Dr. Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute on A War in Search of a Reason
Paul O’Neill, George W. Bush’s former Secretary of the Treasury, has confirmed what many critics of the Iraq war had already suspected to be a cynical and self-serving Bush administration myth: that the September 11 attacks had moved a reluctant president, who during his campaign had advocated a “more humble U.S. foreign policy,” to invade and occupy Iraq. Despite campaign rhetoric accusing the Clinton-Gore administration of being overly interventionist, O’Neill asserts that going after Saddam Hussein was the most important topic on the National Security Council’s agenda 10 days after the president’s inauguration and eight months before September 11. O’Neill, a former member of the council, also alleges that rather than conducting a debate about why Saddam should have been deposed and why the removal was so urgent, the initial council meetings in January and February 2001 centered on how to get rid of Saddam and plans for a post-Saddam Iraq.
You can read the rest of Dr. Eland's commentary here. This entry also posted at Stand Down.
Wasn’t the reason for the invasion of Iraq, other than W’s daddy being dissed, the use of the Euro as the standard for Iraqi oil? The US dollar floats on the dollar index for oil and Iraq broke successfully with this. What role did this monetary policy play in the urgency of invasion?
Posted by Anonymouson January 25, 2004 10:11 PM
Someone do me a favor and let me know when these mystical, magical “huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction” appear. Until then…
Posted by James Landrith on January 25, 2004 11:20 PM
We should all ask Tony Blair, he seems to be the only one who still believes this crap, but then maybe he believes in the Easter Bunny, Gnomes, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy…
Posted by Vox on January 26, 2004 10:48 AM
Well….
My understanding is that the Iraq invasion plans were a continuation of a series of Middle East military projections being analyzed for several years under the Clinton Administration.
Of course, I know I’ll have to go find a link to an article quoting as such from somthing like The Progressive or MoveOn.org for it to be credible to some folks. No problem. I DO have an obligation to do my homework.
On the WMD’s, David Kay’s recent report includes his belief that there is credible evidence that Saddam moved WMD materials into Syria shortly before the war; an assertion made months ago by Israeli intelligence. Kay also was quoted as saying that at the time of the invasion, it WAS reasonable, from existing information, to believe that Saddam did in fact possess WMD’s.
But of course Bush is still a big fat liar…because…well…he just is.
Actually, not to digress, but to digress, I read some interesting commentary on that Right-wing fascist rag of a website http://www.frontpagemagazine.com, that reminded me that George Bush actually said that intelligence indicated that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Africa. Not Niger, but AFRICA. And Libya, which has recently revealed it’s black-market uranium trade is in AFRICA.
The point being, let’s not be accusing people of lying unless they’ve been convicted of perjury.
Whaddya say, gang? Woo hoo!
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 26, 2004 11:20 AM
hmmmmmmmm.
Well that isn’t my understanding of the latest David Kay position, which is shown here:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1130804,00.html
Key quote:
‘Pentagon and CIA officials appear to have accepted that there is little point in searching for weapons stockpiles in Iraq, and will now concentrate on auditing Iraqi claims of their destruction.
The sharp change in emphasis by the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group follows the admission on Friday by its outgoing leader, Dr David Kay, that his 1,000-man organisation had not found evidence of stockpiles, and that he now believed they had never existed.’ (published yesterday).
Bush may or may not have actually lied (and as i’ve pointed out, i’ve been careful not to use that word), but it seems increasingly likely that he was incorrect in his emphasis on the threat from Iraq. (it may have been reasonable, but it now seems that it was false: either way, this indicates fundamental problems with Western intelligence gathering). The key question is: why? And how incorrect? Was it merely that he overstated the threat? Or was there no threat at all?
As for the Africa thing…well, hey, Africa is a big place. It’s like saying that the major source of Islamic terrorism is the Middle East: true enough, but hardly specific enough to be useful information. However, for that very reason, difficult to disprove. Which is convenient.
Posted by Brendan on January 26, 2004 12:56 PM
If indeed invasion of Iraq was already on the books, is that necessarily an indictment? If it was in the defensive interests of the US to get rid of Sadaam then so be it. I do not like the use of 9/11 to gain support, just like I dont like fear being the motivator for anything. The presence of “emminent threat” is another scare tactic that I dont care for, and it was used heavily. On the other hand, many people (myself included) would not have bought into a “liberate Iraq” slogan as the sole reason to go to war. I consider Sadaam a monster that we helped make. When you make a monster and it turns on you, your recourse is to destroy it. Someone has to have the balls to do it. “Containment” had been going on for 12 years and was having little effect on the surface. It may well have fixed the issue eventually but, as has been mentioned before, the USSR lasted over 50 years before it collapsed. Maybe we are just too impatient.
Posted by limberwulf on January 26, 2004 01:06 PM
And the moral is: always check the source. Here’s the Front Page Magazine quote:
‘An article in London’s Sunday Telegraph quoted David Kay, the outgoing leader of a U.S. weapons search team in Iraq, as saying that part of Iraq’s secret weapons program had been hidden in Syria.
BUT in an interview aired later Sunday on National Public Radio, Kay said it is difficult to determine whether shipments to Syria included weapons, in part because Syria has refused to cooperate in this part of the weapons investigation’.
So all Kay was saying was that Syria may or may not have received WMD from Iraq but he really doesn’t know. Which is hardly a ringing endorsement of the ‘Saddam shipped his weapons to Syria’ concept.
Posted by brendan on January 26, 2004 01:36 PM
Brendan,
Very true.
However, my point is simply to moderate the “Bush is a liar” chant that oversimplifies the discussion. Not from you, but from others….you know…THEM!
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 26, 2004 02:02 PM
One standard for the word “lying” was set by the Republicans during the impeachment process. They impeached a President of the United States for “high crimes and misdemeanors” for saying “I did not have sex with that woman.” Now for most adults, “having sex” usually means full intercourse, whereas apparently Clinton and Lewinsky engaged in oral sex and mutual masturbation. So technically Clinton did not lie. But there is no question that his statement was misleading, and hence he was accused of lying. By that standard, Bush & Co lied.
As I often say, personally I don’t think Bush himself lies, because it appears to me he sincerely believes everything he says. By his own admission, he believes everything his senior advisors tell him. So I don’t think George W. Bush is intentionally trying to mislead people.
But there is plenty of evidence that his senior advisors DO know better. Cheney was informed before last year’s SOU that the yellow cake story is highly dubious. Rumsfeld set up a separate intelligence process, because the intelligence he was getting from the CIA did not back up his political aims:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0506-06.htm
Hence whether you call it lying or not, there is plenty of credible evidence that Bush & Co deliberately misled the American people.
In any case, at this stage the following is 100% clear:
1. Iraq does not have stockpiles of WMD
2. Iraq, since 1991, did not have an effective WMD program
3. The intelligence evidence before the war was highly ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations
Nonetheless, we went to war with Iraq because it was claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and the world. Indeed the threat was claimed to be so imminent, the US, against the better judgement of its major allies (except Britain) insisted there was no time to wait and investigate if indeed this claim was credible or not.
Even if you believe Bush & Co didn’t lie, even if you believe they didn’t intentionally mislead, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that they are guilty of a serious misjudgement in their assessment of the Iraqi threat. And unlike the Clinton case, hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians died because of this misjudgement. The cost to our treasury is hundreds of billions of dollars with no end in site to either the deaths or the financial burden. These are not minor matters.
The reason many people oppose the doctrine of pre-emptive war is precisely because the costs of war are so great. Hence war should only be pursued after grave and careful reflection.
Many of us claimed that such grave and careful reflection was not carried out before this war. Everything that has happened since confirms this judgement. If Clinton was held accountable for his misjudgements on such a ridiculous matter as his sex life, shouldn’t Bush & Co be held accountable as well for something far more serious in its consequences?
The Democrats are being skewered by the right for attacking Bush. And yet, unlike their Republican counterparts, the Democrats aren’t calling for Bush to be impeached, even though one can make a far more credible case that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. They are leaving his fate to the judgement of the ballot box.
Of course, some of us believed that the real reason Bush & Co went to war was to project American might and to gain control over the resources of the Middle East by holding a dominant position in Iraq. In other words – power and greed. The suspicion that the other claims such as “Saddam is a threat to world peace” or “Saddam supports terrorists” or “We are bring democracy and freedom to Iraq” are mere marketing propaganda is reinforced by the well known fact that a year ago August, Bush & CO declared they would begin “marketing the Iraq war” (their words, not mine) after the summer.
Many Americans seem to think power and greed are legitimate values, so I’m not convinced all this marketing propaganda is really necessary. Personally, I would respect Bush & Co far more if they would openly and honestly proclaim these reasons. While I strongly disagree with “might makes right” as a principle of action, I respect an honest knave more than a hypocritical lout.
Posted by aronst on January 26, 2004 03:23 PM
Aron,
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 26, 2004 03:29 PM
But the whole point Robert, is that it’s NOT hindsight. All these points were made BEFORE Bush went to war. Just go to the archives of this blog. It wasn’t as if the world was equally divided on this issue. Virtually the whole world said to him “why are you rushing to war?” but he refused to listen. He only listened to Cheney and Rumsfeld who egged him on. There WERE other options, but he acted out of arrogance.
This isn’t a parlor game about who was right or wrong, a “Crossfire” war of words about winning points in a debate between “left” and “right”. Please remember this is about life and death. War is not a step to take lightly. You can’t say to the parents of soldiers killed and children killed “woops, we made a mistake.” That won’t bring them back to life.
Bush rushed into war. He was warned by many friends that he was being precipitous. Bush was also warned that once we are in Iraq we will be bogged down in a quagmire of competing claims and interests, exactly what is happening now.
He refused to listen (and also thereby alienated just about the whole world). For that he needs to be held accountable.
In societies with honor, leaders who fail, even if their failure is justified, take responsibility and step down. If they don’t they should be removed. Many people paid the ultimate price for Bush’s lack of foresight and his arrogant attitude. At the very least, he should pay a political price.
Posted by aronst on January 26, 2004 05:29 PM
Aron,
Whoa! Hold on.
Your comments about WMD are made with hindsight. Even David Kay said that with the information available at the time it was, in fact, reasonable to believe that there were WMD’s.
All the other stuff is just hoakum. The “whole world” wasn’t saying anything, despite the fact that some people believe that their views are held by “the whole world”. Bush waited 14 months to invade, not to mention the 12 years that Saddam spent flouting UN sanctions.
And what the oppositition predicted, i.e. a bloodbath, millions of refugees, tens of thousands of US dead, a Vietnam-style quagmire, NONE of it came true.
Just because the New York Times has labelled reconstruction “a quagmire”, doesn’t make it so.
The term “quagmire” was consistently used before the war to predict a military stalemate as bodies piled up by the thousands. To now redefine it as “any American casualties that occur during recontruction” is to be a weasel.
I like real weasels…they’re cute, like ferrets. But I don’t particularly like weasel words. They’re slippery, like a weasel with butter on it. Mmmmmmmm….weasels……….
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 26, 2004 07:32 PM
Robert
Talk about weasel words 🙂
“The “whole world” wasn’t saying anything”
Please name one war in recent history that got so many people in so many different countries out on the street to oppose it. Bush, unlike his father, couldn’t even buy a majority in the Security council and certainly not in the general assembly to support his actions. So yes it’s metaphorical language to say “the whole world” but there is quite a bit of evidence both before and after the war that a good part of the world’s governments and peoples oppose this war.
“what the oppositition predicted, i.e. a bloodbath, millions of refugees, tens of thousands of US dead, a Vietnam-style quagmire, NONE of it came true.”
1. “bloodbath” – well if you were one of the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or tens of thousands injured
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
you wouldn’t think of this as a cake walk. And if you’re the mother of one of the 500+ soldiers dead or the thousands wounded, it’s not exactly a picnic. And no one knows exactly how many Iraqi soldiers were killed. So bloodbath is an appropriate term.
3. I doubt anyone who opppssed the war predicted tens of thousands of AMERICAN soldiers dead. The Americans extremely effective weaponry along with the fact that American soldiers are well protected coupled with Americans bombing tactics assured that would not happen. But if the American occupation continues for a number of years, as it will if Bush gets reelected, the soldiers killed will begin to number in the thousands. Guerilla tactics are highly effective in neutralizing American advantages, as we’ve already seen.
4. “millions of refugees” – yes this was definitely a mistaken prediction, although only a few people made it.
5. Quagmire has one meaning (besides the mud bit which this is obviously not being referenced): ” A difficult or precarious situation” Before the war I brought a whole series of articles by Zvi Bar’el who described the difficult and precarious situation the US would face in post-war Iraq because of ethnic and tribal complexities. Many of his predictions are playing out right before our eyes as we speak. Go back and read them if you like. In fact, very few people who oppossed the war made the comparison to Vietnam, since the situation in Iraq is quite different. Only the rightist used it to denigrate the term quagmire. And I far more believe those reports on the ground from multiple sources which consistently report the problems of the occupation, than the bulletins from the Ministry of Truth that tell us how wonderful things are going all over the world. I understand why Bush & Co and the war’s supporters want to paint a rosy picture of what’s going on in Iraq – it covers up for their mistakes. But how about just a modicum, a smidgen of intellectual honesty?
6. Bush’s waiting: 14 months’ from when? From 9/11? So you admit that Saddam was in the gun sights immediately after 9/11 even though he had nothing to do with it? Just a few weeks ago the anti-war crowd was being lambasted by you for making such assertions as being totally delusional. And obviously Saddam didn’t flout UN sanctions because HE DIDN”T HAVE WMD!!!!!! So that too was a mistake if you don’t want to call it a lie.
In short, I would say that a good part of the anti-war predictions came true. Some didn’t. But none of what Bush & Co predicted was true.
And the bottom line remains: thousands of people (and yes Iraqis are people) died because of this war. We have yet to see one justification claimed pan out. Why should we believe Bush & Co about “bringing democracy” when everything else they claimed turned out to be wrong? This war was wrong from the get go and those who led us into it should take responsibility and go home.
Gazza
David Kay is one source. There are many, many sources that claim (and I brought one) that Bush & Co (and Blair), to use the British term, “sexed up” the evidence from the intelligence reports. In any case, as I’ve said already about a hundred times, BEFORE the war, people who oppossed it claimed that intelligence is always tricky. Hence it musn’t be used as a basis for pre-emptive war. This argument has just been vindicated. A pre-emptive war, with all its consequences, was fought based on faulty intelligence. Even if you give Bush & Co the slack that Kay’s statement does, you can’t get around that fact. They were warned: “don’t do this.” They did it anyway. So they are responsible for the mistake and all its consequences.
Limburwolf
Your comments on Clinton are so absurd I don’t want to get into them. In any case, I was being sarcastic. Clinton isn’t the issue here. The mistakes of the Bush administration are. Thousands of people died because of those mistakes. The US is in a dangerous and precarious sitation (i.e. a quagmire) in the Middle East because of those mistakes. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being pissed away from our budget because of those mistakes. Hey, aren’t you guys always talking about taking personal responsibility? Bush should up and declare he’s taking responsibility and not run for re-election, if he was an honorable man. Ditto Blair.
Posted by aronst on January 27, 2004 12:19 AM
Aron,
Sorry for the Clinton tirade, it was once again off subject. I do agree with getting Bush out of office “tho some of my reasons may differ”, I jsut dont know who to vote for in his place. I certainly dont see an improvement on the Democratic side, so Im open to suggestions. I dont really want him to step down at the moment because that puts Cheney in charge, and thats not a step forward. That would only make Bush a scapegoat and leave the administration in place. The only answer is a vote, but I will only vote for someone that I think will truly stand for reduction of government, and thats not on the agenda of any democrat that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
As for equating the left with meddling, I know that you personally and a number of your colleagues are on the left but not meddlesome. Unfortunately, an enormous number of people who consider themselves part of the left are extremely meddlesome and in support of many things that would make America no better than before, simply less militaristic. I understand you not wanting to be associated with them by definition because there is a great deal that the “right” seems to follow that I despise. I dont like being associated with “the right” because of a lot of the foolishness on that side of the aisle, but I do recognise that I cant tell you not to say bad things about “the right” just because myself andothers are not nutjobs like a lot of the people on “the right” are. Labels are nasty little things and can be very damaging, unfortunately, we all use them and we all have to deal with the weirdos and fools in our respective groups.
As for Sadaam violating UN resolutions, he was in violation for kicking out inpectors, and he was in violation by possessing certain tools that had potential for WMD creation. Nor can you say with definity that Sadaam had no WMD’s. I dont know if he did or didnt, I just dont have that kind of omniscience, and neither do you. I do not try to claim that a “WMD program” is the same as actual WMD’s, but it is enough to put him in violation of several UN resolutions. The UN chose not to enforce any of those resolutions, which to me destroys their credibility. Either back up what you say, or just dont say it. If you dont have the guts to enforce your rule, dont make the rule.
Posted by limberwulf on January 27, 2004 11:41 AM
Limberwulf,
How do you imagine Bush could have reduced the budget in the middle of a war crisis?
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 27, 2004 12:09 PM
1. The UN withdrew the inspectors. Saddam did not kick them out. Check the facts yourself.
2. The US under Bush’s leadership, until about September, 2002 did not make a serious effort to restart the inspection program. The sanctions which were clearly harmful to the Iraqi people more than Saddam were the main pillar of US policy towards Iraq (and yes this included Clinton). Check the facts yourself.
3. Bush & Co immediately wanted to “market the war” (there words) after 9/2002, but reluctantly agreed to restart the inspections process under internal US and foreign pressures. Check the facts yourself.
4. In the extremely brief period the inspection process was going on after 9/2002, those involved claimed it was relatively effective but needed more time. Bush & Co claimed time was not available since Saddam was an imminent threat. Check the facts yourself.
5. In sum, an artificial environment of crisis was created by the United States in order to make going to war inevitable. The war was inexcusable and Bush & Co are responsible for pursuing a war of choice with grave risks and consequences for the US. The Democrats, with all their faults, oppose the idea of pre-emptive war and are for international co-operation.
6. If one approaches the issues rationally, it is clear that the danger to US (and world) citizens from health and environment threats are far more critical than the “terror” threats – more people are dying from these than from terror attacks, the potential destruction from these are far greater than from terror. Given we have limited budget, government priorities should be aligned to
a. deal with threats in rank of danger
b. deal with structural issues that are causing these threats.
Fortunately, some of the solutions will in fact have a positive impact on simultaneously reducing all these threats viz.
1. investment in public health infrastructure and
2. expanding oversight infrastructures
Bush & Co is cutting back on these, instead of investing in them. They also all require international co-operation to track dangers and lower risks, something Bush & Co has destroyed. All the Democrats have a better record on these critical solutions.
6. Bush can easily reduce the budget by getting rid of corporate welfare.
Posted by aronst on January 27, 2004 12:46 PM
Just for the record:
Saddam did NOT ‘kick out’ the inspectors: they withdrew for safety reasons:
http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html
(as this article makes clear the correct story was reported widely at the time).
I don’t know quite what you mean by ‘tools that had potential for WMD creation’. If you mean tools that could deliver them it is true that Saddam’s Al-Samoud weapons were in material breach of resolution 1441. When this was brought to Saddam’s attention (he claimed that the missiles flew further than the accepted limit because they were being flown without warheads or guidance systems and that once these were fitted they would NOT break res. 1441) he accepted they were in material breach and agreed to destroy the missiles (it was widely reported at the time that he had DENIED he was in breach of 1441 and that he would NOT destroy the missiles, but this is incorrect: http://slate.msn.com/id/2079458/)
And in fact Saddam did destroy the missiles:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0303iraqsays.htm
He was also on the point of providing proof (almost certainly correct as we know now) that he had destroyed his stocks of anthrax etc.
Have a Google search on Hans Blix and weapons inspections. You will say that Blix was harsh about ‘lack of co-operation’ by the Iraqis, and that he emphasised that there were ‘unanswered questions’. However, the UN did NOT agree that this counted as a ‘material breach’ of 1441, although Blix did mention that in his opinion Iraq had illegally imported material that COULD have been (but of course, we now know, wasnt) turned into chemical and biological weapons. But of course it wasn’t Blix’s job to decide what was and wasn’t a breach of 1441, only the UN could do that, and they decided it wasn’t.
The most basic point is the most obvious: Blix could not have declared Iraq in breach of anything, because to do that he would have had to complete his entire inspection: only after that could he state whether Iraq’s performance had been satisfactory or not. But of course he never got a chance to do that, because the war stopped him.
Posted by brendan on January 27, 2004 12:48 PM
Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. Oral sex may not be considered sex, but it is definately sexual in nature and would fall under the “sexual relations” category. Furthermore, the lie was told under oath. Now, I am not saying that I accept lies just because they are not told under oath. I am saying that perjury is an offence punishable by prison, and rightly so as our court system depends on honesty to operate properly. The impeachment was not about sex, it was about perjury, and the blatant disregard for legal proces by a president, supposedly the head of the country. The office of the president was far more disgraced by his actions than by any that Bush has taken. I dont agree with much of what Bush has done. I also agree that even if there were no lies, there are some serious misjudgements. Clinton did more attacks and sending troops to other places with no justification or international or even congressional support that Bush, he jsut didnt call it a war and he didnt really follow through and accomplish anything. Foreign policy has been awful for some time, and from both sides of the fence. Its all just BS politics. As for a standard of lying tho, there is a massive difference between the definate lies of Clinton (read the testimony, there is no technicality that will get him out of that one), and the possible lies of Bush that are likely not lies of him so much as people in his administration, and even they might just be stupid or misinformed. There is a big difference between probabilities backed up with some evidence that looks far more convincing in the absence of any opposing evidence, and an absolute case of perjury even for a lesser offence.
The jury is still out on Bush, but Clinton was by far the most damaging president we have ever had. At least as far as affecting the reputation of the US and the office of the president on a global and national scale. And if you want to get into possible lies that havent been proven, we can talk about misrepresentation of the national economy that lead to a much more forceful crash when the bubble finally popped. Enron and WorldCom werent the only organizations with fuzzy accounting practices.
Posted by limberwulf on January 26, 2004 06:05 PM
Limburwulf
I do agree with you in re: American meddling. Please don’t equate the “left” with meddling. Certainly what I call the left strongly opposses meddling.
When we meddle we make things worse, and that’s why I also oppose Friedman and the war-mongering macho so-called “liberals” who argue we need to bring democracy at gun point. Iran is a great example. We meddled and meddled and mucked things up. For many years now we’ve left them alone and it looks like they will bring themselves democracy without our help, thank you very much. Had we left them alone 40-50 years ago, they would have had democracy long ago.
I brought some suggestions elsewhere about how we can prevent arm sales to two bit dictators around the world through arm embargos and sanctions against corporations that sell arms overseas. I also believe we should help by contributing 10% of our defense budget (when we cut it by half when we stop meddling) to NGOs who bring humanitarian aid directly to people where it is needed. I strongly oppose aid to governments – we should cut off all foreign aid to governments which just go to line the pockets of corrupt leaders.
In short, there are many ways to help people around the world without meddling.
Posted by aronst on January 27, 2004 12:34 AM
I would love to see Bush replaced, but I dont know with whom. I would prefer to see a much different outlook towards the rest of the world, unfortunately, the leaders of both major parties are not the answer. The “left” might not be as quick to full on war, but they are every bit as meddlesome in world affairs, and they have contributed jsut as much to the big controlling power hungry as the “right”. America needs to be a lot more careful not to bully the rest of the world, but we do not need to be the saviors of the world. We are not the father figure, and we shouldnt act like it. The problem I see is the the whole “lives are at stake” argument, while true, can be misused. It is certainly a good reason to avoid war, but it has also been the reason to get into a lot of wars, and the reason to run all over the world squashing other cultures. I am not saying dont use the argument, I am saying that emotional reasoning is a poor way to make apoint, so use it carefully.
Posted by limberwulf on January 26, 2004 06:24 PM
Here’s a quote by David Kay, which I found interesting.
“I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground, as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion — although I must say I actually think Iraq, what we learned during the inspection, made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war.” – David Kay
Posted by Gazza on January 26, 2004 09:02 PM
Yeah…what Gazza said!
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 26, 2004 10:22 PM
http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1131992,00.html
Nick Theros (who claims to be the source of the ’45 minute’ claim) has now stated that the original source of that claim (Lieutenant Colonel al-Dabbagh) HAD NOT EVEN SEEN the alleged ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Moreover, context makes clear that the claims were merely bravado in the face of defeat: about as reliable as the wartime commentary of ‘Comical Ali’.
‘He (i.e. al-Dabbagh) said one of Saddam’s senior officials told a meeting of air defence commanders “probably sometime in the spring” that an arsenal of unspecified secret weapons would be used for battlefield defence against US invaders.
“They told us that [coalition troops] cannot pass across Iraq because we will use everything from the knife to nuclear weapons to defend ourselves.”
Self evidently (in context) this is the sort of thing that commanders tell their troops to convince them that all was not lost, even though it clearly was. The idea that it should have been presented as a serious intelligence scoop is a joke (as is shown by the reference to nuclear weapons, which hardly anyone believed Iraq had by that point).
Later the colonel’s unit had various crates delivered to him, which he was led to believe contained chemicals weapons (whatever that means), but he never saw them himself, and he does not imply that his men ever opened them (and think about that: if you REALLY BELIEVED they contained powerful weapons, would you not unpack them and start to train with them? Or even open one crate? Just to make sure it was the right delivery? As your country was being invaded?).
In short, the idea that there was serious evidence that Saddam had WMD (let alone that he could deploy them within 45 minutes) was, as Theros says (and i quote) ‘A crock of shit’.
Posted by Brendan on January 27, 2004 06:19 AM
Sorry on careful re-reading i have realised that my last post entirely overstated the Colonel’s case. I wrote that he was ‘led to believe’ that he took delivery of chemical weapons, but careful reading of the article does not confirm this. What it says is this:
‘The colonel says his unit later took delivery of an unspecified number of crates which appeared to contain short-range weapons, such as rocket-propelled grenades.
They were supposedly to be fired from civilian jeeps as a last-ditch defence by Saddam loyalists wearing gas masks.’
Now i have no idea what the phrase ‘appeared to contain’ means in this context, but it clearly falls far short of receiving boxes and being told that ‘these boxes contain chemical weapons’. In fact, the most obvious interpretation would be that he was NOT told that they contained chemical weapons, but that the Colonel guessed or inferred (on the basis of what evidence?) that they might.
This might be incorrect. But if it is, it means that Britain went to war on the basis of one Colonel (now in hiding) whose men saw saw boxes, which HE hadn’t seen, which he thought (for no real reason that the article mentions) might (or might not) contain weapons, which might (or might not)contains some form of WMD, which might (or might not) be deployable in 45 minutes, but presumably not by him, as he never even asked his men to look inside the boxes, or decided to mosey on down and have a look himself.
It should be stressed that in Britain, the 45 minute claim was a key reason (perhaps THE key reason) that we were given for going to war.
Posted by Brendan on January 27, 2004 06:27 AM
Yep, I think we should just all need to stick to the facts and international law.
The reasons for war were false, the war was and still is illegal.
The governments of Britain and US lied to their people.
Those are the facts, law provides ways of dealing with those facts. Instead of -excusez le mot- bitching about the past we should focus on:
* how to clean up the mess
* how to prevent this from happening again
Posted by Proficy on January 27, 2004 08:21 AM
The first step in getting rid of the mess is booting out of office those responsible for it.
Posted by aronst on January 27, 2004 09:52 AM
Hey Aron,
We already DID boot the one responsible out of office, but let’s leave Clinton out of this.
PsYche!!!!!!!!! 😉
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 27, 2004 11:19 AM
EVERYBODY KNOWS that “inspections” were a phony cat-and-mouse game.
WMD delivery systems include lone fanatics who don’t mind dyin’.
The U.S. should not only end corporate welfare, it should end corporate taxation. It should end taxation of individuals, too. It could also halve the budget by eliminating Medicare, Social Security, and Workman’s Compensation.
Let’s try leaving people alone to make their own choices. Oooops. That would be “heartless”.
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 27, 2004 01:01 PM
Oh, boy, Kessler is at it again. Sometimes I think he is just a jerk trying to get on other people´s nerves just by being plain obnoxious, but… that would be too “smart” …
Posted by Vox on January 27, 2004 01:30 PM
Vox! I am just mortified!
I understand that my fundamental views are opposite to the typical Leftist cant, but they are genuinely held.
My hope, by stating them, is to someday have a discussion on WHY these views are opposite to Leftist cant.
For example, are you saying that you DON’T believe that people have a right to keep the money they earn, without a bureaucrat, (or a bearcat, as my Microsoft Word spellcheck tried to instruct me) taking as big a chuck as he wants, to do with as he wishes?
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 27, 2004 01:42 PM
The state is not a bureaucrat. Well, you could say that it is a whole bunch of them:-)
Taxes are not decided as “they wish”, and in fact they are (or should be) approved by the representatives you elected, so you decided about how much of your money is going to be taken away. Don´t like it? Push your representatives to fight for your ideas, or chose somebody else. That´s a pretty democratic game.
You get what you give, directly or indirectly, in the end you benefit from taxes just like everybody else does or should.
But then, this is so obvious, that I am sure you´re being obnoxious again, just for the sake of it.
Posted by Vox on January 27, 2004 02:06 PM
Kessler,
Bush has passed increases in education spending, a new entitlement for drugs for seniors, increases in foreign aid money, space exploration money, etc. He could have not only not done those, but cut corporate and individual welfare, get rid of things like the farm bill, and all of the other ridiculous nanny government crap. This would have allowed a significant reduction in the budget in spite of increased military spending, and would have allowed greater tax cuts on individual, corporations, and imports. And of course, if we were not in places all over the world with our troops, we would not have even had to increase military spending to afford war in Iraq. That is assuming we needed to go to Iraq, as I have said before, the jury is still out on that one for me.
Posted by limberwulf on January 27, 2004 02:14 PM
Limberwulf – Agreed.
Vox – Are you saying that since we get the taxes back in services we shouldn’t mind them being taken in the first place?????????? Say it ain’t so, Joe!
Anyway, I thought you might enjoy one of those wacky, obnoxious articles from a Right Wing Wacko.
****************************************
Second Thoughts About the Iraq War
By Michael P. Tremoglie
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 27, 2004
The latest revelation from David Kay about the weapons of mass destruction seems to confirm the belief, by some, that invading Iraq was not necessary.
I was one of those opposed to invading Iraq. I did not think the benefit was worth the cost. I changed my mind, though, and will subsequently explain why. Before I do it is vitally important that the most important question about Iraq is answered. The question is: Was this trip necessary?
This is the $64 question about Iraq. The question that needs to be answered for those in uniform in Iraq, for those who have returned, those who are crippled, and those who have not returned. It needs to be answered especially for the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Was this trip necessary?
In order to answer this one must review the facts.
No one really wanted to go to war except Hussein and the Ba’athists. They indicated that they did not intend to cooperate with the world community. They routinely demonstrated that they had no problem engaging in wholesale slaughter. They indicated that they wanted to participate in worldwide terrorism campaigns and that they wanted to establish a pan-Arab world.
All of these concepts have been verified repeatedly by the discoveries made as a result of our military action. Mass graves have been discovered that contained about 300,000 people. The actual total of innocents killed by Saddam and the Ba’athists could be in the millions — people who were slaughtered for no reason other than that they did not like Saddam or did not want to be part of a Ba’athist Iraq.
We have captured terrorists – wanted by the international community for decades – who were being harbored by Saddam.
We have captured terrorist training facilities in Iraq.
We have learned that Saddam and his Baathists were communicating and sharing resources with al-Qaeda.
We have learned that Saddam and the Ba’athists were bribing at least one member of the British government to protest any sanctions or war, and financing Muslim terrorists in Israel – all while his own people starved.
We have gained access to the intelligence files of the Ba’athist intelligence unit and now know more about terrorist operations worldwide than we ever knew.
So yes, Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athists were a concern for the world. Like Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, it was an ideology of genocide and slavery, one that would cause destruction and chaos worldwide. Ba’athism was a philosophy of racism and hatred, joined in a common cause with Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda for a common purpose if not a common policy.
We learned in the 20th Century that whenever a superior nation seeks to return to its halcyon days of empire, that whenever a superior race or a superior ideology wants to impose their beliefs we must eliminate them.
The Hamas covenant, Osama bin Laden’s November 2002 letter to the people of the United States, and Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist ideology all reveal an intent to a establish a pan-Arab world. The Ba’athists dreamed of a revival of the days of Saladin’s empire, much the way Mussolini dreamed of a new Roman Empire, or Hitler a new German Empire, or Tojo an Empire of the Sun.
The Germans with whom the Arabs were allied in World War II, and the Communists with whom they were occasionally allied during the Cold War influenced the Ba’athists. Their leaders and founders studied in Europe and learned about totalitarian infrastructures and procedures.
So yes, this trip was necessary. As much as I did not think it was initially, I do so now.
In the coming weeks and months many – for purely politically partisan reasons – will say to the Iraq war veterans that they were fooled and duped to participate in this war. They will say that Bush lied. They will say America is to blame. They will say that we taught the Arabs to hate us. They will say that we exploited them. They will say we are the evildoers.
Our veterans should not believe them. The veterans were not fools. They were intelligent and courageous. Our veterans know that this war against Iraq was a necessary part of the war against terrorism despite what a Carnegie fellow wrote. They know that this fire that was Ba’athism needed to be extinguished before it became a conflagration – an inferno that consumed the world the way Nazism, Japanese imperialism and Communism did.
The worth of the war in Iraq will be difficult to gauge. Like preventive law enforcement one cannot ascertain the benefit because the cost of will never be known. It will only be a matter of postulation. No one will ever know for certain what would have happened had we not sacrificed those lives.
Although it is not certain it is probably safe to say that those 500 probably saved the lives of 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000.
We must remember that and not mention their sacrifice glibly or academically. We must remember their sacrifice with reverence.
****************************************
So, would you say these views are just obviously stupid and obnoxious?
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 27, 2004 02:23 PM
er….robert i’m afraid i would argue that they ARE stupid and obnoxious.
As Christopher Hitchens used to say before he went mad: Where to begin?
With the proviso that i can’t possibly refute all the charges here, given that most of them are too vacuous too deserve it, but….
‘We have learned that Saddam and his Baathists were communicating and SHARING RESOURCES with al-Qaeda'(capitals added). Oh yeah? What resources? When? Were they materiel (weapons materials)? Or what?
‘We have learned that Saddam and the Ba’athists were bribing at least one member of the British government to protest any sanctions or war, ‘
Presumably a reference to Gorgeous George Galloway, my old MP. (i suppose this makes me responsible).
Ok: George Galloway was NEVER a member of the government (i.e. the front bench). He was never a Minister. And it has not been proven that Galloway was bribed, (and i would add that to say that he was would be to tempt the wrath of the notoriously litigious Galloway.)My understanding is that Galloway is currently suing the Telegraph over these allegations. Until this comes to trial (summer of this year, apparently) the best one can say is that the matter is unproven (and that Galloway has a habit of winning his libel trials).
‘No one really wanted to go to war except Hussein and the Ba’athists.’. Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Saddam was desperate to avoid war (to the extent of beginning to destroy his armoury) because he though (correctly) that it would mean the destruction of hiw regime. Bush etc. were in favour of war for exactly the same reason.
‘The Hamas covenant, Osama bin Laden’s November 2002 letter to the people of the United States, and Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist ideology all reveal an intent to a establish a pan-Arab world. The Ba’athists dreamed of a revival of the days of Saladin’s empire, much the way Mussolini dreamed of a new Roman Empire, or Hitler a new German Empire, or Tojo an Empire of the Sun.’
This is false (or at least, has no evidence to support it). NO Moslem/Arab leader wishes a ‘pan-arab’ world. What some wish for is a united ARAB world, which is not the same thing at all. The implication of this statement is that Osama Bin Laden looks forward to a Moslem United States or Britain, nations that he has no interest in (except insofar as they threaten his interests). Bin Laden’s main goal (as he has stated over and over and over again) are to kick the ‘infidels’ out of Saudi Arabia, and any other states where they inhabit ‘holy sites’. Hamas et al wish to get rid of Isreal (although in practice they would proabably settle for the ‘two state’ solution) and set up a Moslem Palestine, but that’s the limit of their political ambitions. Incidentally, there is no evidence that Saddam wished for any of this (although perhaps he would pretend he did for reasons of political expediency). As he well knew, he (along with the house of Saud, Colonel Gadaffi and others) was on Osama’s wish list.
These matters are discussed in the excellent ‘Modern Jihad’, by Loretta Napoleoni.
‘Although it is not certain it is probably safe to say that those 500 probably saved the lives of 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000’. No, it is NOT certain, and it IS definitely safe to say that 500 Americans are now dead who would otherwise be alive, had the war not happened.
If you must insist on quoting from Front Page Magazine, why not click on the Liberal Hawks reconsider the war on the homepage, where we read other views on how the war looks now. Here, for example is Fred Kaplan:
‘From: Fred Kaplan
To: Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, George Packer, Kenneth M. Pollack, Jacob Weisberg, and Fareed Zakaria
Subject: A Hawk No More
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004, at 11:18 AM PT
I seem to be the only one in the club who’s changed his mind. In fact, a case could be made I shouldn’t be here at all because I changed my mind before the war began. My membership in the “I can’t believe I’m a hawk” club dated from Feb. 5, 2003, with Colin Powell’s (now utterly discredited) pitch to the U.N. Security Council and expired a month later when I realized that, whatever the merits for war (and I’m still ambivalent on that question), the Bush administration was incapable of pulling it off. Here is what I wrote on March 5:
If the administration lacks the acumen or persuasive power to deal with such familiar institutions as the U.N. Security Council or the established governments of France, Germany, Turkey, Russia, China—even Canada—then how is it going to handle Iraq’s feuding opposition groups, Kurdish separatists, and myriad ethno-religious factions, to say nothing of the turbulence throughout the region?
My case for multilateralism was, and still is, strictly pragmatic: The United States does not have the budgetary resources, the military manpower, the international legitimacy (especially in the region), or, I suspect, ultimately the political wherewithal to go this all the way to the finish line alone. (And, please, don’t talk to me about the crack Polish division.)
Saddam Hussein was clearly a nasty, evil dictator. So were Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. So, today, is Kim Jong-il. Does that mean we should have declared war on the U.S.S.R., China, and Cambodia? Does it mean we should declare war on North Korea now? I ask those who support the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds: Why not? Tom Friedman makes an admirably honest point: We went to war with Iraq because we could. But to extend this argument further, I want to ask Tom: Because we could what? Yes, we could invade the country, topple the regime, and occupy the capital. But winning wars is about accomplishing strategic objectives. If the strategic objective was to oust Saddam Hussein, we won, and maybe we should go home. Regardless of my views on the war, I do not believe we should go home (having wrecked the nation’s structure, we are obligated to ensure a new one is put in place); I assume no one else on this panel thinks we should either. So the strategic objective was something else, and the panel has cited several goals: democratization, regional stability, human rights, and so forth. If these were the strategic objectives, if this is what the war was about, then we haven’t yet won, and, in Tom’s terms, it is not yet clear that we could achieve them. I hope I’m wrong on this, by the way.
I am surprised how blithely many of you have waved off the growing—and by now all but incontrovertible—evidence that Saddam Hussein hasn’t had weapons of mass destruction for many years and wasn’t anywhere near the verge of building new ones. To you, WMD were never the real reason for war anyway. But to Congress and probably to the vast majority of the American people, they were the only reason (well, along with Iraq’s direct and explicit links to al-Qaida, another dubious proposition). Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld certainly knew this, which is why they were so hellbent on twisting intelligence to make the case. Even Wolfowitz said, in his famous Vanity Fair profile, that Saddam’s human-rights violations would not by themselves justify the sacrifice of American lives.
At the risk of sounding like a goo-goo, I invite someone to take up the question of going to war in a democracy. How frankly should an elected leader feel obligated to outline the true reasons for war? If the reasons fail to persuade, should he go to war anyway if he feels the cause is right?
If we are talking about creating something like a new world order, where tyrants and terrorists will not be tolerated, how important is it to persuade, cajole, and manipulate other countries to go along with us? If we cannot find very many others to join us—let alone, as was the case with Bush, if the president makes it clear he doesn’t care whether others join us—should we continue with this campaign anyway?
I guess my wording of the question hints at where I stand on the issue. Where do you stand? If we’re talking about the spread of democracy—or at least of a cooperative international community—is waging a preventive war, unilaterally, the best way to get the ball rolling?
Tom notes that NATO did not need the United Nations to go to war against Slobodan Milosevic on behalf of Kosovo. True, but the United States did need NATO. Clinton realized he needed to do this with some established international organization, and given that the Serbs were wilding in the heart of Europe, NATO was ideally suited. That war, as many neocons subsequently complained, was waged rather sloppily; a committee is not the most efficient vehicle for picking targets in a bombing campaign. Yet as Wesley Clark argues in his account of that war, it was the best—really, the only—way of conducting the war from the vantage point of achieving its strategic objectives. One of those strategic objectives was to demonstrate that the international community will not tolerate tyrannical enslavement in Europe. And today, U.N. peacekeepers are still in the country. The war would have been seen in a very different light—and it could have gone in a different direction—if it had been waged entirely by the United States Air Force and if American soldiers and Marines were still occupying the land.
There are other issues, but let me hurl these into the fray as a starter.’
Stupid and obnoxious? I dont think so…..
Posted by Brendan on January 27, 2004 03:23 PM
Breeeeendaaaaaaannnnnnn……
You’re being silly, again. Saddam was killing thousands of people a month. What do you MEAN to say there’s no way to know if lives were saved?????
I don’t think you’re being very intellectually consistent.
Neener neener.
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 27, 2004 06:46 PM
Robert Kessler: How many people did Hussein kill in 2002? Or 2001? Please cite a reliable source to back up your assertion he was killing “thousands per month”. How many thousands is it?
Put your money where your mouth is or stop foaming from it, please.
Posted by Bob Polwarth on January 27, 2004 10:08 PM
Robert:
to tbe best of my knowledge (according to Amnesty International) Saddam was killing a few hundred people every YEAR (not month) in the year or so before the war. This was appalling, a disgrace, mass murder and anything else you want to call it. And it’s true that in certain other specific situations he killed many more (as in the revolt which we betrayed in ’91, the attacks on the Kurds and so forth). Possibly he killed up to a million (perhaps slightly more) in total (therefore the references to ‘millions’ of victims are wrong, unless one counts deaths inflicted by Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and other sophistries).
However, this should be balanced against the 500,000 (estimated)killed by sanctions and the minimum of 8059 civilian deaths (there would, of course, be many more military deaths) killed during the war,not to mention the 20,000 injured (some of whom, presumably, will die).
To go any further stretches the use of the word ’cause’. However, Iraq Body Count estimate that 1,519 civilians have died since the war adjusted statistically to take account of the death rate before the war: therefore ‘IBC’s latest study is the first comprehensive count to adjust for the comparable “background level” of deaths in Baghdad in recent pre-war times. It is therefore an estimate of additional deaths in the city directly attributable to the breakdown of law and order following the US takeover and occupation of Baghdad.’ Can the coalition take the blame for these deaths? Not directly obviously: it wasn’t the coalition forces who killed these people. On the other hand, it was coalition forces that set in motion the chain of events that led to the current breakdown in law and order in Baghdad. So they must bear some responsibility.
It seems at least possible, and, i would argue, likely that the monthly rate of ‘unnecessary deaths’ in Baghdad has actually gone UP since the war.
To say that the Americans saved the lives of ‘perhaps’ 500,000 is to assume that Saddam would stay in power almost indefinitely, which is precisely what i am disputing. Saddam’s regime was weak and weakening further (as was shown by its disastrous performance during the war). I do not accept that he would have stayed in power for another 20 years or more.
Posted by Brendan on January 28, 2004 05:31 AM
oh and Robert i’ve been reading your Front Page Magazine. Very interesting, as long as you don’t read anything by David Horowitz, which i would guess would lower your IQ by about twenty points. It has a link to the Slate interview about the liberal hawks. Quote
‘Because we are fighting Muslim totalitarianism, Paul says, and because Saddam was a totalitarian who was also a Muslim, the war in Iraq was the first, or second, step to take in the fight. But why does that necessarily follow? Baathism was not a RISING totalitarian mania. It was a DECAYING totalitarian ideology that had long since lost its ability to inspire millions across borders to engage in mass acts of murder and suicide (to use Paul’s terms). According to Kanan Makiya, the original expert on Baathism (see Republic of Fear), Iraq after the Gulf War lost its totalitarian nerve and became a criminal state: This explains the condition of its bureaucracy and, to an extent, the mind-set of its people after liberation. Conflating Saddam’s regime with the worldwide Islamist movement leads to serious intellectual confusion and makes it harder to keep the latter in our sights. It also, in the short run, has unquestionably made it harder to fight the latter—the U.S. military had to pull special forces troops out of eastern Afghanistan to be used in counterinsurgency in Iraq. I wasn’t surprised to read yesterday that Saddam warned Iraqi insurgents against cooperating with Islamists coming across the borders to fight jihad.’
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11931
Posted by Brendan on January 28, 2004 05:52 AM
Finally (and after this i will shut up i promise) but because i just know that the claims of hundreds of deaths a year will be challenged: heres the evidence.
‘We asked Amnesty International for broadbrush statistics on Saddam’s crimes
and were sent a report: ‘Human rights record in Iraq since 1979’
(K:\Press\Countries\Middle East and North Africa\Iraq\Iraq crisis
2002-3\Iraq’s human rights record\Human rights in Iraq since 1979.doc).
The crimes are indeed hideous, peaking on several occasions: thousands were
killed in Halabja in 1988, with thousands more killed in the crushing of
the Kurdish uprising in the north and Shi’a Arabs in the South following
the Gulf War in 1991. Amnesty writes of several hundred people, many
civilians, killed and injured in southern marshes in 1993.
As for the last ten years, Amnesty reports of 1994: “scope of death penalty
widened significantly” with “reports of numerous people executed”. In 1995:
“hundreds of people executed”. In 1996: “Hundreds of people executed during
the year, including 100 opposition members”. In 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000
the same words are used: “Hundreds of executions reported”. In 2001:
“scores of people executed”. In October 2002: “some improvement” with
“release of thousands of prisoners, abolition of certain decrees
prescribing the death penalty. Jan 2003, repeal of Special Codes on
branding and amputation – no longer permitted.” These were, we can guess,
cynical acts of desperation by Saddam Hussein facing imminent attack.
Amnesty “continues to receive reports of human rights violations, including
arbitrary arrests and the continuing policy of expulsion of Kurds from
Kirkuk to Iraqi Kurdistan”. Amnesty has also collected information on
around 17,000 cases of “disappearances” over the last 20 years, the real
figure may be much higher.
These crimes are hideous enough, of course – Saddam WAS murderous Third
World dictator – but notice that the numbers of killed are reported in the
hundreds every year, not thousands, not hundreds of thousands, and not
millions.
(Since 1994, therefore, Saddam was killing hundreds of people a year, and torturing many more (presumably)).
Posted by brendan on January 28, 2004 06:43 AM
Mah Main Man Brendon,
Anyone who still blames America for the starvation deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children “due to sanctions” is in a hopelessly confused state of mind.
The U.S. sanctions specifically allowed food and medicine into Iraq. Why do you refuse to hold the Iraqi dictator responsible for the deaths of his people?
I’m glad you took a look at FrontPgaeMagazine.com. Ther’s some great writing there.
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 28, 2004 11:46 AM
Until then, Casino will ignore every single other reason for persuing our foreign policy.
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 28, 2004 12:57 PM
Robert
you might want to mention the fact about the ‘confused state of mind’ to Britain’s Nick Cohen, who argues that because sanctions were killing people THEREFORE the war was justified:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,997339,00.html
read the whole article. It’s a bit embarassing, i would have thought, when people on your side, who were in FAVOUR of the war, argue (no, proclaim) that sanctions (plus the US/UK bombing which continued throughout much of the ’90s) DID actually kill 500,000. Surely you are not accusing a pro-war compatriot of having a confused mind?
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/reiff.html
The article above is worth reading. It shows that not only was there universal hatred of sanctions in the ’90s in Iraq, but that the system of ration books which it led to led to Saddam STRENGTHENING his power as well as installing a sort of insitutionalised corruption that led to the Ba’ath party becoming richer and richer…note: this was not despite sanctions, or a process that had been going on before. This was BECAUSE of sanctions.
Please note, that as Nick Cohen argues, you could hate the sanctions but love the war. But you can’t have it both ways.
Posted by brendan on January 28, 2004 01:21 PM
Brendan,
I’m not concerned with one person’s opinion. The fact is, that the 1/2 million infant deaths number comes from a UNICEF projection based on infant mortality rates. Since these rates stayed low in US and BAF protected Kurdish areas, considering that Saddam’s palaces were FULL of food, Saddam’s starvation of his people is undeniable.
Look, the Left blames the U.S. for everything. The Left blames the West for every dictator in the world. The Left blames America when they intervene, and when they DON’T intervene.
Just for the record, those who supported the war don’t LIKE war, but they recognize the need to sometimes fight the bad guys. Now, I know that modern Leftist ideology doesn’t accept the notion of bad guys, but when someone’s dropping your son into a plastic shredder, you might appreciate the fact that George Bush is willing to go after the guy.
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 28, 2004 01:56 PM
Just for the record.
I am not an expert in Iraqi agriculture and geography, and neither, i suspect, are you. However, UNICEF did NOT think that the difference in starvation rates between Kurdish and non-Kurdish starvation rates were due to the relative impact of Saddam’s regime (and, therefore, the ‘safe havens’).
They point out:
‘The reality is revealed by considering the issue of child mortality. While it is true that child mortality rates were lower in the autonomous north than in south/central regions controlled by Saddam Hussein, UNICEF noted that, “the difference [in child mortality rates] cannot be attributed to the differing ways the Oil for Food Programme is implemented in the two parts of Iraq”.
The same point was reiterated by UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Tun Myat, who noted on several occasions that the “improvement in nutrition in the north was not due to differences in distribution, or the fact that the United Nations was responsible for implementation of the programme in the north”. (UN Press Briefing, November 19, 2000)
Important differences between the north and the south/centre described by the UN included:
· “that the sanctions have not been so rigorously enforced in the north as the border is more ‘porous’ than in the [south/centre]”. (UNICEF, August 1999)
· that the north, with roughly 15% of Iraq’s population, has 50% of Iraq’s productive arable land. (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, September 2000)
· that the north “received 22% more per capita [than the south/centre] and gets 10% of all UN-controlled assistance in currency” while the rest of the country received only commodities. (UNICEF, August 1999)
· “the fact that the north has received far more support per capita from the international community than the south and centre of the country”. (UNICEF, August 1999)
You write, “The same sanctions applied in Northern Iraq as in Saddam’s tyranny.” But Professor Richard Garfield, a leading epidemiologist at Columbia University, pointed out in the New York Times on September 13, 1999, that the embargo in the North is “not the same embargo”:
“The North enjoys porous borders with Turkey, Syria, and Iran, and thus is effectively less embargoed than the rest of the country. It benefits from the aid of 34 Non-Government Organizations, while in the whole rest of the country there are only 11…
“Food, medicine, and water pumps are now helping reduce mortality throughout Iraq, but the pumps do less for sanitation where authorities cannot buy sand, hire day laborers, or find many other minor inputs to make filtration plants work. Goods have been approved by the UN and distributed to the North far faster than in the Center or South. The UN Security Council treats people in that part of the country like innocents. Close to 20 million civilians in the Center and South of the country deserve the same treatment.”
Finally, Gabriel Carlyle of Voices In The Wilderness UK, told us, “it is interesting to note that child mortality rates in south/central Iraq were also lower in some of those areas close to the border with the autonomous governorates, where similar conditions prevail and where people have been able to fall back on traditional patterns of life”. (Email to Media Lens, January 16, 2003)
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/031203_Johann_Hari_1.HTM
This last point is the killer (forgive the pun): if mortality rates were lower in non-autonomous regions, then surely the autonomy aspect can’t be the deciding factor?
As for the rest: like almost every human being who has ever lived, i respect the right to defend yourself, and agree that war is sometimes necessary if you are being attacked. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour: the US retaliated. I have no problem with that. I would even go further and argue that countries with whom one has mutual defence pacts can and should go to war to defend their own territorial integrity: for example Poland and Great Britain. It has been more or less written out of the history books, but Britain didn’t go to war with Germany for the hell of it in WW2: an agreement of mutual assistance was signed in 1939 (August). Britain HAD to go to war: she was treaty bound.
Incidentally, this was well realised at the time. At the start of WW2, Germany realised the horror and revulsion that would sweep the world if people thought she was invading Poland for no reason, or because she didn’t like her government, or something like that. Hitler was aware that in the eyes of the world ONLY a war in self defence was justified. So;
‘So that Germany did not officially seem the aggressor (which it was), Hitler needed an excuse for entering/attacking Poland. It was Heinrich Himmler who came up with the idea; thus the plan was code named Operation Himmler.
On the night of August 31, 1939, Nazis took an unknown prisoner from one of their concentration camps, dressed him in a Polish uniform, took him to the town of Gleiwitz (on the border of Poland and Germany), and then shot him. The staged scene with the dead prisoner dressed in a Polish uniform was supposed to appear as a Polish attack against a German radio station.’
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa090399.htm
So that’s it: self defence against an agressor, an agressor against you or nations with whom you sign an agreement of mutual self defence. That’s it. That’s what i term the only moral, justified wars. Sorry, but you have to be hard line about this: start justifying wars on other grounds…well…that’s the sort of situation for which the phrase ‘slippery slope’ was invented.
Posted by brendan on January 28, 2004 03:32 PM
Brendan,
just a thought, from that legalistic viewpoint, doesnt the US have treaty contracts with Israel? And would support of Palestine by Iraq constitute cause for a defensive war?
I know Aron will rip this question to shreds, because it was basically posted in relative ignorance, but I look forward to the answers from the both of you. I jsut feel like being devil’s advocate today.
Posted by limberwulf on January 28, 2004 04:22 PM
Limberwulf
I’m not dodging the question (well actually i am) but i stay away from the Israel-Palestine thing on this blog because Aron knows so much more about it than i do.
So far as i know the answer would be ‘no’ and ‘no’: the key point in the second point being ‘who started it?’. My understanding is that Palestinian radicals (who are not, so far as i know the majority) would argue that 1948 constituted a de facto invasion, so they are the defending power and Isreal the agressors, but i REALLY don’t know enough about it, and i am going to shut up about it now!
Posted by Brendan on January 28, 2004 05:00 PM
Brendan,
What’s interesting about the issue you’ve reluctantly raised, is that most countries in the world have arbitrary and shifting borders. So, by what logic would we accept Mexicans blowing up school busses in Albuquerque on the claim that we’re occupying their land?
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 28, 2004 06:03 PM
Robert
as i say i’m not going to comment any more about the Isreali-Palestinan situation because
a: i don’t know that much about it and
b: Aron does, and
c: this isn’t an ‘isreal-palestine’ blog.
Besides if you read the post, i was careful not to say whether i agreed with the radical position, i merely said that that was my understanding of how the argument would go. But i could be wrong.
Posted by Brendan on January 28, 2004 06:17 PM
Limberwulf
I spend enough time on that issue on my blog, and that’s not the point of this blog. But I will try to respond.
Iraq paying money to the family of Palestinian militants is not an act of war by any conventional definition, so it would be a pretty flimsy argument. But that is really besides the point. I am not an expert on what Israel and the US agreements specifically entail. But war is more a political issue than a legal one (I found the whole argument about the “Legality” of US actions in Iraq quite besides the point).
If America went to war on behalf of Israel, then things would go from bad to worse in the Middle East. In any case, by your logic, the US should have attacked the Palestinian Authority not Iraq. Actually, I proposed something similar before the war:
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/Iraq_Upside_Down.html
Of course I wasn’t advocating the US go to war with the PA. But I still believe, even now, the best short-term solution for the Palestine/Israel conflict is that the West Bank and Gaza be taken away from Israel and handed over to the UN as a protectorate. The UN forces should be responsible for removing all the settlements and helping the Palestinians establish their own government. Over time Israel and Palestine should be federated.
You may ask how this squares with my anti-meddling position. I do not advocate this solution unless both parties agree. The Palestinian actually support this, but the Israelis object. However, I believe in the interest of not meddling, all economic aid to the Israeli government, which actually helps fund the most extremist of Israel’s action, also be immediately cut off. Economic aid to governments is a very bad form of meddling.
Similarly there should be no economic aid to the PA (although I have no problem with direct humanitarian aid by NGOs to both Israelis and Palestinians). Both the PA and Israeli government are led by corrupt leaders, and this aid just helps fuel their corruption.
I have no doubt that if Israelis had to fund the settlement project out of their own money, and not via US tax dollars, they very quickly would accept the solution I outlined above.
Posted by aronst on January 28, 2004 07:07 PM
It is funny how the liberals and the entire world seem to think of Bush as a warmonger and yet Clinton as some peace-loving sex crazed president. Clinton bombed Serbia without going to the UN. To this day the UN is not sure weather civlian casualities in Kosovo were caused by Serbs or NATO planes. It is a known fact that the Mujahadeen were operating in Kosovo and Albania and yet the Clinton administration gave millions of dollars in aid to these people. Wesly Clark ordered a British general to bomb the Pristina airport which was full of russians. The General responded by saying “I am not going to start world war three for you”. Once the most economically advanced region of Eastern Europe Serbia and Bosnia today are the two poorest contries in Europe. 70% of Serbia’s population is unemployed while 40% of Bosnia’s population is unemployed. The Clinton sure did a fine job. To this day Clinton backed KLA terrorists are killing Macedonians in thier own country. I should now I am relatives who were killed by them a few years ago. And dispite all of this the New York times and CNN mention nothing
Posted by Valdek on January 29, 2004 12:10 AM
Thanks Aron,
I was feeling antagonistic yesterday and you took it in stride with your typical rational style. I salute you. Good answer too, btw.
Posted by limberwulf on January 29, 2004 10:04 AM
Thank you, Valdek.
Posted by Robert Kessler on January 30, 2004 12:18 PM
Brendan
Your comments regarding the Front Page Magazine article my Michael P. Tremoglie prove beyond a shadow fo doubt that liberals truly are the self-righteous led by the self-important for the benefit of the self-interested-which is a quote by Tremoglie.
First let us begin with the sharing of resources with Al-Qaeda. You say this did not happen yet
A-U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ordered that the damages be paid by bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban Saddam and the former Iraqi government.In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims “have shown, albeit barely … that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and Al Qaeda” and collaborated in or supported Al Qaeda’s Sept. 11 attacks
B-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al Qaeda leader specializing in biological and chemical weapons, was captured in Baghdad shortly after the war. Al-Zarqawi, who also has ties to an al Qaeda splinter group, Ansar al-Islam, which operated in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, fled to Baghdad and received medical treatment after he was wounded fighting in Afghanistan
C-Jonanthan Scnahzer Washington Near East institute said, “Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate active in Iraqi Kurdistan since September 2001, is a prototype of America’s enemies in the “war on terror.”
D-London Telegraph has reported the monumentally important discovery of top-secret documents in the bombed-out Baghdad headquarters of Iraq’s intelligence service, documents that provide “evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein’s regime.” The newly unearthed papers show that in March 1998, “an al Qaeda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad . . . to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia.” According to the Telegraph report, “[t]he meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.” Notably, this envoy’s visit took place less than five months before bin Laden’s group bombed two US embassies in Africa.
E-Gilbert S. Merritt, a federal appeals court judge invited to help Iraqis construct a legal system in postwar Iraq. He is, according to Reynolds, “a lifelong Democrat and a man of
unimpeachable integrity.”
Here is an excerpt of his account:
The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ”responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.”
The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. The story of how the document came about is as follows.
F– The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.
Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
Exclusive. THE world’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West …
G- U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.
… (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is “strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism.” ….
There are more.
Then you state Tremoglie’s reference to Galloway is not right because Galloway is not a mamber of teh government?
From the Encyclopedia Britannica The main elements of the *government* are the *legislature*, the executive, and the judiciary. There is some overlap between the branches, as there is no formal separation ofpowers or system of checks and balances. For example, the lord chancellor simultaneously is a member of all three branches, serving as a member of the cabinet (executive branch), as the government’s leader in the House of Lords (legislative branch), and as the head of thecountry’s judiciary (judicial branch). Sovereignty resides in Parliament, which comprises the monarch, the mainly appointive House of Lords, and the elected House of Commons. The sovereignty of Parliament is expressed in its legislative enactments
I won;t even bother to refute the rest of your stupid comments. You have already proven what a dope you are
ABC News, Knight -Ridder News
Posted by Joe Doaks on February 19, 2004 12:06 AM