was, "When are we going into Iraq?" But I've seen time and time again that what is obvious to me is not at all obvious to others.

In fact, my first thought upon reading the questions was, "Hmm, does she mean before 9/11 or after?" Because I couldn't see how she could mean after 9/11, but the question didn't seem to make sense for before 9/11.

Why Iraq? Well gee, let's see, how many countries had launched invasions of two or more neighbors within the last 25 years? How many countries had the infrastructure and expert knowledge for WMD manufacture? How many countries had conventional military forces ranked in the top 10 of militaries around the world in terms of sheer size and materiel? How many countries had active support for international terrorism? How many countries were at the heart of the problem of radical, militant, fundamentalist Islamism and Arab Traditionalism? How many countries required the presence of large numbers of US troops and military equipment in neighboring countries to keep said country confined within its "box"? How many countries were engaged in a near continual, low-level war with coalition forces for over a decade?

Kinda narrows it down a bit.

Garbage, Garbage, Garbage!!!!

Iraqs military was 93% destroyed by Desert Storm, in an ongoing decline, and Saddam was no threat. Heres what Powell said in 2001-

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

As to democracy in Iraq, heres what Bush sr thought-

"Incredible human and political costs"

"We would have been forced to occupy Bahgdad, and in effect rule Iraq."

"Had we gone the invasion route, the US could still be an occupying force in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different, and perhaps barren outcome."

Iraqi soldiers and civillians could be expected to resist an enemy occupation of Iraq with a ferocity not previously demonstrated on the battlefield in Kuwait."

Removing Saddam from power would likely plunge Iraq into civil war, sucking in US forces to preserve order. Had we gone in, we might well still be there."

Sounds like poppa Bush knew there werent going to be parades.

I would submit that we attacked Iraq so that when future events force us to confront Saudi Arabia and/or Iran, we can do it without having our entire oil-dependent economy totally hamstrung. It would be nice, of course, if we could free ourselves from said dependence, but nice isn't is.

- Moishe Potemkin

I'm gonna take the low-hanging fruit.

So the administration had two choices stay in Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden, while waiting for the next strike here at home.

There were many other choices than just two. How about trying their darnedest to prevent our "allies" the Saudis from spreading Wahabbism around the world?

To see why that's important, understand that almost all Islamic terrorists have religious justification for their acts. Take away the religious justification and those terrorists that remain are political terrorists like Baader Meinhof or the SLA. Not too many people are going to blow themselves up or kill thousands of civilians for communism.

So, trying to remove the religious justification is a key part of any WOT as is removing the conditions that lead to terrorism taking root as a possible life style choice.

I'll also add that the latest Bush TV commercial features the slogan "either we fight terrorists abroad or face them here." That is an extraordinarily naive and simplistic idea, but it better hold true because Bush has basically left the homeland unprotected. Several thousand illegal aliens stream across our borders *each day*, and thousands of illegal aliens from terrorist countries have been released into the U.S. on their OR due to lack of jail space. No, really.

Begbee
This is the 2nd time I've seen you answering a question addressed to *Bush* supporters! Should I congratulate you on your conversion to common sense of pity you, Moishe Pontemkin, and the Lonewacko Blog for clearly having such poor skills in reading comprehension? o_O

If the latter then the deficiency of the Democrats in such matters would be yet another reason to vote for Mr. Bush. :P

Sincerely yours,
S.P.M.

Jane,
A. The others prior to Begbee have answered you better than I would on these points. I will only amplify on Peter A.'s remark that by adding that several months prior to 9/11 Mr. Bush had named 3 state sponsors of terror whom he dubbed an Axis of Evil. Those states were Iraq, Iran, and North Korea so to me it was only a matter of time after 9/11 before 1 or more of them went down if they didn't show prompt signs of towing the line. Of these 3 Iraq was clearly the one easiest to take down and gave us the advantage of being able to apply leverage to both a named villain (Iran) and a villain that wasn't named (Syria).
B. Being neither clairvoyant nor telepath there is no way I can truthfully say there will not be equal problems in the years ahead no matter who is elected. On that score you should apply to John Edwards since I understand that he has promised to use his special voodoo spells to make Christopher Reeves rise up out of his tomb and be healed should John Kerry be elected. If you think that sleeping dogs who are growing in both strength and malice should be left to lie then Kerry would be your logical choice. If you think that such dogs should be attacked now rather than permitted to become a menace to us at their leisure then Mr. Bush is the one to choose. Either approach will have its advantages. Either approach will have its perils. I prefer the perils that come from activity to those that come from being passive in the face of approaching menace and therefore will vote for Mr. Bush.

I would like to make 2 points:

1. Bush Sr was obviously wrong about the difficulties of invading Iraq. Or perhaps things had changed. The people in Iraq currently welcome us as liberators (except for the few who benefited under the old regime).

2. As far as the assassination attempt on Bush Sr goes, I really have no problem with having an official US policy of harsh retaliation against any government that attempts to assassinate a US President, current or past. As a symbol, US Presidents are important and I believe that allowing a foreign government to assassinate one would show weakness. So I actually credit Saddam's efforts to assassinate Bush Sr as a legitimate reason (not alone, but along with others) to invade.

Bolie IV

I apologize for intervening in the smoke that the Bushies are trying to blow up peoples rear ends here. Its just that its next to impossible to ignore all the distortions and lies here. This thread is a good example why fair and balanced can rarely occupy the same space. I understand its "fair" to give reps there own space, but its hardly "balanced" to present lie after lie as fact.

Consider spm last paragraph. Spm trys to validate the war on Iraq by admitting the administration had targetted them prior to 911, a fact nearly all reps deny. Further, even though every assertion this administration has made about Iraq has proven to be false, spm thinks something has been accomplished. Even further, spm lies about Kerrys proposed war on terror, and completely misstates the Kerry Edwards belief in reguards to stem cell research.

One word, Triangulation.

War is politics by other means. OBL in his fatwah against the U.S. had three specific political demands of the United States. U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia, end to Iraqi sanctions, and end support for Israel. Only by invading Iraq we were able to fulfill two of his conditions in such a way to benefit the U.S. and we attempted to initiate a "roadmap to peace" in Israel.

Since chasing OBL from his base in Afganistan, I don't think we have to worry about too many more demands from him, other than generalized calls for "true" Islamic govenments in Bush's second term.

I would note that "regime change in Iraq" was the stated policy goal of the United States as expressed by Congress, and endorsed by President Clinton, since 1998. This, after years of sanctions had proven ineffective and after the UN had been kicked out. What did the officials of the pre-Shrub era intend? A team of ninja's to fly in at midnight on black hangliders to kick ass and slit throats? More historically, the removal of fascist dictators from troublesome nations has been accomplished by military invasion and occupation. Bush Sr, correctly, judged that the world and the American people were not prepared to take on that burden in 1991. By 1998, President Clinton and the US Congress had a different assessment. Had the Lewinsky affair not constrained Clinton's actions (any major policy he attempted was considered a "wag the dog" attempt to divert attention from his personal problems) the occupation of Iraq and the insurgency against it might have been Al Gore's problem.

But better late than never.

I do not think an Iraq-like invasion is likely in the next four years for either North Korea or Iran. I do expect Iran to suffer a collapse much like the Soviet Union -- perhaps accelerated if the Bush people can pull a Reagan-like move and find a Lech Welesa-like mid-East leader and a Pope John Paul II-like Islamic leader to partner with. NoKo, on the other hand, is liable to remain out there like Cuba.

Which raises a question -- what do Kerry and Bush each think we should do when Castro dies?

One other point:

We were already tied down in Iraq in 2001. Enforcing the "no fly" zones, providing a threat to back up the inspections, defending Kuwait, et al, against another attack. We had about as many troops there then as now.

So, if we did nothing, those troops would still be there. By invading, we pay a higher short-term price for the chance to be able to free up those troops.

I am glad to see comments that address the fact that the U.S. was in an ongoing situation of military clashes and partial territory occupation of Iraq and that U.S. law stated the objective of regime change in Iraq the very first day of Bush's inaguration. This was a long standing issue that had to come to a resolution even if 9/11 had not happened. This is widely ignored by everybody in the MSM.
Those that want more details can check my blog post titled "The First War with Iraq Never Ended"

http://eyeontheworld.typepad.com/home/2004/03/the_1991_war_wi.html

Following up on Gary:

Before 9/11 Bush was facing an Iraq that was:

1. Tying down over 100,000 US troops to cover the no-fly zones, limiting our ability to launch large operations elsewhere.
2. Shooting at US aircraft, complaining about civilian casualities when they shot back, and hoping to get a pilot POW for hostage purposes.
3. Actively supporting terrorism against Israel with $25,000 for suicide bombings.
4. Weaking the sanctions regime, tying down our diplomatic energy in maintaining it.
5. Acting as a secure flank for any other nasty nation in the region we might want to invade.
6. Forcing us to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, thus adding to AQ's complaints.
7. Defeating all unconventional attempts to remove Saddam with coups or assassinations.

So before 9/11 Iraq was going to be high up on any list of worries for Bush. After 9/11 it had to be dealt with or we wouldn't be able to take any other action because of the burden of containment. Whether that qualifies as an "obsession" is a matter of opinion.

As for the second term, the current obsession is defeating islamofascist terrorism by spreading democracy as an alternative way of life. If we have a dramatic event creating a more important crisis Bush may be slow to shift emphasis to deal with it. I think that's an acceptable risk given the current danger.

The answer is simple.
Because the Clinton administration was obsessed with Iraq. There was something called "Dual Containment" which basically meant being obsessed with Iraq and Iran. The only thing Bush did is to start invading countries we're obsessed with, and he deliberately did it with the one Clinton already dropped a few bombs on anyway.
None of this justifies invading Iraq (I'm neutral), but I think it answers Jane's question. If she wants to know why Clinton was obsessed with Iraq, the person to ask would be Martin Indyk.

The WoT is not a manhunt to kill OBL and a couple of othe freakazoids. OBL was (he is Dead) an emir of an army belonging to an branch of the Sa'ud Family (there is no Saudi Government or nation strictly speaking, just a family, all Arabian politics is best understood by recuring to Shakespeare).

The other combatants are the Iranian regime, the Syrian Ba'ath party, and the Pakistani ISI and to some extent still not well explained the Kim Jong Ill regime and probably the Chinese regime.

As was observed above, by seizing Afganistan and Iraq, we have inserted ourselves into strategic positions visa vis all of these participants.

It may take two or three more years to sufficently bolster our position in Iraq before we embark on the next step, although I would be very disapointed if we had not already begun covert ops against Iran and Syria.

I cannot imagine that this whole process will take less than a generation. The Cold War took longer. Are we prepared to stay the course?

The reason why Kerry must not be elected is that he will not stay the course and he will submit our policy to a global test which will allow the perfidious French to suborn it.

a) Iraq was important to the Bushies because it was the key to their long-term strategy: reform the dysfunctional Middle East. Now, to reform something, you've got to break it apart a bit (can't make an omelet without breaking the eggs, etc). So, yeah, it doesn't look all that great at the moment when all we've got are broken eggs and the omelet pan isn't even hot yet. That's why it is a long-term strategy. Please compare it's potential efficacy to the Democrats long-term strategy (i.e., let Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan fix everything). Now, maybe this omelet will end up not turning out that great; I can't say, since this is a pretty unique omelet. But at least it has a chance of working, which the Democrats' strategy most certainly doesn't.

b) Bush had a long-term and a short-term strategy. Long-term was, as I describe above, use Iraq as a key to reform the dysfunctional Middle East. Short term strategy is to attack Al Qaeda, via Afghanistan. So, as to question (b): why doesn't this presage equal problems in the second term? Because we've already begun both the long-term and short-term solutions. We don't need a separate 3d solution, but rather to work on (and consolidate the gains in) the two we've already begun.

Looking past Afghanistan, there are several logical targets:
- North Korea (can't do w/o help from S. Korea and clearance from ChiComs and Japan) (Besides, Kim Jong Il is ronery!)
- Syria (has had WMD, but new leader seen as being someone the West can deal with)
- Libya (Khadafy was showing signs of backing off from direct support of terror)
- Iran (leadership is a Soviet-style theocracy - capture of one family won't decapitate, population/culture is already trending pro-Western, difficult terrain)
- Iraq (family of sadists in charge, has used WMDs, in defiance of UN, critical location adjacent to bad actors, terrain favors US military)

The choice is obvious.

It seems nobody remembers that Bush said, "No Nation Building in Iraq." The democracy for Iraq garbage only started after we found no wmd. We went in to Iraq to enforce the UN resolutions on wmd, when the UN didn't want us to, and we found NOTHING. No wmd stockpiles, and no wmd programs. The UN inspectors had been allowed back in Iraq, and Powell said this in 2001, after Clinton left office-

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Powell obviously had data that changed the conclusions Clinton had reached prior to 2001. 911 didnt magically create new wmd in Iraq. What changed in reguard to the occupation of Iraq to invalidate Bush srs remarks on Iraq, made in his book in 97? There will never be western style democracy in Iraq. Our troops will be tied down in Iraq until our country realizes that there will never be democracy in Iraq. With each passing month, attacks have have increased in Iraq, the situation is deteriorating, not progressing.

a) neoconsertive advisors

b) bush did what they wanted and got a bloody nose.

Begbee:
Democracy was in the plan for Iraq from the beginning. See Bush's 9/12/02 speech to the United Nations. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Some quotes:

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

That's from nine months before the invasion.

Dubya's dad didn't get re-elected.
Why not?
Because he advertised the fact that Saddam Hussein was the wrong dictator, in the wrong part of the middle-east, at the wrong time and, therefore, needed to be got rid of...but failed to get rid of him.
"Freedom-loving people of Kuwait," yeah right; they WOULD HAVE loved freedom.
Too bad they lived (and still live) under a brutal, semi-theocratic monarchy!
Dubya's not gonna make the same mistakes his dad made.
Good for him.
Hope Saudi Arabia's next on the hit list, but I think it'll probably be Syria/Lebanon.
Unless Kerry gets elected, in which case it's None O'the Above.
Because God forbid we should attack our enemies before they've enjoyed smacking us around for a while first.

Consider if you will:

1. Saddam Hussein had the ambition of controlling all of the oil-producing regions of the middle-east. The war against Iran and the invasion of Kuwait did have a purpose, and this was in pursuit of that goal.

2. The containment of Iraq was breaking down. Support for sanctions was eroding, and as we now know he had every intention of reviving his WMD programs.

3. If the sanctions would have ended (as it appeared they would) and Saddam would have started yet another war to seize oil fields, who is it exactly who would have had to come in to stop him? It would not have been the Germans or the French. Their militaries are an impotent joke. It would have been the US and perhaps the UK. And is there any reason to think Saddam would not have resumed his policies?

4. Ruining the US economy would be one of the best ways for insuring that the US would not intervene in stopping third-world egomaniacs from pursuing aggressive regional policies. Whether Saddam was "secular" or not, aiding terrorist activity directed at the US was in his long term strategic interests.

5. There are regimes in the region which have there own little nasty ambitions, and right next door to most of them is a country with over 100,000 American troops who can be on their doorsteps within hours, not weeks or months. And to the extent that they aid terrorists, they cannot really know whether or not such aid will remain within the veil of secrecy. If an atom bomb was smuggled into the US and set off I suspect that the likes of John Kerry would demand "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" before retaliating against those responsible. Bush wouldn't, and the Mullahs, Sheiks, and dictators in the region know this.

In essence, we would have had to fight a war in Iraq eventually. Our "allies" in Europe would have demanded this had Saddam seized all oil fields in the ME and then jacked the price up by a factor of ten, but by then Saddam might have had a nuke or two to use against us in that war. Its far better that we did it now.

K Gallager those quotes are very interesting, they demonstrate that when Bush said "no nation building in Iraq" he was lying.

T Cobb Saddam didnt seek to control the oil of the every Arab country. He moved on Kuwait because Saddam believed that Kuwait was still part of Iraq, and didnt recognize Kuwait as a nation.

The idea that sanctions in Iraq were breaking down goes against the quote from Powell stated in this thread.

The idea that Saddam could launch an invasion when sanctions were lifted is ridiculous. Over 90% of his military was destroyed by desert storm, and continued to decline post desert storm.

Saddam has no history of sponsering terrorism, further he knew any terrorist act traced back to him would result in his death.

All those soldiers in Iraq has really squashed Irans nuclear ambitions.

Here's another reason Bush might have been "obsessed" with Iraq, via Andrew Sullivan: he was breezily confidnent it was going to be easy.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_17_dish_archive.html#109828364000361660

It seems Iraq was low-hanging fruit that made him confident it was all upside. I'm not comfortable with four more years for a man who told a staunch supporter "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

"It seems nobody remembers that Bush said, 'No Nation Building in Iraq.'"

Nobody remembers it because he never said it.

He did say he was reluctant to engage in nation building. Of course, though, he said that BEFORE 9/11. Duh.

Well, seems the Kerry campaign of lies has made it to AI...

"Saddam didnt seek to control the oil of the every Arab country. He moved on Kuwait because Saddam believed that Kuwait was still part of Iraq, and didnt recognize Kuwait as a nation."

Read Schwartzkopf's book. Saddam was going into Saudi Arabia next. The Iraqi army was preparing its tanks for an invasion. When Cheney showed the satellite photos of the maneuvering of Iraqi units, the King of Saudi Arabia almost immediately gave the go ahead for U.S. troops to come into the kingdom.

That's what Osama bin Laden has stated, on camera, is his biggest gripe. That we protected the kingdom with "infidel troops" on sacred Saudi soil. That situation couldn't be allowed to continue status quo. And Bush knew it.

"The idea that sanctions in Iraq were breaking down goes against the quote from Powell stated in this thread."

From the Duelfer Report, Key Findings: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions [by means of abuses of the Oil-For-Food program] and undermine their international support." Also from Key Findings: "[Saddam's] Regime quickly came to see that OFF [Oil-For-Food] could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Also from Key Findings: "[Saddam had the] intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf. See also The Bomb in My Garden (Mahdi Obeidi).

All these points make Sec. Powell's observation in 2001 both moot in the present day and exactly what Saddam wanted the world to believe at the time.

By the way, Begbee ol' friend, my leaving the (now closed) "Open Thread" was not "unconditional surrender" at all... just trying to have a life. It's not working, though: these discussions are way too interesting.

Al, Bush said he wouldnt use the military in nation building, and hes done just that. Can you say flip flop? What happened to all of jrs stubborn stupidity that you reps hold in such high reguard?

P Sullivan, Iraq had claimed that it had a right to Kuwait. "They were jealous that Kuwait was in control of the two islands needed for a deep water shipping port:the Bubiyan and Warbah islands."4 These islands along with some parts of Kuwait were a part of Mesopotamia which the Ottoman Turks conquered. "The Ottoman Empire was defeated during World War I and the British made their "own lines in the sand", dividing up the land according to their own strategic needs and in the process recklessly dividing up ancient communities and boundaries that had been recognized for decades."1 Most of Mesopotamia became Iraq and some other parts to Kuwait. In 1961, Kuwait became independent and the Iraqis threatened to invade except that British troops kept the peace. This was to be the first of many border skirmishes which include Iraqi missiles fired at Kuwaiti oil installations and the reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq War in which U.S. ships patrolled the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged with U.S. flags. UBL objects to all foreign presence in Islam, not just SA.

Jaime, the Duefler reports conclusions are a joke. The weakening of sanctions and Saddams intent to pursue wmd after sanctions were lifted are pure speculation. Just as the very existence of Iraqi wmd was pure speculation, as proved by Powells comments. The FACTUAL findings in the Duefler report are that Saddam had no stockpiles of wmd, Saddam had no active wmd programs, Saddam didnt have the components to manufacture wmd, and that Iraqs military was in a downward spiral of decay.

Begbee, there has never, ever been a nation of Mesopotamia, or any nation that had borders corresponding to Iraq + Kuwait. Geographically, Mesopotamia is the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, which include much of Syria and parts of Turkey, but I don't see those rivers running through Kuwait, let alone through islands in the Gulf.

Politically, at various times it was split into many city-states, or a few empires such as Babylonia and Assyria, with ever-shifting borders. At other times, it was part of an empire whose main power base was elsewhere (Persian, Alexandrian). A couple of times a Mesopotamian city became the capital of an empire that controlled much of the middle east (Parthian, and the Bagdad Caliphate). From the late middle ages until 1918, it was part of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, which also stretched from Europe to Egypt. If the Turks made it a province, it was just lines they drew on the map, with no more regard to what the inhabitants had or didn't have in common than the British and French did after WWI.

Trying to build a nation within the Brit's arbitrary boundaries might be Bush's biggest mistake - but then, there's no natural basis for other boundaries either, short of trying to divine the fuzzy boundaries of Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shiite Arab lands and creating three tiny countries. And if you did that, the Shiite land would probably be as insanely religious as Iran, the Sunni's would vote for Baathists (Islamic Nazis), and the Kurds would pick a war with Turkey. I guess Bush is hoping the various insanities will cancel out... Making it work is going to be difficult. All the other options were worse (and that definitely includes anything that left Saddam in office).

Mark M Im not a middle east historian. I was aware of Saddams claims to Kuwait, searched it, came up with several very reputable sources that described Kuwait and Iraqs history in the same way, and I cut and pasted the most readable source. I dont recall the name of the page I C and P this info from, but theres a good number to choose from. Theres been alot of ground to cover with so many active topics, so rather than summarize material myself, Ive c and p when theres technical points and/or alot of unfamiliar data.

Mark M, I dont expect anyone to agree with me, but imo Saddam was a better answer than what we have in Iraq today. We've lost about 1100 soldiers, but the Iraqis have lost tens of thousands and things are getting worse in Iraq with each passing month. Saddam was a tyrant, but when a nation has as much oil wealth as Iraq, and has a population as impoverished as Iraq, a tyrant is the only thing that can keep order. We now have a power void in a nation with vast wealth, and the various competeing factions in Iraq arent going to play nice.

Que bono? Who benefits? One should ask this question first, in regard to any situation or issue. I ask: Who benefited from 9/11? (We know who didn't benefit.) Here are the beneficiaries of 9/11: Israel. The Bush Family. Military contractors. Neocon liars and forgers who have flitted in and out of DC for years. ALL media (more play than OJ). New York City developers. All internal governments: federal, state, and local - at least as far as their police power is concerned. Last but not least, OBL benefited. How so? He knew our Bushie would probably respond to 9/11 by doing something opportunistic - such as invade the wrong country (WMDs, anyone? feet-first-into-a-woodchipper, anyone? any old hoax at all, anyone?) - and that he would do it for political reasons or worse, thereby inciting Muslim nuts to go bananas, furthering the jihad. As to the reason we invaded Iraq (the real reason, not the phony cock-and-bull stories we were handed): merely because it was "doable." You see, we had planned that war for years. *That* was one Middle East war - the only one - we could figure out how to do, and move forward on in a relatively short time (about a year). Afghanistan? Uh, maybe we'll get clobbered there like the Russians - better outsource *that* job. Syria (absurd)? Iran (too much unknown; too difficult)? Egypt (you must be joking)? So, where? Where do we strike? The answer presented itself and here we are. Too bad we're so incompetent, our military thinking is so ossified, that we can only "stick with what works" and re-fight (or finish) the *last* war.

It's all business. All business is politics, and all politics is just dirty business. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Bush, Sharon, and OBL hang out together at Crawford, doing lines of coke. I guess that makes me a nut. Instead, I should "believe" in the (faith-based) President and urge kids to kill and die for Democracy in Iraq - which is the biggest joke on earth. My dick almost rots off when I think about the absurdity of it.

After Desert Storm Hussein was essentially crippled. The generals on his former staff wanted to get rid of him and only needed the states to give them access to confiscated weapons, which we refused. The president stated it was better to have an iron-fisted dictator than a government by the people.
Simply put, although we don't NEED it's oil, we don't want anybody else to control it. If somebody else does, then a new superpower is on the horizon. As long as we control it, nobody else does.

Going through my InstaPundit links and came across your blog....then came across this article.

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/10/the_last_word_o.html

It might be worthwhile reading given your concerns on Iraq (yes, I do pretty much agree with it).

Comments are Closed.