Bluesman

Nope; I'm not following you into the tall grass of the fever swamp you choose to live in.

You're not as up on current events and recent history as you suppose.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

Herodotus

Here are some (all) of the reasons for going to war in Iraq, their rationale, and my brief critique of them. If I am in error, feel free to correct me, or add your own comments. I am just curious as to why people supported this course of action:

Islamic Terrorism--Jad does make an interesting point that we had to go in there to face the threat of Islamic extremism and Iraq was the easiest entry point. But how has that worked so far? Our policies seem to have an adverse effect creating more terrorists than existed before the invasion. It would be an okay strategy I guess if we did actually kill all the terrorists, but if we don't kill every single one (and this probably includes family members who vow revenge), or co-opt them then what good will it have been to invade Iraq?

Democracy Promotion---Well and good if all countries are democratic or become Western democracies, but they aren't. I've always been uncomfortable with this as a rationale of the Iraq war, since it seems to be an arrogant policy (similar to 19th century imperialists justifying their occupation of Third World countries), and one that can easily blow back in our faces. Indeed 'democracy' seems to be a cover for some Iraqis to enforce religious laws, and for others (or the same) to further sectarian strife. When the Christian population of Iraq returns and no longer has to live in fear,(let alone the Sunnis) then maybe I will think democracy is possible.

Iraq as a Threat---I think this notion has been dispelled given the relative absence of WMD, and the way that Saddam's army rolled over. As a threat to its neighbors perhaps, to Iran, though I doubt he would have invaded Kuwait again. But as I have said both these hostilities (as well as toward Israel) pre-date Saddam's tenure in office, and his removal does nothing to alleviate the situations, except perhaps with Iran.

Upholding International Law---It's well and good that conservatives want to uphold international law, but Bush only gave this a half-hearted effort. He went to the UN and said Saddam is bad, we must get rid of him, the UN passed another resolution, Saddam complied, Bush went back to the UN said Saddam is still bad, let's get rid of him, the Security Council didn't/couldn't agree, so Bush/Blair went in anyway, without authorization.

Of these reasons. perhaps there are more, I think the first one holds the most water, and is the most defensible position. It is still a risky endeavor, and a course of action I probably would not have recommended, especially in the absence of any significant terrorist ties to Iraq, and the ham-fisted way in which we have conducted ourselves in Iraq. The other rationale are less meaningful, and are probably more appropriate as Fox News slogans.

Herodotus

Really? Pray tell what do you know about "current events and recent history" that I am missing? Have you even refuted anything I have written about except to give platitudes about the corrupt UN?

Dreadnought

For one there are many and I do mean many that knows what Bluesman does although it need not be advertised here and I doubt you will ever find it in print. In short he knows exactly what he is talking about and has the brass to prove it.

Secondly, you are about the thousandth person who has walked into the WAB and brought about your critique and raised the subject for the umpteenth time. This subject has been covered numerous times on several threads and its funny how the very same stances are taken and defeated.

Please do review all of the threads based upon your reasoning, But also know there is alot of (real) Brass with real life experience behind the matters you seek in these corridors before you decide to tell someone about exactly what he/they know. Reading papers and internet political wash is one thing knowing true intell is quite another.

You appear new to the WAB so welcome but please do tread lightly in some of these forums.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

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.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Herodotus

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.

Herodotus

I've been around since April, I came over from strategypage. Thank you for your comments, but I can hold my own. I can be blunt at times, but I only comment on subjects on which I have knowledge or interest in, on Iraq I have both. If I step on anybody's toes it is not intentional, but I also don't hold anybody in such awe that I don't think they can't be wrong at times.

This is the World Affairs Board isn't it, the Iraq war section, in a thread about Saddam and the reasons for the war, correct? I'm not at imdb, I'm not here to discuss movies, or your favorite color, or Bluesman's favorite drink. Let's have a serious debate about this subject instead of scratching each other's backs about what we "know" or don't know.

BTW---I don't use "papers" or "internet political wash" as the basis for my reasoning.

S-2

"Look the point of me bringing all this up isn't to just rehash the past..."

Quite possibly it is nothing but.

"...but rather to understand why we are in Iraq so that we can form a more coherent strategy about what to do there."

For those of us who already understand why we are in Iraq, we see our strategy beginning to take visible form. Have you noticed the plaintive calls by Iraqi spokesmen to discuss joint operations with the turkish? I'm encouraged by the possibilities as they inevitably require coordination in some manner with the KRG. The issue can no longer be ignored at the convenience of AMERICA's discomfort by Iraq or Kurdistan.

I use this modest example of what is unfolding- a viable Iraqi gov't. The speed doesn't suit your taste thus it's worthy (I suspect) of our departure as "unsolvable". We will depart over time. Afghanistan demands as much and so do other potential contingencies in Europe.

Our strategy, however, does require a stable and secure Iraq with the real opportunity to fashion a modern and pluralistic arab democracy. It is entirely possible despite claims of an Iraqi brain-drain. There are indications of this condition reversing itself. The institutions will grow in fits and starts, as I earlier indicated. But they WILL grow. Given time, common sense of the costs of exclusion will slowly emerge into better use of Iraq's human capital. Efficiencies will emerge within both the private and public sector.

Again, Kurdistan has been a perfect example of growth where security prevails. It has been so since virtually the beginning. It COULD have been this way in ALL of Iraq despite our oafish early efforts. It's turning that way now.

For Iraqis who've now looked down the barrel of civil war, there's sufficient rejection to begin building some real momentum. You know this. You also know that despite 160,000 U.S. troops, this is and will remain for some time a tenuous and tedious process.

Your patience and perseverance are being tested. There will be no total withdrawal nor shall their be a precipitous drawdown. It will be slow and measured as events allow.

Events allow as Iraqis learn immutable lessons of self-governance that require advice and consent (remember the great book?). We've applied pressure. So too the parliament's constituents. It's shown of late in the newly generated legislation.

Sorry, stud. It'll be a while in both A-stan and Iraq.

Read "LEARNING TO EAT SOUP WITH A KNIFE" by Nagl. Our learning curve is dramatic. Insurgencies are long work. Read about one of our successes as Americans-

The Hukbalahap Insurrection

The strategy is sound. A democratic Iraq is a shot across the bow of every repressive arab/muslim regime throughout the region. We are profiling the region-no question. It is correct to conclude that more 9/11s will eminate under any guise (Al Qaeda today, JAM tomorrow) from a region of such utter backward discontent.

Until proven otherwise, democratic governance and principles of free and unfettered trade seem the only reasonable start-point from which to battle over the long-term this liklihood. It must start and has in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The strategic alternative is not dis-engagement. That was validated on 9/11. The strategic alternative is open war, conquest of fossil based fuels and lay waste to our enemies.

That seems unnecessary at present. I sure hope it stays that way. That's why I tell my Turkish buddies here to be nice and help Iraq. I tried to tell my Pakistani buddies elsewhere the same about Afghanistan...

They laughed and called me real bad names.

I worry about Pakistan. I wonder if they need a new perspective? Maybe we could help with that whenever we get done in Iraq. What do you think?

Parihaka

They were very rude weren't they

S-2

"They were very rude weren't they"

Indeed. I saw you drop by. Million Iraqis killed by our guys. Thousands of their women raped. 500,000 dead in Afghanistan by our guys.

Hurtful lies that are beyond discussion.

I'm afraid a day of reckoning looms for that nation and us which won't be pretty.

Herodotus

S-2, Great I've been looking for someone to answer these questions for me lo these many years, and since you have a clear strategic vision on Iraq let me ask you.

1.) What was the (real) rationale for the invasion of Iraq? Remove Saddam, remove WMD, establish democracy, kill Islamic terrorists, make an example of Iraq, or all of the above?

2.) If the answer is all of the above or establish democracy, why has democracy promotion been given short shrift in Iraq; no quick handover of power, no bottom-up promotion of democratic institutions, no protection of minority rights, no (real) establishment of security, no power-sharing deals, and no clear break from the Islamic religious tradition that popular sovereignty only comes from God?

3.) What does (strategic) victory look like in Iraq? An end to terrorism, an end to sectarian war, an end to Saddam, a completely stable Iraq, a completely stable and democratic Iraq, or Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and Arabs sitting together singing kumbya, or just using Iraq as a place to base American troops in the future, or anything else?

4.) If as you say it will take a long, long time for any of America's goals to be realized in the region (save the removal of Saddam), how has the administration prepared the American public, who are already weary of war, for this likelihood?

5.) If we, America, fall short of strategic victory (however so defined) what would happen in a worse-case scenario to America, and Iraq, that hasn't already occurred? Al Qaeda taking over Iraq, Iran influencing Iraq, Iraq devolves into civil war, America is attacked by Islamic radicals, oil supply is endangered/oil prices rise?

6.) How does an American presence there absolutely prevent any one of the worse-case scenarios from happening? Conversely, if America were to remove troops would any of these worse-case scenarios really befall us or Iraq? If so, why?

No sarcasm is intended, I think these are questions we should be asking. I apologize if they seem too partisan or "agenda-driven", but I get tired of the boilerplate answers, and sloganeering, and would like some serious critical thinking on these issues.


"I myself dabbled in pacifism at one time; not during 'Nam of course."

S-2

"1.) What was the (real) rationale for the invasion of Iraq? Remove Saddam, remove WMD, establish democracy, kill Islamic terrorists, make an example of Iraq, or all of the above?"

Saddam, WMD, democracy were all objectives worth consideration. "...kill Islamic terrorists..." in Iraq is a simple requirement of establishing local security for the Iraqis. This poll-thread so far has largely said that terrorists weren't a viable pre-invasion issue. Their post-invasion presence may well be a product of our bungled Phase IV implementation. Their current presence is an undeniable though diminishing fact that is best addressed kinetically.

TWO examples of Iraq. Consequences of "bad, bad Iraq" to paraphrase nanheyangrouchuan fav anti-PRC rant and the shining beacon of new Iraq. First one was immediately understood by Gaddafi. The second needs some polishing. Objectives though, if unstated. So all excepting salafi-wahabbist A.Q. type terrorists. Ansar-al-Islam doesn't really quite work. I don't really know how to describe that relationship w/ Iraq. Tenuous, perhaps.

2.) If the answer is all of the above or establish democracy, why has democracy promotion been given short shrift in Iraq...

Not at all. Parliamentary elections and constitutional referendums in an arab state are too unusual to casually dismiss as EXPECTED order of business. Hardly short shrift that Iraq has had a government hold office...

"...no quick handover of power..."

Allawi took the interim P.M. position sometime in 2004. Jaffari. al-Maliki in 2006. True power is derived from competent institutions. There were none under Saddam. Perhaps that might be different now. That's TBD.

"...no bottom-up promotion of democratic institutions..."

Don't be so limp-wristed. Those seven words are values. Communication of these values is occurring. The "al-Anbar Awakening" is a reflection of this grass-roots re-emergence. But it's not as tame as forced school-bussing in Boston, that's for sure. Still, there's been considerable movement in the villages, towns, districts, and provinces which you've chosen to ignore I suspect.

Finally, one-third of the nation was COMPLETELY prepared to "bottom-up" from the get-go. Kurdistan. Most Kurds would suggest that-

"...no protection of minority rights"

Imperfect. Yazidis suffered badly recently. Kurds have fared better.

"...no (real) establishment of security..."

That's changing quickly or will you not acknowledge that?

"...no power-sharing deals...",

I'd call the presence of an Iraqi parliament and constitution, by themselves, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's been much more since.

"...and no clear break from the Islamic religious tradition that popular sovereignty only comes from God?

Whatever. "no" is absolute. That you use absolute phrasing repeatedly suggests you've departed from considered discussion of issues based on relevant and current conditions. I sense within some articles of faith to which you cling in the face of contrary observations.

3.) "What does (strategic) victory look like in Iraq?"

Something closer to Turkey than Saudi Arabia for starters. I like our chances there. Especially if it includes an Incirlik or two.

4.) If as you say it will take a long, long time for any of America's goals to be realized in the region (save the removal of Saddam)...

No. I didn't say that-least of all "any". Not by a country mile. Many have already been realized. No WMD. Neighbors safe from invasion. Kurds and shias safe. No baath party. Far more than you mentioned that are immediate benefits to the neighborhood.

"how has the administration prepared the American public, who are already weary of war, for this likelihood?"

Rhetorical. You've already answered this for yourself. Prove weariness and beware of polls.

5.) If we, America, fall short of strategic victory (however so defined) what would happen in a worse-case scenario to America, and Iraq, that hasn't already occurred?

If you can't imagine worse than the present then you've not studied history at all. Note the absolutism of that comment by me.

6.) How does an American presence there absolutely prevent any one of the worse-case scenarios from happening?

YOUR worse-case scenarios may not be the only imaginable. Our presence guarantees nothing. I think it's clear that our departure guarantees a highly unstable Iraq vulnerable to external and internal forces which it is only now averting with some success.

Conversely, if America were to remove troops would any of these worse-case scenarios really befall us or Iraq? If so, why?

Too many questions now and I know you too well, Herodotus. You're cherry-picking the edges to avoid an open declaration of your views for which you might be pummeled.

Take the big step and give us the Herodotus Manifesto of American Adventurism.

No sarcasm is intended... if they seem too partisan or "agenda-driven", but I get tired of the boilerplate answers ... and would like some serious critical thinking on these issues.

You need to practice some "boilerplate assumptions" avoidance.


"I myself dabbled in pacifism at one time; not during 'Nam of course."

Walter- My bowling partner. Good man. He can get you a toe in three hours.

JAD_333

I wasn't going to reply to the last post you directed at me because I felt a bit like blues--we aren't going to get anywhere with the legalistic approach. But since you say you are trying to understand why we are in Iraq, perhaps the discussion isn't at a dead end afterall.

Your statement, that understanding why we are in Iraq will allow us to form a "more" coherent strategy, is somewhat backwards. Perhaps when you understand the reason we are there, you will see that the strategy is indeed coherent. Well, anyway, whatever is beyond the limits of one's
understanding, is an open question. Wouldn't you agree?

This statement is a little backwards, too, because if we DO know why we are in Iraq, then we'll know when we've won.


Does this suggest, perhaps, that the limit of your understanding is the WMD rationale? As we've all said in very different ways, the essential reason for going into Iraq was much more than WMD and even more than Saddam's villany. In a nutshell, it was to confront a threat to our national security, namely a non-national, political movement that uses terror tactics to advance an agenda which specifically identifies us as its enemy. It's goal is to re-establish a centuries-old, strict Islamic culture throughout the ME and, in due course, to wipe out Israel. This movement knows that the US is a roadblock to its goals. So, it directs its terror attacks at us, at any coalition member, and at any Islamic country that associates with us on a friendly basis.

It might help to understand why we are in Iraq if you ask yourself how this movement could succeed. It'll take a stretch of imagination, but suffice it to say that it could happen and, therefore, it must be regarded as a threat, particularly since it has been growing gradually since well before 9/11. A policymaker simply cannot ignor a growing threat, however small it may yet be. And history has shown us over and over that failure to confront a threat early can be disastrous.

Some people ask, "what threat"? Like you when you asked what can 20,000-30,000 terrorists org. fighters do. You believe our presense in Iraq led to those numbers. That's incorrect. Our presense in Iraq may have drawn them there, but the reason they exist at all is because AQ and other terror orgs converted them to their ideology, and they'll go where we are whether its Iraq or NYC.

So, if you want to understand why we are there, look beyond all the confetti like WMD, Saddam the butcher, claims on Kuwait, who actually triggered the Iraq-Iran war, and especially the logjam of ineffective UN resolutions.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

JAD_333

Good line, S-2. (No offense, Herodotus,)