Was the war with it?

[MikeWaters]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

I find this analysis interesting. (I was one that thought we ought to gamble to transform the region. I don't think that will happen now).

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Colonel, U.S. Army (ret.); former chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell:

No. I'm principally a strategist and from that perspective the war has been a disaster. First, the foremost winner has been Iran: it rid itself of its greatest threat, Saddam Hussein and his military, without firing a shot; won the December 15 Iraq elections; owns the south, particularly Basra; and has felt the freedom to elect Mahmoud Amadinejad who, in turn, has felt the freedom to reclaim leadership of radical Islam, leadership Osama bin Laden claimed on 9/11. Second, the foremost loser, after Iraq itself, has been Israel, whose leaders must now fear more than ever before the new strategic maneuver room afforded Iran by America's ineptitude. Third, the general war against global terrorists has been affected greatly by the failure in Iraq. Recruiting among Muslim ranks has been aided significantly, while America has squandered the upper hand in the world of ideas, which is the real battlefield of this conflict. Lastly, if our failure in Iraq produces regional conflict, we will find ourselves expending far greater blood and treasure to stabilize the situation once it gets completely out of hand. And the odds that it will get completely out of hand if we continue on the present course are quite high.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1174007,00.html?cnn=yes

I find this analysis interesting. (I was one that thought we ought to gamble to transform the region. I don't think that will happen now).

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Colonel, U.S. Army (ret.); former chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell:

No. I'm principally a strategist and from that perspective the war has been a disaster. First, the foremost winner has been Iran: it rid itself of its greatest threat, Saddam Hussein and his military, without firing a shot; won the December 15 Iraq elections; owns the south, particularly Basra; and has felt the freedom to elect Mahmoud Amadinejad who, in turn, has felt the freedom to reclaim leadership of radical Islam, leadership Osama bin Laden claimed on 9/11. Second, the foremost loser, after Iraq itself, has been Israel, whose leaders must now fear more than ever before the new strategic maneuver room afforded Iran by America's ineptitude. Third, the general war against global terrorists has been affected greatly by the failure in Iraq. Recruiting among Muslim ranks has been aided significantly, while America has squandered the upper hand in the world of ideas, which is the real battlefield of this conflict. Lastly, if our failure in Iraq produces regional conflict, we will find ourselves expending far greater blood and treasure to stabilize the situation once it gets completely out of hand. And the odds that it will get completely out of hand if we continue on the present course are quite high.

You and I have had some of this discussion before, but here are a few of my thoughts:

1. It may well be that in the final analysis the Iraq war was a good faith mistake.

2. It may well be that the Iraq war was not a mistake but that we are ten or more years away from seeing the fruit that was envisioned.

I have to say that I am more and more troubled by our predicament. Not because I have some loathing for the current occupant of the White House, but because I think that we are committed on the one hand and every day losing the will to sustain that commitment on the other.

The 64K question of course is, what now? I think my answer still is, we have to do everything we can to try to get a democratic government to take hold no matter how bad our buyers remorse is. A fair question to my position is, if the point comes where no amount of effort will produce this result, how will we know when we have reached it? I think this is the real dilema that no one who does not possess a crystal ball can resolve.

In other words, how much longer do we give it? Three years is not long enough to give it a chance to succeed. But when would it be time to pull the plug? What would those conditions look like? I think this is the real discussion that we all ought to be having but it gets drowned out by the incessant demagoging on both sides of the debate.

Serious people should be thinking hard about solutions, not just about whether "Bush lied" or who wants to "cut and run."

I still hold out hope that we will turn a corner in the next few years. For better or for worse, the policy on Iraq is with us until wehave a new president. This guy is never going to cave. The next election cycle, hopefully, hopefully, hopefully, with both sides having wide open primaries will really bring out a range of view points on solutions. Democrats are going to have to come up with something other than just cirticism and Republicans are going to need to say something other than "stay the course."

My long term fear is that is Iraq ultimately is viewed as a misadventure that it will cause the election of leaders who will withdraw us from a proactive role in the world. We cannot afford this.

[SoCalCoug]

I thought it was a bad idea from the beginning, and I got hammered a bit on CB.

I don't look so dumb now, do I?

[realtall]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I thought it was a bad idea from the beginning, and I got hammered a bit on CB.

I don't look so dumb now, do I?

I don't know; I've never seen you :lol: .

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I don't look so dumb now, do I?

Which would you prefer: the truth or a flattering lie? :wink:

[SoCalCoug]

Boy, I gave you guys a softball, didn't I? :roll:

[outlier]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

1. It may well be that in the final analysis the Iraq war was a good faith mistake.

I held back then that invading Iraq might be a good idea, but the pretense of WMDs was/is utterly false and the Neo-con hawks knew it. The CIA released publically prior to the invasion information stating that there was no evidence that Iraq presented an immediate threat. But then it was important to fight *someone*, so they were told to find some evidence. I might be missing your point, but how is that "good faith"?

we have to do everything we can to try to get a democratic government to take hold no matter how bad our buyers remorse is.

I don't understand the fascination with "democratic governments". Democracy isn't the answer. Democracy in Iraq seems destined to result in bloodshed, unstable governments, regional meddling by the likes of Iran and Syria, etc. A "shadow democracy" like the one they got going in Pak might be a good way to go, but a western-style democracy is just asking for it. What *needs* to be established is a reasonably liberal (note, this is meant in the true sense of the word "liberal", not the co-opted one) capitalist state with minimal corruption. (Yes, the kind like ther are only 5 of on earth anyway...)

My long term fear is that is Iraq ultimately is viewed as a misadventure that it will cause the election of leaders who will withdraw us from a proactive role in the world. We cannot afford this.

I'm with you here. The policy of interventionalism wasn't the problem with Iraq, IMHO. The problem was doing it "the cowboy way" -- giving all our traditional allies the middle finger and then acting surprised that they didn't like it. Euros are all irresponsible pansies who would prefer Africa (and the rest of the undeveloped world) burn in hell than risk a single drop of that sweet, pure, white Euroblood. That said, it's dumb for us to be the world's rent-a-cops and then seek jobs where (virtually) no one else is footing even part of the bill. A more charismatic, less "my way or the highway" leadership persona might have gone a long way in ensuring a more optimal financial structure behind this particular adventure.

o

[UtahDan]

outlier said:

I held back then that invading Iraq might be a good idea, but the pretense of WMDs was/is utterly false and the Neo-con hawks knew it. The CIA released publically prior to the invasion information stating that there was no evidence that Iraq presented an immediate threat. But then it was important to fight *someone*, so they were told to find some evidence. I might be missing your point, but how is that "good faith"?

UtahDan:

To believe in the "neo-cons as lying evil genius'" model, I think you have to engage in a little selective amnesia and make a big leap or two. I'll start by conceding for the the sake of the discussion that the administration "sexed up" the evidence it had and overplayed its hand. That said, there wasn't any intellegence service in the world in 2002 that didn't believe that Sadam had WMD. He had used them in the recent past and everything pointed to their existence. The debate four years ago was not about WHETHER there was WMD, but what should be done about it.

To believe that this was a "lie" rather than a "good faith mistake" you have to believe first that the administration (this includes many, many, many people) made the calculation that it (they) was going to engage in an elaborate deception to trick us all into wanting a war. Of course they would have to know that ultimately their deception would be found out, and maybe before the 2004 election. But they were willing to do this because....this is where it always breaks down into far out conspiracy theory IMO. For oil? Haven't gotten an additional drop or a penny from that that I know about. Glory? Approval ratings in the toilet. Money? Someone show me how.

So in the end this great lie, that was always going to be discovered, was told so that the Bush and the other neo-cons could.......could........

A more plausible explanation is that our intelligence was poor (remember the hearings about that?), or that the WMD are not somewhere in Syria or elsewhere. I don't know about the latter but I am still personally flummoxed at the idea that Saddam would just decide he didn't really want WMD any more and take them all apart. Maybe I am just being stubborn but my gut tells me there is still more to all this than is currently known. It just doesn't add up.

Anyway, the whole affair has been a political disaster for neo-cons as a whole and the fact that Bush and his crowd don't back away from it even a hair when maintaining that position is costing them so dearly makes me ask what other explanation is there other than they think there are right. Now whether then are is a whole seperate discussion. But in a nutshell that is why I say good faith.

outlier said:

I don't understand the fascination with "democratic governments". Democracy isn't the answer. Democracy in Iraq seems destined to result in bloodshed, unstable governments, regional meddling by the likes of Iran and Syria, etc. A "shadow democracy" like the one they got going in Pak might be a good way to go, but a western-style democracy is just asking for it. What *needs* to be established is a reasonably liberal (note, this is meant in the true sense of the word "liberal", not the co-opted one) capitalist state with minimal corruption. (Yes, the kind like ther are only 5 of on earth anyway...)

UtahDan:

I'm curious why you think democracy in particular is destined to cause bloodshed. I think our presence there no matter the reason is what makes a least soe bledshed a virtual certainty. Yes Iran and Syria will try to influence Iraw democratic processes, just as out neighbors try to influence us and vice versa.

Anyway, to answer your question, there are many good reasons to want a democracy. Here are two practical ones:

1. Democracies do not make war on one another. There is not a single example of it having occured. There are many reasons for this, amoung them are that free peoples have commercial relations and thus more in common as well as the fact that no one person or small group can highjack the military for very long. Much though many disagree with what we are doing with our military currently, for example, congress could pull the plug on it tomorrow if it had the will to. If public opinion militated that the war end, it would end. In non-democracies, public opinion and the legitimacy of the government mean very little so those in power are unfettered by the wishes of the people.

2. Democracies produce far fewer violent extremists. This also has many causes, the most important of which is that if persons see that they have the ability to affect what their government does and have avenues open to them to air their greivences, they don't need to take the law into their own hands and act out violently to make themselves heard.

Leaving aside the practical, I believe as a philsophical matter that liberty is the desire and destiny of every human being. I think that assertions that any group of people can't handle it or are not ready for it have racist assumptions at their core. I do not doubt that there are many in the world who have ben so socialized to something else that they do not see the value of freedom, and without question it takes time for it to take root. Now the immediate rejoinder whenever I make that statement is "well then why don't we also give democracy to the Chinese, South Koreans, Cubans, etc, etc, etc."

This misses the point. I am not, nor do I think is anyone, arguing that we ought to go to war to give democracy to every person on earth. In any case, that is not the situation we are in. At the end of WWII we found ourselves in possession of Japan and half Germany stuck with the responsibilty of giving them a government. Germany had briefly flirted with democracy but Japan was a totalitarian state that invented suicide bombing. It would have been nonsenical to say at that point "well we aren't invading Russia to install a democracy there are we?" So to, in this case we have a country in our control (how that came to be is now irrelevant) and we might as well install a democracy. Not to belabor this point too much, but I really think that anyone who suggests that Iraq should be anything other than a democracy are either laying out a false choice between a democracy and some kind of benevolent dictatorship (no such thing) or are not being intellectually honest about what anything other than a democracy would look like for Iraqis. The generally left of center Washington Post wrote a fantastic editorial on this very point: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030400933.html

outlier said:

I'm with you here. The policy of interventionalism wasn't the problem with Iraq, IMHO. The problem was doing it "the cowboy way" -- giving all our traditional allies the middle finger and then acting surprised that they didn't like it. Euros are all irresponsible pansies who would prefer Africa (and the rest of the undeveloped world) burn in hell than risk a single drop of that sweet, pure, white Euroblood. That said, it's dumb for us to be the world's rent-a-cops and then seek jobs where (virtually) no one else is footing even part of the bill. A more charismatic, less "my way or the highway" leadership persona might have gone a long way in ensuring a more optimal financial structure behind this particular adventure.

UtahDan:

Since you are agreeing with me I should probably leave this alone but I can't. I think that the idea that the Eruopeans didn't cooperate because Bush is a "cowboy" is exactly the reverse of reality. The reasons the Euro's did nothing are exactly the ones you laid out above. The primary problem with Euros, of course, is that they have not had to provide for their own security since their current leaders were children. We have provided it for them for so long that an entire generation of Europeans does not understand that their model for interacting with each other and the world is not an inevitability, but a consequence of letting us worry about their security.

They resolve their disputes by passing resolutions, posturing, appealing to international organizations and don't understand why we can't resolve our problems the same way. This is because it has been so long since they have had to deal at the end of a bayonette with a country or dictator who simply has no regard for their nice little organizations that they don't in their hearts believe that it will ever be necessary to do anything other than pass resolutions of condemnation or impose sanctions to keep bad things from happening. This is a very childish mind set that ultimately they will be shaken from.

My point is that European governments were never under any circumstances going to go along with us no matter who did the asking or how many pretty pleases with a cherry on top we added. Their publics would never support them helping us because for the reasons I state above because they don't (I'm being perfectly serious) understand why war is ever necessary, really. For this reason I think "Bush as cowboy" is more of a convenient excuse that Europeans assert to mask the reality which is that they have no interest in getting their hands dirty. Not when they know we will do it for them.

[Robin]

As far as wars goes, it could have been worse.

[outlier]

Yikes. One heckuva response.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

To believe in the "neo-cons as lying evil genius'" model, I think you have to engage in a little selective amnesia and make a big leap or two.

Wait wait. I didn't say necessarily evil or genius, just lying. Or "misstating themselves" if you prefer.

The "real" reason to invade Iraq was strategic -- it was meant to ensure the US a(nother) friendly partner in a screwy region with a ton of oil. Not that they're always right (but they usually are), the Economist said that the war made sense from the standpoint of "hedging the US' bet" with Saudi Arabia, which was a government that could be destabilized due to severe social inequalities going on there. This is potentially a very good reason to go to war. Unfortunately, it's not a very sexy reason. "Imminent danger to US allies" and/or the US itself is a far easier pretense to sell the public who are going to be paying for the maneuver.

The strategic reasons make (and also made) a lot more sense than the WMD red herring. To a large extent, I don't blame the administration for using the WMD card -- but that doesn't make it honest.

I apologize that I don't have my hands on the pre-war CIA release that declared Iraq "no immediate threat" to US interests. That seems to have slipped down the world's collective memory hole.

That said, there wasn't any intellegence service in the world in 2002 that didn't believe that Sadam had WMD.

I guess we can quibble over whether immediate threat and WMD are the same or not. Or what, in fact, a WMD is. But if they're not a threat to US interests (= Israel), then who the heck cares what we were calling 'em?

For oil? Haven't gotten an additional drop or a penny from that that I know about.

Whereby one could argue that, to this point, it's been an unprofitable venture. But I don't think anyone rational expected the potential positives to have come to pass by this stage anyway.

A more plausible explanation is that our intelligence was poor (remember the hearings about that?), or that the WMD are not somewhere in Syria or elsewhere.

Regarding intelligence... I've spent a lot of time studying the CIA and how it works and, while (sorry for sounding like an idiot here) I'm not at liberty to detail the circumstances, I've had some very frank discussions with case workers in the CIA's Directorate of Operations. All of these led me to a simple understanding: Washington largely determines what it is that intelligence finds. E.g., Washington wants x and so it's the CIAs job to find x -- regardless of how much actual evidence there is that x exists. And when the Senate intelligence committee keeps coming back and telling you that x *must* exist, well, eventually you start seeing it in places where you already determined it wasn't.

1. Democracies do not make war on one another. There is not a single example of it having occured.

England vs. Argentina?

Do we understand how close democratic Pakistan and democratic India came to starting their own shootin' match around 2001?

Your point may be worth further consideration, although the US is a democracy (after its fashion) and apparently we make war on other countries. But it's okay, though, so long as the one country is a democracy and the other one isn't because then the first country can turn the other country into a democracy, which will result in no war, except those wars used to turn other non-democracies into democracies.

...as well as the fact that no one person or small group can highjack the military for very long.

See: Latin America. Or my poster boy in Pakistan. A lot of guys having good runs on the democratic power+military situation.

2. Democracies produce far fewer violent extremists.

I'd like to see some further study on this to see if we can get some actual numbers to support or refute this claim. I really don't know who and where the world's most violent extremists actually are. That said...

I know that the Philippines, a democracy, has some serious problems with extreme and violent people. Or, better example, Indonesia (Jemaah Islamiyah, for example). For that matter, Pakistan, if we're okay with counting them as a democracy, may very well be harboring bin Laden and probably lots of other offal up in those hills. And they don't threaten Americans much, but there's a ton of crap that goes down in India, particularly in the south. Or how 'bout FARC? Or Shining Path? They're violent, extreme, and located in democracies. Or Rwanda? That's a democracy and some bad things have happened there. Or Zimbabwe's technically a democracy still (although in that case it's the government who are the extremists, so that may not count). Cote d'Ivoire: democratic, violent, extreme. Or Russia's a "democracy" and it seems like they got some violent extremists there. They call them Chechens, of course and they're ethnically different from the rest of Russia -- which is similar to the potential problems Iraq will face, given the disagreements between religious factions and ethnicities that exist there.

Leaving aside the practical, I believe as a philsophical matter that liberty is the desire and destiny of every human being.

I can't argue against this as your personal conviction, although I think it's worth considering standard of living and some sort of "utility of freedom" quotient in there. Not to mention a definition of "liberty". If you have to pay $5 to the government, but that means you get to live well, is that more or less free than not having to pay anyone anything and living in squalor? Is it better to live in a country without a free press where you eat three meals a day or to be able to vote until the day you die of untreated AIDS at the age of 30? I'm not sure "freedom" as an absolute is a wise policy, let alone a sufficiently defined one.

I think that assertions that any group of people can't handle it or are not ready for it have racist assumptions at their core.

Oh gosh, the racist card. Very nice.

"well then why don't we also give democracy to the Chinese, South Koreans, Cubans, etc, etc, etc."

Did you mean *South* Korea here? I'm assuming you meant North, but since you brought 'em up, South is a very good example of how a country can/should/ought to democratize. In 1960, South Korea was essentially a third-world country. At that point, however, Park Chung-hee came to power in a coup and ruled as dictator for 18 years. The stability of government and totalitarianly-applied and well-considered economic policy (including wise investment of large chunks of red-scared economic aid from the US and Japan) turned South Korea into a first-world nation and economic power. Obviously it's not conclusive that this could not have happened but for autocratic rule, and I'm guessing another five years under Park might have killed all the positives he brought to light, but in the modern era, South Korea is the only country to have had that kind of emergence (that I can think of), and it happened under a dictatorial regime.

It's just a hunch, but I'm guessing that if China were a democracy, their economic growth would appear more like India's (= not so great). There are a lot of people there, most of them are poor, and given their levels of education, may well have a difficult time electing governments capable of raising their nations' standards of living.

Since you are agreeing with me I should probably leave this alone but I can't.

I'll give you a do-over if you want.

I think that the idea that the Eruopeans didn't cooperate because Bush is a "cowboy" is exactly the reverse of reality. The reasons the Euro's did nothing are exactly the ones you laid out above.

No, the reason they were unwilling to cooperate was because they were treated with disdain and scorn and exclusion. If this were Reagan's war or Clinton's war or even GHWB's war, there might not be European blood on the line, but there might be Eurodollars flowing into the adventuring budget. As a wise man once said on this very subject, "A more charismatic, less 'my way or the highway' leadership persona might have gone a long way in ensuring a more optimal financial structure behind this particular adventure."

My point is that European governments were never under any circumstances going to go along with us no matter who did the asking or how many pretty pleases with a cherry on top we added.

Prove it. International relations aren't about suddenly asking a question and getting a positive answer. It's about a built-up relationship. And leaders of the US' traditional allies have generally made it clear that they don't, on a personal level, like Mr. Bush. The Euro is a pansy, but he's a pansy with money, and if you have to assuage his ego a little bit to get him to do the right thing for himself (and us), that's probably a worthwhile route to pursue.

I'll ditch out before this starts going ad hominem or worse. Wait -- maybe it already has. Ah well.

o