Forums | MacLife

jerwin wrote:

Let's be pragmatic about this. Saddam Hussein was contained. He might have been a small drain on military and diplomatic resources, and perhaps a minor embarrassment, thumbing his nose at us. On the other hand, he didn't cost us thousands of lives. He didn't cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. He didn't drain our resources. And intelligence shows that he wasn't going to.

Iraq was a war of choice. Bush and his allies made the wrong choice.

Containment had its own costs. One, no fly zones had been escalating. Clinton had to conduct multiple bombings, clinton had to sanction the hell out of Iraq, which as the left was fond of pointing out was the almost the equivalent of a genocide, and which led to oil for food which only enriched Iraq, but was also the worst fraud in UN history. containment also was the justification that OBL used to start his jihad against us which culminated in 9/11. (his main grievance was that we had troops in SA, who were there because of our containment policies). And it didn't in fact even work. As duelfler was pointing out containment was in free fall. No fly zones were only escalating, all our inspectors left and could only be brought back in by bringing our military to Iraqs borders at great cost, and which  couldn't be maintained. And this is not even taking into account the failed containment would have on containing Iran, who was involved in their clandestine nuclear program> seeing that we could not actually contain Iraq, and that the UN was only giving lip service to its resolutions would only prove to Iran that noone was serious and they could continue apace and not expect any real push back. And then we would have two countries which we would need to contain neither of which we were actually serious about doing so, both of which would be escalating.

And, if we are going to discuss this practically, the fact that the ISA was passed at all shows in fact that contianment was failing. If containment was workign then there would be no reason for Clinton to pass the ILA, because in fact Iraq would cooperate. The fact that ILA had to be  passed and operation desert fox was carried out, and the Un passed 1441 only attests to the fact that in fact Iraq was anything but contained or that this situation was anything but stable.

Again, Clinton said "The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership." and this was while containment was in effect. Which is an acknowledgement that containment is not working. Because again, if it were working then Clinton wouldn't have had to make such a proclamation as containment would have resolved said issues and effect said changes.

As for costs, despite the caterwauling about this being the worst disaster in the history of warfare, we have largely in fact already won this war. Violence is down. Al Qaeda is largely routed in Iraq (and now we are having to deal with them in Afghansitan to a greater degree again), 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met, more and more territory has been turned overto the Iraqis and the media is largely silent about Iraq these days as its so uneventful. Certainly we've paid a cost, and certainly 4000 is a lot, but we've been through much worse in our various wars and have weathered the storm. And if we are able to maintian a stable Iraq and don't have to deal with Sadaam then when viewed through history that may be a cost deemed worth it. Having fought the battle to the point where its largely won, lets also weight the costs were we then to arbitrarily start pulling all our troops out so they're gone in 16 months, despite the fact that we can't sustain security there by doing so, or the region destablizes. Barack isn't talking about those costs.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-18 4:37 pm)

everlong205 wrote:

If you put it that way, why would they be? Oh, they violated a un resolution, who doesn't? What was the resolution they violated? Oh they refused to cooperate with UNSCOM (AGAIN) and is defying inspectors the ability to acces sites,  something far different. And these are binding resolutions backed by the security consel and the potential used of force, not some proclamation from on high about how the UN is disappointed in a country for not living up to its obligations but which is completely unenforceable.

The way I "put it" has no effect upon what the reality is.  I don't think it's surprising that many Americans have not supported spending billions upon billions of dollars and losing thousands of American lives in order to unilaterally-"enforce" resolutions of the UN.

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

If you put it that way, why would they be? Oh, they violated a un resolution, who doesn't? What was the resolution they violated? Oh they refused to cooperate with UNSCOM (AGAIN) and is defying inspectors the ability to acces sites,  something far different. And these are binding resolutions backed by the security consel and the potential used of force, not some proclamation from on high about how the UN is disappointed in a country for not living up to its obligations but which is completely unenforceable.

The way I "put it" has no effect upon what the reality is.  I don't think it's surprising that many Americans have not supported spending billions upon billions of dollars and losing thousands of American lives in order to unilaterally-"enforce" resolutions of the UN.

Most people were for the invasion of iraq, or at least the majority. And it wasn't strictly because of the technical violation of UN resolutions. The UN resolutions though are important in that each one catalogs and describes a way in which Iraq has not cooperated. That big picture of Iraq being a regime that needs to have a regime change is what people respond to. So people are not responding to the fact that Iraq violated UN resolutions, but in fact that Iraq voilated the terms of the ceasefire, or refused to coopearte and allow inspectors into sites, which caused the UN to pass another resolution condemning said act, which was then violated again.

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Most people were for the invasion of iraq, or at least the majority. And it wasn't strictly because of the technical violation of UN resolutions.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree.  I think it was largely because of the sensational and poorly-sourced claims that ended up being false.

And the promises of a quick and easy fight. Don't forget that. The American people who supported this war didn't just support "WAR IN IRAQ" - they put their support behind a low-cost elimination of an immediate threat to the United States. This all turned out to be a combination of lies and stupidity. So it should be no surprise that most Americans aren't happy with "just a few more years, a couple trillion dollars, and a few thousand more lives and we might have a stable government."

bratboy wrote:

Would you argue that the support of the American people would have been nearly as strong based solely on the findings of that ILA and not on the more sensational (and poorly sourced) claims that came immediately prior to the invasion?

I would argue it this way. Once you get to a president passing the ILA which calls for a regime change because of behavior of a rogue regime who refuses to cooperate and who is trying to rebuild its WMD's and hide those from inspectors, or who, despite having serious unanswered questions about its WMD capabilities still refuses to allow access to sites then I dont' think you need to provide any more sensational claims for a case to be made about whether or not to go about regime change (because the fact that you passed the ILA suggests that there are sensational claims enough to justify your desire for a regime change). You seem to be trying to unpeal the apple as it were. The ILA establishes aside from the stated US policy of regime change, a blueprint as to what we are dealing with in Iraq. The fact that Clinton says that they won't get any changes so long as Sadaam is in power is enough. Regime change and the desire for it is a given. There is nothign that occured historically that would change the narrative from when Clinton left office and bush took office (ie the admin didn't decied that teh ILA was no longer necessary, or inspectors came out and said Iraq was suddenly in compliance), so we don't have to relitigate the question ad infinitum.
The only question then is how to achieve said regime change, and whether it can be achieved through peaceful means or through war and the degree to which this is a pressing issue. After 9/11, and considering the fear of groups like Al Qaeda trying to get their hands on WMD's, dealing once and for all with Iraq was perhaps the top foreign policy issue that had to be addressed. Certainly in the top 3, above and beyond dealing directly with Afghanistan. Theres a reason, despite the intemperate language of calling them an axis of evil, that N Korea, Iran and Iraq were labeled as such.

I'm still wondering about that percentage of radical far-left antiwar Americans....

There are those who are hard core antiwar types, and then there are those who are against the war who have an opinion but who are not especially active (they might attend an anti war rally once or twice and make comments online expressing their distress but are otherwise not really involved). And then there are a larger percentage who vacillate, who might be counted as anti war, but are in fact not happy with the way the war is fought, but could be pro finishing the operation if things are better on the ground (which they appear to be at this point). The hard core antiwar types, who make up the code pinks are a small percentage. The latter two are a much larger percentage. The radical ones though are the ones making all the noise. They're the ones storming the commitees wearing the tin foil hat.

Of course it does help feed the antiwar sentiment when the media is instantly calinng the engagement a quagmire and highlighting every fatality with running body counts and grim milestones, but who are lately completely silent about any positive news on the ground. If you're told that this is the worst war we've ever been involved in and its unwinnable and the media is spreading that story, then a lot of the vast majority of people who are not ideologues will factor that into their anti war stance.
Many people however, want to actually win this war, and as it becomes more and more apparent that its being done will  actually move back towards the center and support its completion. In fact Im Obama's "we must get out in 16 months" is seeming positively quaint these days, and certianly not reflective of reality on the ground.

... thread drift in progress

bedstuy wrote:

... thread drift in progress

THat's a good point. We (i) seem to have strayed a bit from the topic at hand. I'm willing to get back on topic.

Obama - yes, the shine is wearing off. he's your everyday arrogant politician. The ocean level's the same as yesterday.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-18 6:38 pm)

everlong205 wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I'm talking about selling it to the American public, and you know that.  Nice try.  The ILA is wholly irrelevant on that point.

Of course it is, to you. Because if you ignore all history on Iraq then you can claim that Iraq was never a threat to begin with. If you say its just resolutions then you minimize the legitimate threat that EVERYONE who dealt with Iraq with any seriousness knew to be a fact. The picutre you're trying to project about Iraq is one, that might go well  with Michael Moore's kite flying Iraq, but its not the reality of what this administration had ot deal with and what the past administration had to deal with when it came to iraq. Iraq has never complied, and as far back as 1998 we've recognized the fact that regime change was the only solution. So therefore, ignore all previous known facts, start Iraq history on the eve of this current war. and suggest that Bush sensationalized particular details. All prior history is irrelevant. You're trying to sell as story as much as you say bush is.

More rambling, nothing about how this war was sold to the American public.

As for why I brought it up, in part:

everlong205 wrote:

No, its also that Bush lied about the rationale for war. And clearly anyone who signed off on the ILA in the first place has no basis for making such an argument as that would, in fact, undermine the basis for the ILA in the first place.

bratboy wrote:

Members of the Bush Administration made several assertions that are not found anywhere in the ILA, including assertions related to AQ as well as those regarding Iraq's supposed possession of WMD.   

...and there was this, of course.

...and this...

Yes. If Obama's shine hadn't worn a little, the lead would be in the double digits.

Ha!  No wonder you're losing elections with that sort of conspiracy nonsense.

bratboy wrote:

You're obsessing over the ILA, but it has no bearing on what I'm talking about.  The administration needed PUBLIC support for the invasion, and it obtained it through sensational claims (which ended up being false and ruined its credibility).  The fact that the whole operation was bungled didn't help.

You'll have to mention specific claims in detail so as to detemrine whether they're right or wrong, or who is suggesting they are hyped or  if they are simply wrong about details in specific cases. I don't agree with your suggestion that in fact the info was hyped (in the sense that the admin sent out information that they genuinely believed to fly in the face of info that was viewed as a consensus). However, the ILA does have bearing on what you're talking about, as its part of the story. What happened before Bush took office and what was assumed by those previously charged with dealing with Iraq is relevant. It has a bearing on whether what Bush is suggesting is in fact sensational. I don't for example understand why what Clinton suggested was not somehow sensational, or what the UN was suggesting was not somehow sensational given what you are suggesting is the implication of Bush hyping the threat, because as already stated we don't need any claims by Bush at all to know that as it last stood, Clinton and congress had had it up to here with Iraq's non compliance and said regime change was the only way to ultimately resolve the issue. containment wasn't in fact working, and it was in the Us's interest to effect regime change. If for example you are going to harp on say aluminum tubes being used for nuclear centrifuges or not as hyping the intel, you can completely remove that detail and we're still left with the fact that in 1998 the ILA was passed because of Iraqs noncompliace up till then and nothing that happened in the interim suggesting that Iraq was acting in any way counter to how it acted before the ILA was passed. If you ignore the ILA entirely (and you seem to be picking and choosing info as much as you accuse the bush admin of doing) and view Iraq as starting with Bush then you can make a case for hyping intel or that this was a war solely of choice, based on nothign but Bush's animus.

bratboy wrote:

Aluminum tubes.  Uranium from Africa. Stockpiles of biological weapons.  Unmanned drones.  Attack could be launched in less than hour and would come unprovoked.  Training AQ in biological weapons use.

I don't want to address all of these as it would require me to go looking for a bunch of links and is too much work for one post. But one problem is that you're, in some cases, using the critics case against the admin (ie the allegation of impropriety) as the fact as opposed to the allegation. Take aluminum tubes. You act as if it was cut and dried. There was disagreement within some quarters about whether the tubes were to be used for nuclear weapons or conventional weapons. I'll not that if it were for conventional weapons those would still be weapons that Iraq was disallowed from producing. But the energy dept disagreed with the general consensus of the intelligence agencies including the CIA. I think you'll find that in fact, the engery depts view was the minority view. (Even if it may have turned out to be the correct view). This is part of the problem with intelligence, its incomplete. As Iraq is a closed society, and as Iraq refused to comply and cooperate, and as Sadaam readily suggests Iraq was in fact lying about its weapons to project strength determining an ultimate truth without having all the facts (which would only come post invasion when in fact we get access to more info, and even then the answers will remain nebulous) is nearly impossible. So you make best guestimates. And there certainly was a belief in many quarters that the tubing was used for building centrifuges. We did, in fact catch Iraq with a nuclear program while engaged in our first inspection regime, one which, of course, he denied  until caught red handed.
Also, the issue with getting uranium from africa. This one is even more dubious. Joe Wilson is a liar. first off there were allegations that Iraq attempted to procure uranium from Niger AND the Congo. When Wilson supposedly debunked this, he, without having access to any of the intel for example that the brits used to get this claim (and yes there was a forged document, which of course Wilson hadn't seen at the time of his trip, but there was other evidendce that corroborated the claim, that wasn't based on the forged documents). But more importantly, when he testified before the senate committee, they found his claims actually bolstered the case that Iraq sought uranium from Niger. Additionally, we got separate claims from the French as well (the French who were opposed to Iraq war) that Iraq sought (not bought, sought) uranium from Niger. Niger by the way is a former french colony and french companies control uranium production there. And finally, the Congo is also in Africa, and Joe Wilson didn't even visit there nor even attempt to investigate the claims. This has to have been one of the most incomplete debunkings in the history of debunkings. I'm sure the admin, facing heat for including anything at all controversial in the presidents address and not wanting to litigate every fact in public over and over simply found it easier to remove the charge than to fight about it. But Joe Wilson did not in fact disprove the allegation.

I'm not "picking and choosing" anything.  You seem to want to consider my question regarding the public by the 'everlong standard': what amount of data was sufficient for YOU to believe an invasion was necessary.

Is it your contention that launching the attack on Iraq would have been popular were it based SOLELY upon the findings of the ILA?  Meaning, without the myriad of other claims that ended up being false.

Tell me....what was Powell's problem with some of the administration's claims?

No, what I'm saying is regardless of whether Bush said anything at all, by 1998 we had already come to the conclusion that we needed a regime change. Any additional charges against Iraq were just gravy that already buttressed an airtight case. Even if you take those away, we are still left with the need for regime change (now of course, this would have been different if for example Bush disagreed with the findings). But EVERYONE was on their last legs with Iraq. Which is why 1441 was passed UNANIMOUSLY in the security counsel. Becuase they had had their fill of Iraq and had been dealing with them for so long and so unsuccessfully, they didn't need much additional prodding to give Iraq one last chance.The only question is how to achieve the result of regime change. After 9/11, the situation becomes ever more drastic, and the Bush admin, I think, viewed the sittuation as one where they couldn't wait to have opposition groups take down Sadaam if they ever even could, and didn't want to continue propping up containment which was in freefall, and as I outlined above, was no longer getting the job done. So, war was in fact the last resort, but one that frankly was the only solution, were they to stick to the regime change argument. They could of course had abandoned such a notion, but then they might as well end containment as well and simply let Iraq get its WMDs.
And as also stated, by going to war, they actually achieved the goal, so from a utillitarian standpoint at least, war was the only vehicle that would achieve the desired result. And everything outlined under the ILA has been achieved. Removal of Sadaam, trials of him and many of his henchmen, removal of regime, closing the books on the WMD programs, and transitioning to democracy. That last bit has been more messy than some would like, I'll agree.