Quote:
Originally Posted by S-2
I'm sorry but the attempt has been made. WMD was found. You question it. The Duelfer Report lays bare the programs lying dormant, information taken in debriefings of some of the highest officials in the Baath gov't substantiated by countless findings in what can only be characterized as the single most comprehesive study of Saddam's byzantine WMD and nat'l security strategy. It was, in short, damning- but not to you. You even call to question the use of chemical agents against the Iranians and at Halabja.
A long history of realized ambitions of irridentistism has been stopped and reversed- but only by war. A demonstrated use of WMD and the possession of programs designed to perpetuate that threat have been ELIMINATED as a foreseeable consequence of being Iraq's neighbor or citizen.
A fouled-up PHASE IV occupation by the Americans only illustrates the witches brew of forces opposed to a democratic and free Iraq, however bungled our initial efforts to combat them. THEY bear the burden of guilt for the post-war Iraqi violence. Not America. Even still the cost is bearable.
But not to you. LANCET says otherwise. Hopefully that was an argument buried elsewhere, or does that need yet another wash?
You raise interesting questions about the future. That's all that matters at this point. For the most part, though, your discussion shall be left for the historians to ponder. Until, however, they discover something heretofore unknown, they've nothing substantively different to offer from the assessment of most here.
Neither do you, Herodotus. I hope that this helps to illuminate our disdain for these issues. Given your eloquence and obvious intelligence, it'd be neat if you instead looked ahead. O'Hanlon's notion of stabilized security is clearly a far cry from unbridled cries of "Let freedom fill the air". Still, it's the best we've got short of planned partition or civil war. If achieved, then it will be as it should for the near-term- an uneasy peace as political coalitions form, elections are held (yet again), institutions are raised, and life goes on.
The truth is that Iraq deserves a civil war to self-identify. It's a rational outcome for many nations, in my view. I question Iraq's legitimacy as a nation. Without reconciliation by all factions it can't really exist other than as a cheap facade. That won't last. So liberty AND sovereignty in many cases need to be earned in blood by my view.
HOWEVER, just maybe radical surgery can be avoided by a reconciled and unified emerging Iraqi expression of parliamentary democracy. That'd be terribly cool and not totally out of the question. It's the only good bet too, IMV.
So back the best bet to a better world and support the success of the Iraqi gov't as it continues to evolve as only a new democracy can-in fits and starts.
Look not backward, but firmly to the future with eyes clear and powder dry. 
Most of us already are doing so. |
Thanks for the reply S-2, eloquent as always. Look the point of me bringing all this up isn't to just rehash the past, but rather to understand why we are in Iraq so that we can form a more coherent strategy about what to do there. If we don't even know why we are in Iraq how do we know when/if we've won? If this war was about WMD or removing Saddam, then we've won and let's move on from there. If it's about democracy promotion well that's a whole other ball of wax. If it's about Islamic terrorism, then how does our "fouled-up Phase IV occupation" really help matters in reducing said terrorism?
I have some problems with the Dulefuer report, like how it doesn't explain what Saddam was supposed to do with chemical and biological scientists who acquired knowledge on how to make WMD (the knowledge of chemical weapons has been around since at least WWI so it isn't too difficult to figure out; MIT students know in theory how to make nuclear weapons). He placed these scientists in various academic and research-oriented institutions where they utilized their skill in chem/bio research (surprise), and this move was seen as "cultivating" the knowledge on how to make said WMD. Okay, it's not like the scientists can unlearn what they already knew, and it isn't like they could do anything else that was completely unrelated to chemical/biological research.
Instead we can look at what Saddam actually planned to do in regards to WMD. There were no plans or production schedules for WMD imminent, and the evidence on the ground (and not just the Dulfuer report) bears this out. Also taking an objective look at the history of the region, and the animosity between Iran/Iraq that goes back a decade prior to Saddam's presidency, and Iraq's historic claim on Kuwait, and one sees that Saddam did not necessarily act as a belligerent with hegemonic goals. Was he stupid? yes, most likely. Dangerous? Probably not, since his incompetence as a military commander was shown through the two wars he fought.
I never said he didn't use WMD against the Iranians, he did, mostly as a defensive weapons, and only after the Ayatollah called for his head on a platter. However Halabja is a different story. There is no evidence to suggest (at least none I am aware of) that Iraq had used WMD specifically against Kurds prior to Halabja, or even after. Indeed during the Al-Anfal campaign, heinous though it was, Saddam did not use chemical weapons (unless one includes Halabja). The CIA report, and Stephen Pelletier, the DIA's main guy on the Iran/Iraq war, initially blamed Iran for the attack. Pelletier still stands by his story, so why suddenly did the story change years after the event? Finally Chemical Ali, the man purportedly responsible for Halabja was never charged for the crime. Why? Questions I know you hold in disdain, probably far better to go along with the conventional wisdom, but I am just curious.
Finally, I know your feeling about the Kurds, and perhaps partition of some sort is in order. However given that our leaders are not of that view, it doesn't seem like a viable option until at least after the election. It's also well and good to hope for democracy, but as you have said the Iraqis must be of like-mind and I doubt, currently that they are. 100 years from now, if Iraq becomes democratic does Bush get the credit?
Our current strategy is akin to a band-aid on a gushing wound, only made possible because both Sadr and the Sunnis have taken a respite from killing each other (perhaps an indirect result of the surge, but nevertheless the surge would be hard-pressed to work if Sadr had declared open war against the US, and the Sunni tribes had backed AQI instead of the US). Political solutions are needed, and they are not forthcoming from our "democratic" partners.