Full Version: American "Failure" in Iraq?
As usual, I am loath to discuss the Iraqi campaign as a "War on Terror" topic, but I guess we all have to live with how the hostilities have been framed. 
Anyway, I thought reactions to the following item might be an interesting way of taking the current forum temperature on "the war in Iraq".
Yesterday, in the National Review Online, William F. Buckley wrote:
Buckley describes "our mission" as being based on two postulates: 1) the Iraqi people suspending internal divisions "in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom" and 2) "training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence".
He concludes that "different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."
I would agree that the Iraqi campaign has been a failure (and would suggest that neither of Buckley's postulates have happened) - though, as I see "our mission" in Iraq as something quite different from Buckley's, I believe we have failed for somewhat different reasons.
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
Anyway, I thought reactions to the following item might be an interesting way of taking the current forum temperature on "the war in Iraq".Yesterday, in the National Review Online, William F. Buckley wrote:
QUOTE
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ... Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans.
Buckley describes "our mission" as being based on two postulates: 1) the Iraqi people suspending internal divisions "in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom" and 2) "training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence".
QUOTE
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. ... Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.
He concludes that "different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."
I would agree that the Iraqi campaign has been a failure (and would suggest that neither of Buckley's postulates have happened) - though, as I see "our mission" in Iraq as something quite different from Buckley's, I believe we have failed for somewhat different reasons.
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
Wow, what is/was/will be the mission? That's a good question.
IMHO, it's like having a Harvard Philosophy professor look into just how profound the song "Hollaback Girl" is.
There was no real mission, there was no real discussion. It's like the Port thing, it's just a decision, not a thought out process with a conclusion and a defense for it's being.
The mission has changed from WMDs, to "there's no more Saddam", to "let's bring democracy to Iraq", etc. etc.
There was no mission. It was a mindless, giant blunder. Giant with a capital G.
How many pundits said it would end in civil war? How many said you could not tame the Iraqis?
Seriously, this occupation is not a mission, it's a cluster mess. It's bumbling politicians vying to get oil and money for their contributors.
So no, the mission has not failed. There are no markers, there never was a mission, IMHO. It's a sad, sad, sad, state of affairs. It was a colossal mistake that Americans sat idly by and let happen.
IMHO, it's like having a Harvard Philosophy professor look into just how profound the song "Hollaback Girl" is.
There was no real mission, there was no real discussion. It's like the Port thing, it's just a decision, not a thought out process with a conclusion and a defense for it's being.
The mission has changed from WMDs, to "there's no more Saddam", to "let's bring democracy to Iraq", etc. etc.
There was no mission. It was a mindless, giant blunder. Giant with a capital G.
How many pundits said it would end in civil war? How many said you could not tame the Iraqis?
Seriously, this occupation is not a mission, it's a cluster mess. It's bumbling politicians vying to get oil and money for their contributors.
So no, the mission has not failed. There are no markers, there never was a mission, IMHO. It's a sad, sad, sad, state of affairs. It was a colossal mistake that Americans sat idly by and let happen.
This is a profound essay from William F. Buckley. (It is, perhaps, a sign of how deeply he feels about this issue that it avoids his usual erudite language and esoteric allusions, and is expressed in simple and direct words.) Thank you for providing the link.
Buckley's definition of the mission in Iraq is a reasonable one, although many others might be offered. (It is a symptom of the current difficulty of the United States in the region that there is so much debate over the reason why American forces are there in the first place.)
Were we there to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Mission accomplished. But was it worth the cost?
Are we there to decrease the possibility of terrorist attacks on the United States? Debateable, at best, with no good evidence that it has had such an effect.
Are we there to bring representative government and stability to the region? The jury is still out, but things don't look good.
It is possible to suggest that the War in Iraq was started to satisfy the lust for empire of the neo-conservatives, or for even more selfish reasons, and that the 9/11 attacks just provided a convenient excuse. I have not yet reached this level of cynicism.
As far as voting on the poll goes, I have to say "too early to tell," because a spark of hope still burns in my heart -- but it is rapidly sputtering out.
Buckley's definition of the mission in Iraq is a reasonable one, although many others might be offered. (It is a symptom of the current difficulty of the United States in the region that there is so much debate over the reason why American forces are there in the first place.)
Were we there to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Mission accomplished. But was it worth the cost?
Are we there to decrease the possibility of terrorist attacks on the United States? Debateable, at best, with no good evidence that it has had such an effect.
Are we there to bring representative government and stability to the region? The jury is still out, but things don't look good.
It is possible to suggest that the War in Iraq was started to satisfy the lust for empire of the neo-conservatives, or for even more selfish reasons, and that the 9/11 attacks just provided a convenient excuse. I have not yet reached this level of cynicism.
As far as voting on the poll goes, I have to say "too early to tell," because a spark of hope still burns in my heart -- but it is rapidly sputtering out.
The answer is dependant on your individual reality, on how you view the world in which you live. If someone is what you could call 'flag-saluting' and droned down by heavy propagandic flasehoods in relation to the reasons given for the illegal US occupation of Iraq, then at best it's too soon to tell. If you understand that there are two separate realities that exist among us all, one being the 'public consumption' information and the other being a reality-based information, then you would understand that the US has been very successful in Iraq up to this point. The violence in Iraq is out of control and has been since the US illegally invaded Iraq, yet they (the US) still have overall control and full access to Iraq's oil, aside from isolated pipeline sabotage. From that point of view, and knowing the US has been planning a long stay in Iraq via the "14 permanent bases" being built at the moment, the US' strategic mission has thus far been very successful. The US Planners don't haven't and never will measure strategic military success or failure by the number of dead GI's in their wake.
That's my interpretation of it. I mean no disrespect to the dead US GI's. In fact I denounce the Bush Admin's decision to ban all photos of the returning dead. That's disgraceful and makes it clear that the Planners place their mission above any sentimental feelings.
That's my interpretation of it. I mean no disrespect to the dead US GI's. In fact I denounce the Bush Admin's decision to ban all photos of the returning dead. That's disgraceful and makes it clear that the Planners place their mission above any sentimental feelings.
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
No. Through all the months of distortion, political wrangling and attempts of changing the issue, the reality of the Iraq war has been lost.
Kind of like the American Civil War. What was that war about?....slavery.
In attempts of appeasing southerners and making light that Northernors were not fond of black folk either a whole layered explanation for the war has been put forward until you have people arguing that slavery wasn't the cause that it was economics, states rights, balance of power in congress and blah, blah. The end reality being that every alternative reason cited to avoid admitting it was fought over slavery.....was dependant on slavery. The threat on State's Rights was that slavery was being threatened. The thing about economics is that the south had a booming cotton industry and plantation system dependant on slaves. The thing about southern political power in the federal goverment is that southernors bloc voted on pro-slavery initiatives. Every cause and reason is a result of the institution of slavery.
By saying it was States Rights and whatever you get to avoid saying the word slavery but at it's core it was a war fought because of decades of tensions that had been building up in regards to one overriding issue....slavery.
Iraq is something similiar. I think the rational train of thought is that it was fought over the alledged belief that Saddam had WMD's and was intent on using them himself or intent on selling them to international terrorists. That Saddam and Al Quada were inseperable and linked and interconnected in a nation called Global Terrorism land. (which is why at one time most American's thought Saddam played a part in 9/11)
We went in to get rid of these weopens and eliminate the possibility of those weopens going into the hand's of terrorists.
We later found out that Iraq was nowhere close to having Weopens of Mass Destruction and that Iraq and Saddam were not Al Quada.
If you do something for a reason and that reason turns out to be phantom then in my opinion you instantly failed. You cannot start making up other reasons after the initial reason failed.
The invasion couldn't be about nothing, so then it had to be about freedom and democracy. When in reality in preperation for invasion and in the invasion's buildup this was an emotional filler idea that followed the weopens claim. Making note that Saddam gassed Kurds.....because no one wants people to be gassed. It was an afterthought though. It wasn't the primary or even secondary or even tertiary objective. It had zero bearing on the choice to invade. It was just a detail statement to make people further hate Saddam. It was never a reason for invasion.
If Bush would have went before the American people and said. We are going to go into Iraq and rebuild their nation and free their people from the tyranny of Saddam and bathist oppression no matter the cost to our lives or economy and added they might have some WMD's.
No one would have supported the war. No one would have supported war based upon regime change or bringing democracy.
In fact I distinctly remember Bush offering an ultimatum to Saddam and his family to flee or Iraq would be invaded. Meaning US forces would not invade if Saddam and sons left.
That fact by itself tells you the war was not about spreading freedom and democracy. We were distinctly saying that we would not invade if Saddam left which would have done nothing for the Iraqi people other then put them under a new dictatorship. Their government would not have changed. Nothing would have changed.
It was about the weopens and Saddam. It was never about the Iraqi people until it had to be for US political purposes.
So by that logic and by those reasons for war we failed.
Even in the newer politically created almost metaphysical war (that Buckley thinks is the real war) we are losing.
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
No. Through all the months of distortion, political wrangling and attempts of changing the issue, the reality of the Iraq war has been lost.
Kind of like the American Civil War. What was that war about?....slavery.
In attempts of appeasing southerners and making light that Northernors were not fond of black folk either a whole layered explanation for the war has been put forward until you have people arguing that slavery wasn't the cause that it was economics, states rights, balance of power in congress and blah, blah. The end reality being that every alternative reason cited to avoid admitting it was fought over slavery.....was dependant on slavery. The threat on State's Rights was that slavery was being threatened. The thing about economics is that the south had a booming cotton industry and plantation system dependant on slaves. The thing about southern political power in the federal goverment is that southernors bloc voted on pro-slavery initiatives. Every cause and reason is a result of the institution of slavery.
By saying it was States Rights and whatever you get to avoid saying the word slavery but at it's core it was a war fought because of decades of tensions that had been building up in regards to one overriding issue....slavery.
Iraq is something similiar. I think the rational train of thought is that it was fought over the alledged belief that Saddam had WMD's and was intent on using them himself or intent on selling them to international terrorists. That Saddam and Al Quada were inseperable and linked and interconnected in a nation called Global Terrorism land. (which is why at one time most American's thought Saddam played a part in 9/11)
We went in to get rid of these weopens and eliminate the possibility of those weopens going into the hand's of terrorists.
We later found out that Iraq was nowhere close to having Weopens of Mass Destruction and that Iraq and Saddam were not Al Quada.
If you do something for a reason and that reason turns out to be phantom then in my opinion you instantly failed. You cannot start making up other reasons after the initial reason failed.
The invasion couldn't be about nothing, so then it had to be about freedom and democracy. When in reality in preperation for invasion and in the invasion's buildup this was an emotional filler idea that followed the weopens claim. Making note that Saddam gassed Kurds.....because no one wants people to be gassed. It was an afterthought though. It wasn't the primary or even secondary or even tertiary objective. It had zero bearing on the choice to invade. It was just a detail statement to make people further hate Saddam. It was never a reason for invasion.
If Bush would have went before the American people and said. We are going to go into Iraq and rebuild their nation and free their people from the tyranny of Saddam and bathist oppression no matter the cost to our lives or economy and added they might have some WMD's.
No one would have supported the war. No one would have supported war based upon regime change or bringing democracy.
In fact I distinctly remember Bush offering an ultimatum to Saddam and his family to flee or Iraq would be invaded. Meaning US forces would not invade if Saddam and sons left.
That fact by itself tells you the war was not about spreading freedom and democracy. We were distinctly saying that we would not invade if Saddam left which would have done nothing for the Iraqi people other then put them under a new dictatorship. Their government would not have changed. Nothing would have changed.
It was about the weopens and Saddam. It was never about the Iraqi people until it had to be for US political purposes.
So by that logic and by those reasons for war we failed.
Even in the newer politically created almost metaphysical war (that Buckley thinks is the real war) we are losing.
I have to echo Silverwolf and say that this is an excellent article, very well written. It is too bad more opponents of the war were not this rational and consise long ago, perhaps the anti-war movement would have made some better headway.
However, the absolute refusal of the Bush Jr. administration to come up with any victory conditions (and thus, by definition, failure conditions) meant that they had the capacity to keep moving the goalposts for the media. When one 'reason' for the war turned out to be faulty, they moved on to another.
Sadly the entire basis for any of these arguments, that the people of Iraq wanted to be liberated and would rejoice at the chance to become a civil, democratic society, turned out (as many predicted) to be pure pablum.
There is no civil war in Iraq, and we have to be careful in assuming the worst, though it is quite possible there will be, it is also possible there won't be, for a while. But the hatred, the violence and now the lawless well-armed society is one where the possibility for violence is high, and the possibility of escalation is very high. Add to that the extrnal factors PUSHING for a civil war, and you get a situation where it is in all probability not if it will happen, but when.
The Bush Jr. 'Plan for Iraq' proved to be quite similar to Homer's plan to pass his Nuclear Physics exam:
"I'll just hide under a pile of coats and hope that everything turns out allright..."
The plan seems to have been to remove Hussein, and then just play it by ear, see what comes up. Their failures along the way have pushed Iraq in the direction of war all along:
-Not securing arsenals and weapons epots, which were looted by civilian population and militias;
-Firing the local police and military forces (against all advice), then waiting almost 18 months before belatedly trying to hire some back again...
-Allowing the destruction of infrastructure, history and culture after the fall;
-Turning over sections of the country to religious militias to keep the peace;
-Focussing on phantom 'foreign fighters' when in reality the problems were all domestic...
-And so on.
We shall have to wait and see what happens in Iraq, but so far the situation in Iraq has unfolded chaotically and uncontrollably, which is what happens when the US moves in with no plan to control the chaos and no ability to impose order.
I don't want to be the 'Told you so' guy, but I have been ranting on AD about the horrendous and obvious lack of a post-conquest plan to control the internal instability of Iraq for about 3.5 years now. Bush Jr's deliberate decision to ignore those strategists who predicted exactly this situation will go down as one of his most monumental failures.
However, the absolute refusal of the Bush Jr. administration to come up with any victory conditions (and thus, by definition, failure conditions) meant that they had the capacity to keep moving the goalposts for the media. When one 'reason' for the war turned out to be faulty, they moved on to another.
Sadly the entire basis for any of these arguments, that the people of Iraq wanted to be liberated and would rejoice at the chance to become a civil, democratic society, turned out (as many predicted) to be pure pablum.
There is no civil war in Iraq, and we have to be careful in assuming the worst, though it is quite possible there will be, it is also possible there won't be, for a while. But the hatred, the violence and now the lawless well-armed society is one where the possibility for violence is high, and the possibility of escalation is very high. Add to that the extrnal factors PUSHING for a civil war, and you get a situation where it is in all probability not if it will happen, but when.
The Bush Jr. 'Plan for Iraq' proved to be quite similar to Homer's plan to pass his Nuclear Physics exam:
"I'll just hide under a pile of coats and hope that everything turns out allright..."
The plan seems to have been to remove Hussein, and then just play it by ear, see what comes up. Their failures along the way have pushed Iraq in the direction of war all along:
-Not securing arsenals and weapons epots, which were looted by civilian population and militias;
-Firing the local police and military forces (against all advice), then waiting almost 18 months before belatedly trying to hire some back again...
-Allowing the destruction of infrastructure, history and culture after the fall;
-Turning over sections of the country to religious militias to keep the peace;
-Focussing on phantom 'foreign fighters' when in reality the problems were all domestic...
-And so on.
We shall have to wait and see what happens in Iraq, but so far the situation in Iraq has unfolded chaotically and uncontrollably, which is what happens when the US moves in with no plan to control the chaos and no ability to impose order.
I don't want to be the 'Told you so' guy, but I have been ranting on AD about the horrendous and obvious lack of a post-conquest plan to control the internal instability of Iraq for about 3.5 years now. Bush Jr's deliberate decision to ignore those strategists who predicted exactly this situation will go down as one of his most monumental failures.
QUOTE(kalabus @ Feb 26 2006, 02:13 AM)
The invasion couldn't be about nothing
The way I look at it, it's like going on a Road Trip!
It's 5pm on a Friday and you and your drinking buddies say "Road Trip!". And take off toward Florida for the weekend with a tank of gas, some cash, your credit card and absolutely no plans other than to be in Florida to party.
That's what Iraq was. It wasn't about nothing, indeed there were plenty that salivated over oil contracts, military contracts, reconstruction contracts, and many that salivated over converting Iraq to an Israel clone or to an American-loving state.
Bush didn't make hotel reservations, didn't check to see if any had vacancies, he didn't see if there would be traffic problems or if his car was in good shape or if his account had enough cash or that his credit card had a balance, Bush declared ROAD TRIP!
And here we are, sitting in Florida on the side of the road, flat tires, no gas, no money, and nasty alligators coming out of the swamps to nab us!
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Feb 25 2006, 11:51 PM)
The answer is dependant on your individual reality, on how you view the world in which you live. If someone is what you could call 'flag-saluting' and droned down by heavy propagandic flasehoods in relation to the reasons given for the illegal US occupation of Iraq, then at best it's too soon to tell. If you understand that there are two separate realities that exist among us all, one being the 'public consumption' information and the other being a reality-based information, then you would understand that the US has been very successful in Iraq up to this point.
Actually, I would submit that there are three separate realities that exist: propaganda from the administration (what you call public consumption), propaganda from critics of the administration, leftists, anti-war activists, etc....and then reality based information. The first two provide us with kernels of truth that we either believe or discard based on our perceptions and idealogies. The reality lies somewhere in between.
For example I might claim that compared to historical examples, the ingoing standing up and equipping of the Iraqi Security Forces is going well, and you may vehemently disagree, citing the latest percentages of units at level 1 combat capability.
You claim that and "knowing the US has been planning a long stay in Iraq via the "14 permanent bases" being built at the moment". While I would ask you to name the bases and their locations instead of simply regurgitating a talking point based on one article two years ago.
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
No, while there are setbacks, there are examples of just as many successes as there have been of failures. Just the reality of average Iraqi's being able to speak their mind in print, broadcast or speech......and the ability to choose their representatives is enough for me to say that we haven't failed in Iraq.
The fact that recruits continue to freely volunteer to join the police and military despite the threat to their lives is enough for me to say that we haven't failed in Iraq.
The fact that the US military continues to evolve it's strategy and doctrine and meets with more success each day, instead of letting itself be bogged down in a myopic mindset (despite the initial lack of vision), is enough for me to say that we haven't failed in Iraq.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Feb 26 2006, 06:13 PM)
No, while there are setbacks, there are examples of just as many successes as there have been of failures. Just the reality of average Iraqi's being able to speak their mind in print, broadcast or speech......and the ability to choose their representatives is enough for me to say that we haven't failed in Iraq.
Wule I agree that this is nice, and certainly looks good on the evening news, it is itself neither a sign of success or failure. There was NO QUESTION that there was going to be an election come hell or high water, the US administration would not let it be otherwise. However the existence of a government is irrelevant if this government cannot govern or maintain a civil society. At the moment, it clearly cannot.
QUOTE
The fact that recruits continue to freely volunteer to join the police and military despite the threat to their lives is enough for me to say that we haven't failed in Iraq.
Does it? Brig. Gen Mark Kimmitt stated that current Iraqi police recruitment levels are lower than sustainable, and dropping. CNN last year reported on the effective infiltration of Iraqi police forces by Insurgents posing as recruits.
Again, until the police force can take control, which at the moment clearly it cannot, nor is it likely to soon, it is irrelevant.
QUOTE
The fact that the US military continues to evolve it's strategy and doctrine and meets with more success each day, instead of letting itself be bogged down in a myopic mindset (despite the initial lack of vision), is enough for me to say that we haven't failed in Iraq.
Well, no the fact that they have an evolving mentality means that they are not idiots. But that is certainly no sign of success. Admitting their current tactics don't work and trying to develop new ones is certainly good for them, but it is not a 'sign of success', or if it is you are setting the bar pretty low.
Iraq is most certainly not a success, it is very, very far from that. AT THE MOMENT, it is not a failure either, though momentum is building.
It is certainly possible some stroke could turn it around, it is not a foregone conclusion, but it is not looking good at all...
PS Ah DontTreadOnme... Poor Don Knotts, we shall miss him so...
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
Not really. The opinion expressed in the article is deeply flawed for it poses its own premise as the sole cause of the war. At no point does Buckley actually prove his premise. All he offers up is this:
...and then jumps straight to this:
In other words, since a Sunni clothe merchant blames the USA, then its without any doubt the correct perspective... but wait a second... Buckley then adds:
Which is it to be?
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
I don't know any more what the definition of the mission is... or ever was. It couldn't have been WMD's because Blix was never allowed to finish his investigation. It couldn't have been democracy because as kalabus just pointed out, Saddam Hussein was given a chance to bale out and save his skin.
It can't even be about the oil because everything I've seen, not least in numerous excellent posts here at
indicates that the USA is not actually interested in Iraq's oil.
So why are US troops in Iraq?
Strangely enough, this was the same question I would often ask myself when considering Vietnam. What was it actually about? What was the point? America is widely considered to have 'lost' the Vietnam war and by any traditional take on war then this is so... but if there is one thing about America that really stands out above all others, it is a total lack of any respect for tradtion.
Simply put, I believe that America did win the war in Vietnam because it acheived its objective in stopping the spread of communism. To do this, South Vietnam was expendable so it was just as easy, if not easier to let South Vietnam go once the hammering of the communist threat had taken place and demonstrated clearly the price of siding against the USA.
After Vietnam, did a single country ever go communist? I can't think of any.
Regarding Iraq, what has been acheived? Chaos and civil war. The removal of an unreliable ally. The destruction of a state infrastructure. The creation of possible allies for future conflicts...?
I'm not sure. I voted, its too early to tell because it really is. In my experience the USA, even when it loses wars, does not lose wars. I don't buy the GW Bush=war monger angle any more. If this was a disastrous war for the USA, then how come it has the best casualty rate of any armed conflict I've ever read about?
It seems to me that a good many people, like this Buckley person, wants the USA to be defeated because that strengthens their own belief in a future world view. If the USA has lost anything then it is the war back home, not the war in Iraq thats been lost. More and more people are jumping on the 'told-you-so' band wagon and this is the true defeat for the USA.
If the people refuse to back up their government to the extent that the government can no longer defend the nation then its only a question of time before the enemy rallies and attacks again.
And when they do, people like Buckley and the rest of the 'told-you-so' crowd will automatically push all responsibility on to their government and never get over their own arrogance to understand that they are share holders in the defence of their own freedoms.
Not really. The opinion expressed in the article is deeply flawed for it poses its own premise as the sole cause of the war. At no point does Buckley actually prove his premise. All he offers up is this:
QUOTE
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
...and then jumps straight to this:
QUOTE
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.
In other words, since a Sunni clothe merchant blames the USA, then its without any doubt the correct perspective... but wait a second... Buckley then adds:
QUOTE
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans.
Now suddenly its not America thats the cause but Iraqi animosities. Which is it to be?
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
I don't know any more what the definition of the mission is... or ever was. It couldn't have been WMD's because Blix was never allowed to finish his investigation. It couldn't have been democracy because as kalabus just pointed out, Saddam Hussein was given a chance to bale out and save his skin.
It can't even be about the oil because everything I've seen, not least in numerous excellent posts here at
indicates that the USA is not actually interested in Iraq's oil. So why are US troops in Iraq?
Strangely enough, this was the same question I would often ask myself when considering Vietnam. What was it actually about? What was the point? America is widely considered to have 'lost' the Vietnam war and by any traditional take on war then this is so... but if there is one thing about America that really stands out above all others, it is a total lack of any respect for tradtion.
Simply put, I believe that America did win the war in Vietnam because it acheived its objective in stopping the spread of communism. To do this, South Vietnam was expendable so it was just as easy, if not easier to let South Vietnam go once the hammering of the communist threat had taken place and demonstrated clearly the price of siding against the USA.
After Vietnam, did a single country ever go communist? I can't think of any.
Regarding Iraq, what has been acheived? Chaos and civil war. The removal of an unreliable ally. The destruction of a state infrastructure. The creation of possible allies for future conflicts...?
I'm not sure. I voted, its too early to tell because it really is. In my experience the USA, even when it loses wars, does not lose wars. I don't buy the GW Bush=war monger angle any more. If this was a disastrous war for the USA, then how come it has the best casualty rate of any armed conflict I've ever read about?
It seems to me that a good many people, like this Buckley person, wants the USA to be defeated because that strengthens their own belief in a future world view. If the USA has lost anything then it is the war back home, not the war in Iraq thats been lost. More and more people are jumping on the 'told-you-so' band wagon and this is the true defeat for the USA.
If the people refuse to back up their government to the extent that the government can no longer defend the nation then its only a question of time before the enemy rallies and attacks again.
And when they do, people like Buckley and the rest of the 'told-you-so' crowd will automatically push all responsibility on to their government and never get over their own arrogance to understand that they are share holders in the defence of their own freedoms.
It was good to see that the intellectual father of the American conservative movement, William F. Buckley, has finally reached the conclusion that the invasion has been a failure. Unfortunately, it is now too late for that conclusion to have much beneficial effect.
No, I didn't find his article very enlightening nor did I agree with his definition of the mission. The postulates he lays out are his own; namely:
The administrations assumptions were closer to:
1. Iraqis will be so happy to get rid of Saddam, that the troops will be greeted with flowers.
2. Friendly Iraqi expatriates like Chalibi can be installed as a puppet government and they will favor American business interests and be friendly to Israel.
3. Iraq can be made into a Middle Eastern example of neo-liberal capitalism a la the Bremmer decrees.
4. The puppet government will willing allow permanent US bases to be built from which the US can dominate the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea oil regions.
5. Iraqi oil production can be quickly restored and expanded and its revenues will fund Iraq's reconstruction (and provide juicy contracts to American companies).
I deliberately didn't include the WMD charade since I don't believe that administration officials really believed that Iraqi was a serious WMD threat. They did believe that enough chemical weapons would be found to provide a fig leaf for the invasion. When that rational and all of their other assumptions crumbled in the face of the Iraq reality, only then did they turn to a strategy based on something like Buckley's postulates. Now that is crumbling too!
And, yes, the US is constructing at least 4 billion plus dollar bases in Iraq. (See this article and links). It is an own question whether the Bush government will attempt to retain these bases even in the face of requests for their removal from an Iraqi government.
No, I didn't find his article very enlightening nor did I agree with his definition of the mission. The postulates he lays out are his own; namely:
QUOTE
One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
The administrations assumptions were closer to:
1. Iraqis will be so happy to get rid of Saddam, that the troops will be greeted with flowers.
2. Friendly Iraqi expatriates like Chalibi can be installed as a puppet government and they will favor American business interests and be friendly to Israel.
3. Iraq can be made into a Middle Eastern example of neo-liberal capitalism a la the Bremmer decrees.
4. The puppet government will willing allow permanent US bases to be built from which the US can dominate the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea oil regions.
5. Iraqi oil production can be quickly restored and expanded and its revenues will fund Iraq's reconstruction (and provide juicy contracts to American companies).
I deliberately didn't include the WMD charade since I don't believe that administration officials really believed that Iraqi was a serious WMD threat. They did believe that enough chemical weapons would be found to provide a fig leaf for the invasion. When that rational and all of their other assumptions crumbled in the face of the Iraq reality, only then did they turn to a strategy based on something like Buckley's postulates. Now that is crumbling too!
And, yes, the US is constructing at least 4 billion plus dollar bases in Iraq. (See this article and links). It is an own question whether the Bush government will attempt to retain these bases even in the face of requests for their removal from an Iraqi government.
Does anyone remember when Shaquille O’Neal dressed up as an old man and made a series of commercials? In one of them, he’s talking to his grandson about basketball. O’Neal explains that the game was easy until “they installed the moving basket.”
The Bush Administration's goals in Iraq have been like a moving basket. First we went in to find WMD, whether or not the administration really believed any were there. Second, the administration tried to tie Iraq to 9-11. Third we were told that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator (true) and that the world was better off with him deposed (possibly). Fourth, and finally, the administration seems to have settled on the goal of building a democracy in the Middle East.
That the administration has changed it’s stated goals so many times--moved the basket if you will--is a pretty good indication in and of itself that Iraq, far from “mission accomplished,”
is an abject failure both in lives lost and treasure spent.
The Bush Administration's goals in Iraq have been like a moving basket. First we went in to find WMD, whether or not the administration really believed any were there. Second, the administration tried to tie Iraq to 9-11. Third we were told that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator (true) and that the world was better off with him deposed (possibly). Fourth, and finally, the administration seems to have settled on the goal of building a democracy in the Middle East.
That the administration has changed it’s stated goals so many times--moved the basket if you will--is a pretty good indication in and of itself that Iraq, far from “mission accomplished,”
is an abject failure both in lives lost and treasure spent.
So, the famous conservative William F. Buckley says that the misadventure in Iraq was a failure. Does anyone honestly think that the ideologues on this site are going to lend him any more credence than they would Cindy Sheehan when he espouses something they don't want to hear?
Proponents of this undeclared war are too invested emotionally, monetarily and otherwise to make this sort of admission. Like the rest of us, they hate it when the other guy is proven to be right (as in "correct").
But moif might be right in saying it is too soon to tell. If success is counted in how few casualties the good guys have suffered (I mean the coalition troops), yeah, it seems pretty successful. Of course, by that standard it could have been judged even more successful if we "declared victory" and pulled out altogether a few months ago before the casualty mark hit 2,000.
But now the hornet's nest has been stirred up, and we are seeing what Saddam Hussein had successfully, if brutally, been able to keep from happening. The Sunnis and the Shiites only seem to agree on one thing: Americans must leave. They want this to be an arab problem with an arab solution. Our troops are caught in the crossfire between these factions.
Under these circumstances of protracted guerilla warfare I cannot see how we can ever call this a clean-cut victory. I have serious doubts that whatever government that is in place when Americans finally leave Iraq will survive for very long thereafter.
As for Buckley? We could have used his voice of dissension before March of 2003 before our military shelled the hell out of Iraq and sent in the troops. Reading his opinion now is pretty useless.
Proponents of this undeclared war are too invested emotionally, monetarily and otherwise to make this sort of admission. Like the rest of us, they hate it when the other guy is proven to be right (as in "correct").
QUOTE(moif)
I'm not sure. I voted, its too early to tell because it really is. In my experience the USA, even when it loses wars, does not lose wars. I don't buy the GW Bush=war monger angle any more. If this was a disastrous war for the USA, then how come it has the best casualty rate of any armed conflict I've ever read about?
But moif might be right in saying it is too soon to tell. If success is counted in how few casualties the good guys have suffered (I mean the coalition troops), yeah, it seems pretty successful. Of course, by that standard it could have been judged even more successful if we "declared victory" and pulled out altogether a few months ago before the casualty mark hit 2,000.
But now the hornet's nest has been stirred up, and we are seeing what Saddam Hussein had successfully, if brutally, been able to keep from happening. The Sunnis and the Shiites only seem to agree on one thing: Americans must leave. They want this to be an arab problem with an arab solution. Our troops are caught in the crossfire between these factions.
Under these circumstances of protracted guerilla warfare I cannot see how we can ever call this a clean-cut victory. I have serious doubts that whatever government that is in place when Americans finally leave Iraq will survive for very long thereafter.
As for Buckley? We could have used his voice of dissension before March of 2003 before our military shelled the hell out of Iraq and sent in the troops. Reading his opinion now is pretty useless.
QUOTE
As for Buckley? We could have used his voice of dissension before March of 2003 before our military shelled the hell out of Iraq and sent in the troops. Reading his opinion now is pretty useless.
That sums it up for me, PE. What WFB writes has been useless for decades. He has no persuasion among conservatives these days, due to his influence having been dissolved in the 1980s when he came out against the war on drugs. For liberals, he is hopelessly slow to realize what's obvious to us.
I also liked BoF's image of the moving basket. It brought to mind a playing court with a million baskets, all equally as valid. Just shoot and you'll hit one of them.
Success and failure, I guess it all depends on definitions. Seems that the definitions are in flux. About the only thing I get from WFB is that he has finally opened his peepers and taken a good look. Hey, this bus is in the ditch! No kidding, Einstein.
It's similar to President Bush discovering alternative energy 30 years after the fact. Egads, that's nearly as pathetic as his daddy discovering supermarket scanners. These people live in a time warp. It is perpetually 1959.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 27 2006, 06:21 AM)
That sums it up for me, PE. What WFB writes has been useless for decades. He has no persuasion among conservatives these days, due to his influence having been dissolved in the 1980s when he came out against the war on drugs. For liberals, he is hopelessly slow to realize what's obvious to us.
I would point out that Buckley hasn't exactly been a huge supporter of the war. Two years ago, he said if he knew there were no WMD he would have been opposed to the war. There is so much conflicting information, bad information about this topic it is difficult to have any perspective (beside ideological) on this anymore.
The media had everyone convinced that Iraq was a threat, but now we’re supposed to believe the war is a failure based on the same reporting by the media. Why did Saddam fight until the bitter end if he wasn’t hiding something? Our intelligence numbers are decimated after a decade of cutbacks and it will take years to sift through all the paperwork in Iraq. By the time there’s an accurate historical picture of what happened, Iraq will not be a story anymore.
Going into the conflict if someone would have told me that 3 years after major combat operations ended we’d have less that 2,000 deaths I think I would be surprised. Eventually the side that controls the military in Iraq will be able to do what the US is incapable of doing politically (which is to impose its will on the people),
There just aren’t enough troops over there to impose the new government’s will on the people. The US took a risk by defeating Iraq in a quick strike manner in hopes that the UN would supply some peacekeeping troops afterward (as had been promised according to Tommy Franks). No support came and the US is basically working alone working on the tedious task of building a military from scratch.
Iran is now very much in the picture and the US has access from Afghanistan and Iraq to bring troops. I figure this is going to be the next administration’s war because Bush doesn’t have anymore political capital left. It’s funny, but if the next president is a Democrat I don’t think our course will change that much.
QUOTE
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
No. Our stated mission in Iraq at the very onset was to disarm a potential nuclear/WMD threat. That's the only reason why I supported the war, I believed, as did most of the planet, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We still don't know if he did have any at beginning of the war so it's kind of hard to say whether or not we were wrong about him being a threat but...QUOTE
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
We are failing by my definition because my theory is that the WMDs that were in Iraq have been moved, which does not make America any safer. Our job was to disarm Iraq, not force Iraq to arm someone else. Of course, if Iraq wasn't a threat or didn't have WMDs in the first place then again, we have failed our mission. Not to sound completely heartless but I wouldn't waste thousands of American lives to free Iraq or really any other country on the planet. Likewise, I wouldn't waste thousands of American lives spreading democracy to the Middle East or any other region; the only reason why I supported this war was because our stated mission was to disarm the country, I can't think of any explanation as to how we have accomplished that mission.CP
QUOTE(nemov @ Feb 27 2006, 09:21 PM)
The media had everyone convinced that Iraq was a threat, but now we’re supposed to believe the war is a failure based on the same reporting by the media.
Well, no. The administration convinced everyone Iraq was a threat, or at least tried. You can talk all you want about the media being left wing or right wing, but i this case they were just the administration's mesenger.
QUOTE
Why did Saddam fight until the bitter end if he wasn’t hiding something?
You do see the problem with that question right? He DIDN'T fight to the bitter end, at least according to the hawks. If he had fought to the bitter end, he would have actually USED those WMD he was supposed to have. Unless of course he didn't have any...
QUOTE
Our intelligence numbers are decimated after a decade of cutbacks and it will take years to sift through all the paperwork in Iraq. By the time there’s an accurate historical picture of what happened, Iraq will not be a story anymore.
That may well be true for the WMD issue, but the reality is thats not the front page news anymore. The issue of the moment is that Iraq is uncontrolled, ungoverned, violent and with only limited hope of this improving. The US forces there are insufficient to keep the peace, and don't have that mandate anyways. Iraq is not in a civil war yet, and it too early to predict that there will certainly be one, but it is most definately sliding that way...
QUOTE
Going into the conflict if someone would have told me that 3 years after major combat operations ended we’d have less that 2,000 deaths I think I would be surprised.
Well actually there are 2286 dead, and a total of over 19,000 casualties, and I think if you told people that three yars ago, the right would have laughed in disbelief and the left would have thrown up their hands in horror.
QUOTE
The US took a risk by defeating Iraq in a quick strike manner in hopes that the UN would supply some peacekeeping troops afterward (as had been promised according to Tommy Franks). No support came and the US is basically working alone working on the tedious task of building a military from scratch.
I have never heard that before. I have certainly never heard of any promised troops from the UN, and considering the way the US ignored and ran roughshod over the UN in going to war, its a bit lame to complain about the lack of UN help...
QUOTE
Iran is now very much in the picture and the US has access from Afghanistan and Iraq to bring troops. I figure this is going to be the next administration’s war because Bush doesn’t have anymore political capital left. It’s funny, but if the next president is a Democrat I don’t think our course will change that much.
The US does not have enough forces on the ground in Iraq OR afghanistan to meet their operational needs there. Both countries are seriously backsliding into Taliban-like warlords with no respect for the Afghan givernment or Local religious militia in Iraq. Equipment losses, already short at the start of the Iraq war, have not come close to being made up, and the US stockpile of smart weapons, of which 75% were used in the war, is still at less than 50% operational requirements. The idea that the US could do anything to Iran is a bit of a joke...
Buckley's premise is flawed. Deeply flawed. His line of reasoning is almost non-existant.
The fact that he begins by quoting a Sunni merchant (recall the Sunnis: the minority who oppressed the majority Shia before the war?) saying the Americans are to blame for everything. Of course they are!! They removed your gravy train.
Then his reference to our assumption that Iraqis want religious freedom.
The goal of the Iraq war was to remove Saddam. In that sense, we have mission accomplished.
Of course, there is the obvious corollary of replacing the Baathist regime with some other stable regime, preferably one that is pro-US and at least neutral towards Israel. That goal is still in the works, but not hopelessly lost.
To cite the ongoing resistance in Iraq as a sure sign of failure is about as useful as claiming that the North lost the civil war because blacks were still being lynched in the 1950s. Wasn't (isn't ?) the KKK a resistance group to the Northern imposition of its will on the South? A bit generalistic on my part, I admit, but there were resistance groups to the imposed Northern way of life until very recent memory. Does this mean the North lost because they could not convince everyone that equality was a better way of life? Have we lost in Iraq because of the methods employed by the resistors?
It is simply too early to say whether or not the war in Iraq will be won. Rationales for war are not the goals of war. Saddam has been removed. He is on trial for his crimes. That is phase one. Phase two is still ongoing.
The fact that he begins by quoting a Sunni merchant (recall the Sunnis: the minority who oppressed the majority Shia before the war?) saying the Americans are to blame for everything. Of course they are!! They removed your gravy train.
Then his reference to our assumption that Iraqis want religious freedom.
The goal of the Iraq war was to remove Saddam. In that sense, we have mission accomplished.
Of course, there is the obvious corollary of replacing the Baathist regime with some other stable regime, preferably one that is pro-US and at least neutral towards Israel. That goal is still in the works, but not hopelessly lost.
To cite the ongoing resistance in Iraq as a sure sign of failure is about as useful as claiming that the North lost the civil war because blacks were still being lynched in the 1950s. Wasn't (isn't ?) the KKK a resistance group to the Northern imposition of its will on the South? A bit generalistic on my part, I admit, but there were resistance groups to the imposed Northern way of life until very recent memory. Does this mean the North lost because they could not convince everyone that equality was a better way of life? Have we lost in Iraq because of the methods employed by the resistors?
It is simply too early to say whether or not the war in Iraq will be won. Rationales for war are not the goals of war. Saddam has been removed. He is on trial for his crimes. That is phase one. Phase two is still ongoing.
QUOTE
It is simply too early to say whether or not the war in Iraq will be won. Rationales for war are not the goals of war. Saddam has been removed. He is on trial for his crimes. That is phase one. Phase two is still ongoing.
I dunno Amlord...That may be Phase I Part II or III, but that isn't the original reason we were given for going into Iraq by the President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. You can make the point that we can have more than one reason to go to war, but if that's the case, you also have to recognize the fact that the first [and in my opinion, most important] mission for Iraq has failed.
CP
QUOTE(Wertz @ Feb 25 2006, 08:44 PM)
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
1. I don't need one of the founding fathers of contemporary conservatism to tell me what I knew full well over three years ago. The metamorphosis of real, ordinary guys like John Murtha who supported the war in the beginning, but through sober analysis of the reality three years down the road have seen the error of his earlier support strike me as more earnest and authentic than the tardy musings of a thousand bourgeois bull-slingers like Buckley.
2. Yes. It was conceived, executed and administered by a confederacy of dunces.
The reasons for the war have changed with sickening frequency. Amlord's explanation would be funny if it weren't so tragic. We went to war to get rid of Saddam? Why?
Because he was presented an imminent threat to America? No.
Because he was involved in 9/11 and was in bed with Osama bin Laden? No.
Because he had weapons of mass destruction poised to strike against Israel and other alliers in the Middle East? No.
Because "he was a bad man?" Yes!
That is one spectacularly stupid reason to unleash a premptive war.
3. My definition doesn't matter. George Bush's does. However, as he has never bothered to clearly and honestly define what will constitute victory and success in Iraq we're fated to enduring that "long, hard slog" Don Rumsfeld predicted.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Feb 27 2006, 05:36 PM)
QUOTE
It is simply too early to say whether or not the war in Iraq will be won. Rationales for war are not the goals of war. Saddam has been removed. He is on trial for his crimes. That is phase one. Phase two is still ongoing.
I dunno Amlord...That may be Phase I Part II or III, but that isn't the original reason we were given for going into Iraq by the President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. You can make the point that we can have more than one reason to go to war, but if that's the case, you also have to recognize the fact that the first [and in my opinion, most important] mission for Iraq has failed.
CP
So what was the reason? How can you say we've failed if you don't have a goal to say we've fallen short of?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 27 2006, 05:55 PM)
2. Yes. It was conceived, executed and administered by a confederacy of dunces.
The reasons for the war have changed with sickening frequency. Amlord's explanation would be funny if it weren't so tragic. We went to war to get rid of Saddam? Why?
Because he was presented an imminent threat to America? No.
Because he was involved in 9/11 and was in bed with Osama bin Laden? No.
Because he had weapons of mass destruction poised to strike against Israel and other alliers in the Middle East? No.
Because "he was a bad man?" Yes!
That is one spectacularly stupid reason to unleash a premptive war.
We gave Iraq two chances to avoid war: full and honest declaration of its WMD programs and Saddam's resignation.
These explain the US's goals in the matter of Iraq: getting WMDs out of the hands of a murderous dictator.
Iraq's full disclosure was found wanting by not only Bush and company, but by Hans Blix. We've been over this. He failed to disclose his unmanned aircraft. He failed to disclose his missiles which exceeded UN mandates. Most importantly, he failed to account for tons of known stockpiles of WMD material and precursors. He simply said they were gone with no proof of their destruction.
With Iraq continuing its decade long history of dodging and ducking inspectors in the early months of 2003, Bush gave Saddam one last option: step down and leave Iraq.
Bush stated that the goal of the invasion was to disarm Iraq. He also included freeing its people (from Saddam) and defending the world from a grave danger (again, WMDs).
QUOTE(Bush's speech to the country 3/19/03)
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
Disarming and removing Saddam were the stated goals and those have been accomplished.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 28 2006, 09:35 AM)
Bush stated that the goal of the invasion was to disarm Iraq. He also included freeing its people (from Saddam) and defending the world from a grave danger (again, WMDs).
Disarming and removing Saddam were the stated goals and those have been accomplished.
QUOTE(Bush's speech to the country 3/19/03)
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
Disarming and removing Saddam were the stated goals and those have been accomplished.
Then if it's "mission accomplished" why are we still in Iraq?
Disarming Saddam? Disarming him of what exactly? Weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist?
..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." --Washington Post, May 31, 2003
So Amlord, those WMD's...where dey at, playa?
Your defense of the Bush Administration's failed misadventure in Iraq is admirable, but misguided just as the stated reasons for the invasion have turned out to be.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 28 2006, 10:43 AM)
So Amlord, those WMD's...where dey at, playa?
Your defense of the Bush Administration's failed misadventure in Iraq is admirable, but misguided just as the stated reasons for the invasion have turned out to be.
Your defense of the Bush Administration's failed misadventure in Iraq is admirable, but misguided just as the stated reasons for the invasion have turned out to be.
I'm laying out the goals of the mission. The fact that the continuing mission involves something else is exactly that: something else.
Have we failed to remove Saddam?
The WMDs that the world thought Saddam had (not just Bush and Blair, but Russia, France and pretty much every other intelligence service around the world) may have been an elaborate bluff on the part of the Iraqi regime, but if it was then it was a fatal bluff. Hans Blix noted in his January 2003 report that Iraq had failed to provide the active assistance required under Resolution 1441. He questions Iraqi claims concerning the disposition of VX nerve gas produced by Iraq as well as claims that Iraq destroyed 8, 500 liters of anthrax. Basically he asked where the proof was. Blix reported that Iraq has tested two missiles in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers.
Mohammed ElBaradei stated in his report (January 2003) that "little progress has been made in resolving the questions and concerns that remained as of 1998."
The White House release this document : WHAT DOES DISARMAMENT LOOK LIKE? in January 2003. It spells out what is expected of Iraq and compares their cooperation with that of other regimes.
Again, no one has forwarded a goal, proposed by Bush, which is impossible to meet going forward (i.e. failed).
If the goal of the Iraqi invasion was world peace, then I guess we've failed. If (as I propose) it was ridding the Iraq and the world of Saddam and thwarting any WMD threat, we have done that. A corollary of removing Saddam was a stable new government in Iraq, which is still in the development stage.
Allow me to keep some Tho[URL=http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm]Those sanctions worked, and worked well.se sanctions worked, and worked very well.[/URL]things in perspective. Far from shaking in their boots, the US was well aware of the lack of a threat Hussein's Iraq posed to neighbors in the region (the fact that not one single nation near Iraq asked the US for any help pretecting themselves from the evil bad guy Hussein is telling and contradictory to the official party li(e)ne that Hussein was a threat to the region). So by Rice and Powell's own admission (pretty good sources eh?), the US knew in 2001 that Iraq was not a threat.
To those who make the media-induced fantasy of Hussein's non-cooperation with the UN a reality, all I can offer up is a big giant hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
We're not kids here for the most part I'm sure, so I see no reason to play around with words when the words have already been written on the wall for all to see (and hopefully for all to understand).
The USA aided Iraq's quest for their now-known-to-be-fabled WMD's.
After Hussein became America's supposed 'enemy', and after the first Gulf War, the US imposed economic sanctions against Iraq to prevent them from scaring Americans with their fabled WMD's. And those sanctions worked.
Remember, this is about Iraqi US-AIDED-WMD we're talking about here.
To those who make the media-induced fantasy of Hussein's non-cooperation with the UN a reality, all I can offer up is a big giant hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
We're not kids here for the most part I'm sure, so I see no reason to play around with words when the words have already been written on the wall for all to see (and hopefully for all to understand).
The USA aided Iraq's quest for their now-known-to-be-fabled WMD's.
After Hussein became America's supposed 'enemy', and after the first Gulf War, the US imposed economic sanctions against Iraq to prevent them from scaring Americans with their fabled WMD's. And those sanctions worked.
Remember, this is about Iraqi US-AIDED-WMD we're talking about here.
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
I certainly agree that this is the current mission in Iraq. It has changed substantially, and frequently, since we invaded. Although I have never been a supporter of this war, the generic notion that the mission can change in progress is ok with me. I would rather see that than an unwavering dedication to a failing situation.
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
That said, it is too earlier to tell whether we are succeeding or failing in creating a democracy in Iraq. Frankly, I think we are going to see some form of a democratic theocracy at best. At worst, we've initiated a civil war that Saddam, with his brutality, managed to squelch.
In terms of the so-called earlier missions:
1. Removing Saddam (part 1) - Success
2. removing an imminent threat (part 2) - No imminent threat was posed. Failure
3. Finding WMD - Failure
4. Destroying Al Quaeda within Iraq - What AQ? Failure
Meanwhile, Afghanistan is a mess and Bin Laden is still at large.
What I would really like to see is a retrospective on the whole intelligence gathering and decision to go to war. That is, if we knew then what we know now, would we have still gone to war? An analysis of where things went wrong is the most helpful way to move forward, IMHO.
I certainly agree that this is the current mission in Iraq. It has changed substantially, and frequently, since we invaded. Although I have never been a supporter of this war, the generic notion that the mission can change in progress is ok with me. I would rather see that than an unwavering dedication to a failing situation.
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
That said, it is too earlier to tell whether we are succeeding or failing in creating a democracy in Iraq. Frankly, I think we are going to see some form of a democratic theocracy at best. At worst, we've initiated a civil war that Saddam, with his brutality, managed to squelch.
In terms of the so-called earlier missions:
1. Removing Saddam (part 1) - Success
2. removing an imminent threat (part 2) - No imminent threat was posed. Failure
3. Finding WMD - Failure
4. Destroying Al Quaeda within Iraq - What AQ? Failure
Meanwhile, Afghanistan is a mess and Bin Laden is still at large.
What I would really like to see is a retrospective on the whole intelligence gathering and decision to go to war. That is, if we knew then what we know now, would we have still gone to war? An analysis of where things went wrong is the most helpful way to move forward, IMHO.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
You do see the problem with that question right? He DIDN'T fight to the bitter end, at least according to the hawks. If he had fought to the bitter end, he would have actually USED those WMD he was supposed to have. Unless of course he didn't have any...
This totally avoids the issue of an illicit weapons program and the threat that it poses when controlled by an unaccountable regime. All of the variables were in place at the beginning of the war to suggest that Iraq was in the process of reconstituting its WMD program, and its continued non-compliance with UN resolutions over nearly a decade suggests further that Iraq had no intention of being forthcoming with that program.
In response to your remark, the presence of WMD's during or after the invasion is not conclusive evidence that such weapons were not in possession by Iraq before the invasion. These weapons could have moved prior to the war, considering the U.S. had revealed its intentions to attack long before the initial troops were mobilized. And considering the ease that which illicit arms are transferred in and out of Iraq's borders now, the possibility that whatever evidence was availible at the time to indict the Hussein regime of UNSC violations could have been squeeked through the borders.
QUOTE
So what was the reason? How can you say we've failed if you don't have a goal to say we've fallen short of?
Que? I already gave my reason. The reason why we went into Iraq was to disarm Iraq. Either Iraq never had WMD [in which case we failed] or it had them and they are now elsewhere [in which case we failed]. That's my reason, and that's the goal I feel that we've fallen short of.
CP
QUOTE
All of the variables were in place at the beginning of the war to suggest that Iraq was in the process of reconstituting its WMD program, and its continued non-compliance with UN resolutions over nearly a decade suggests further that Iraq had no intention of being forthcoming with that program
All the variables were in place all right. That's why we are lucky enough to know about the Downing Street memo which stated the "US was fixing facts around the policy" for war.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action".
And again the baseless conclusion that Sadaam was building up his fabled WMD programs and threatening his neighbors is contradicted by none other than Mz. Rice and Mr. Powell, when they stated, on camera, that Iraq was disarmed, wasn't a threat to anyone, and contained.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Feb 28 2006, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE
So what was the reason? How can you say we've failed if you don't have a goal to say we've fallen short of?
Que? I already gave my reason. The reason why we went into Iraq was to disarm Iraq. Either Iraq never had WMD [in which case we failed] or it had them and they are now elsewhere [in which case we failed]. That's my reason, and that's the goal I feel that we've fallen short of.
CP
If you think in terms of the glass half full, then Iraq does not have weapons and we have succeeded in your goal.
If the goal was keeping WMDs out of the hands of terrorists, then the success is also there (unless you believe the reports that the weapons went to Syria in which case, the matter is unresolved).
The goals may be disconnected from reality (in the eyes of some) but they have been accomplished to a certain extent.
QUOTE
1. Do you agree with Buckley's definition of our mission in Iraq?
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
2a. If so, do you agree that our mission is a failure?
2b. If not, are we succeeding or failing by your definition?
1) I disagree with Mr. Buckley's definition because it fails to account for the ethnic divisions which were repressed until recently.
Moreover, Buckley's definition is strikingly similar to Mr. Kristol's where we are simply 'not trying hard enough'.
2a) Yes I agree the mission is a failure.
2b) One of my bigger concerns is that the media is failing to report consistantly on iraqi living conditions. This is a purposeful attempt by Mr. Rumsfeld to paint a happy face to counter any reports Al Jeezera may have. Think Fallujah and response the defense secretary spat out when children were shown.
QUOTE
All the variables were in place all right. That's why we are lucky enough to know about the Downing Street memo which stated the "US was fixing facts around the policy" for war.
A leaked memo does not prove that Hussein did not have an W.M.D. program, nor does it justify the repeated U.N.S.C. resolutions ignored by Hussein. I won't get into the authenticity of the document, since it doesn't have anything to bear on the actual issue.
QUOTE
And again the baseless conclusion that Sadaam was building up his fabled WMD programs and threatening his neighbors is contradicted by none other than Mz. Rice and Mr. Powell, when they stated, on camera, that Iraq was disarmed, wasn't a threat to anyone, and contained.
Firstly, they did not say he was disarmed, since the data was inconclusive following the ousting of U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998. As to whether Iraq was contained, that is entirely possible but it has nothing to do with the threat of W.M.D. proliferation. Finally, their assessment of Iraq can certainly change given new information, and cabinet officials should be given the flexibility to change their positions when that new information becomes availible.
QUOTE
If the goal was keeping WMDs out of the hands of terrorists, then the success is also there (unless you believe the reports that the weapons went to Syria in which case, the matter is unresolved).
Well, that's part of the point Amlord. We don't know where the WMD are. We attacked Iraq to get rid of a perceived threat, thereby making us safer. Are we really safer not knowing where these WMDs are? I don't think so. So if in fact Iraq did have WMD and they are now somewhere else, I don't think that that makes the Iraq war a success.
CP
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.