Tuesday, June 14, 2005
5. Eliminating Saddam’s Long-term Threat
Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq
The best case for this possible motive for the invasion was brought to my attention by a regular reader: “That [Saddam’s] threat was long term, not short term, and it rested nearly completely on Saddam's long held nuclear ambitions. The case is set forth at great length in the linked review of Kenneth Pollack’s, "The Threatening Storm." ”
The general idea was that sanctions would not work in the long term. Saddam could play a cat-and-mouse game with the USA indefinitely. Given his past record, he would be likely to acquire a stockpile of WMD, particularly nuclear weapons that could threaten other countries in the region…as well as the USA. Pollack (and no doubt many others) could not see “another viable alternative” to invasion.
Fair enough. This is certainly a reasonable argument. But there is a problem with this hypothesis: if this was indeed the motive – a long term threat – then what was the hurry? Saddam was in no position in March 2003 to threaten any regional country or the United States. Could the administration have given itself a little bit more time to plan the campaign?
There is almost universal agreement now that the post-invasion phase was poorly planned. The reason most people accept for that poor planning was that haste! But why was there so much haste? Lack of proper preparation, lack of proper planning, disasters that led to the loss of countless lives, Iraqi and America; chaos, lawlessness, poor decisions that led to America being viewed as an enemy by ordinary people…
What would have happened if the invasion was delayed for some six months, or even a year to prepare better? Wouldn’t this have led to some life saving? If all those criminal mistakes were not made, couldn’t that have possibly led to the success in this campaign instead of resulting in a humiliating failure?
Even the plans put forward by the numerous committees set up by the State Department were hurriedly and unceremoniously discarded! Why?
This theory does not explain the great urgency with which the campaign was conducted or the great incompetence in its implementation. If long term dangers were the main motive, then surely the long term effects of chaos in Iraq and the already-volatile region would also be equally threatening to the USA and to world peace… and would have warranted some consideration?
Surely, to any semi-competent long-term planner, “long term” adverse effects that such an invasion would have on the Arab world, the Muslim world and the rest of the world… would also lead to even more significant long-term threat? Surely those possible, perhaps even potentially more potent, long-term threats should have warranted better planning of the campaign if it were not to produce more grave dangers that it aimed to solve? Or couldn’t the administration handle the concept of more than one threat simultaneously? That would be an absurd proposition.
[Another interesting (probably even amusing) observation that has to be made in this context is that so many people advocating action (including going to war) based on Saddam’s (or other regimes’) record or history, violently reject other people drawing conclusions based on US administrations’ past record and actions!]
This theory may only become reasonable with the aid of one of two assumptions to explain the shortcomings in implementation:
1. The timing was dictated by “short-term” domestic US political considerations, for re-election purposes, which did not leave sufficient time to plan for the campaign properly… and to exploit public sentiment that allowed that ‘thin’ evidence to be sufficient justification for the war;
2. A level of (political and administrative) incompetence that no amount of planning could improve.
The implications, in either case, for the integrity of the administration or its capability to run the affairs of America… are self evidently disastrous!
In summary, there may have been a case for Saddam being regarded as a long-term threat to the USA for that factor to be considered a motive for the invasion. But if that is accepted, then the conclusions of either criminal incompetence or recklessness and lack of sufficient consideration for loss of American (or other) lives or for creating more long-term grave dangers on the part of the administration… must be accepted by advocates of this theory.
The best case for this possible motive for the invasion was brought to my attention by a regular reader: “That [Saddam’s] threat was long term, not short term, and it rested nearly completely on Saddam's long held nuclear ambitions. The case is set forth at great length in the linked review of Kenneth Pollack’s, "The Threatening Storm." ”
The general idea was that sanctions would not work in the long term. Saddam could play a cat-and-mouse game with the USA indefinitely. Given his past record, he would be likely to acquire a stockpile of WMD, particularly nuclear weapons that could threaten other countries in the region…as well as the USA. Pollack (and no doubt many others) could not see “another viable alternative” to invasion.
Fair enough. This is certainly a reasonable argument. But there is a problem with this hypothesis: if this was indeed the motive – a long term threat – then what was the hurry? Saddam was in no position in March 2003 to threaten any regional country or the United States. Could the administration have given itself a little bit more time to plan the campaign?
There is almost universal agreement now that the post-invasion phase was poorly planned. The reason most people accept for that poor planning was that haste! But why was there so much haste? Lack of proper preparation, lack of proper planning, disasters that led to the loss of countless lives, Iraqi and America; chaos, lawlessness, poor decisions that led to America being viewed as an enemy by ordinary people…
What would have happened if the invasion was delayed for some six months, or even a year to prepare better? Wouldn’t this have led to some life saving? If all those criminal mistakes were not made, couldn’t that have possibly led to the success in this campaign instead of resulting in a humiliating failure?
Even the plans put forward by the numerous committees set up by the State Department were hurriedly and unceremoniously discarded! Why?
This theory does not explain the great urgency with which the campaign was conducted or the great incompetence in its implementation. If long term dangers were the main motive, then surely the long term effects of chaos in Iraq and the already-volatile region would also be equally threatening to the USA and to world peace… and would have warranted some consideration?
Surely, to any semi-competent long-term planner, “long term” adverse effects that such an invasion would have on the Arab world, the Muslim world and the rest of the world… would also lead to even more significant long-term threat? Surely those possible, perhaps even potentially more potent, long-term threats should have warranted better planning of the campaign if it were not to produce more grave dangers that it aimed to solve? Or couldn’t the administration handle the concept of more than one threat simultaneously? That would be an absurd proposition.
[Another interesting (probably even amusing) observation that has to be made in this context is that so many people advocating action (including going to war) based on Saddam’s (or other regimes’) record or history, violently reject other people drawing conclusions based on US administrations’ past record and actions!]
This theory may only become reasonable with the aid of one of two assumptions to explain the shortcomings in implementation:
1. The timing was dictated by “short-term” domestic US political considerations, for re-election purposes, which did not leave sufficient time to plan for the campaign properly… and to exploit public sentiment that allowed that ‘thin’ evidence to be sufficient justification for the war;
2. A level of (political and administrative) incompetence that no amount of planning could improve.
The implications, in either case, for the integrity of the administration or its capability to run the affairs of America… are self evidently disastrous!
In summary, there may have been a case for Saddam being regarded as a long-term threat to the USA for that factor to be considered a motive for the invasion. But if that is accepted, then the conclusions of either criminal incompetence or recklessness and lack of sufficient consideration for loss of American (or other) lives or for creating more long-term grave dangers on the part of the administration… must be accepted by advocates of this theory.
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 10:29 PM 
Comments:
I would have to say that it is not clear that the US administration needed or felt it needed more time to plan the invasion and occupation.
The timing was driven by domestic politics, meaning the need for war to be a prominent issue in the 2002 congressional elections, then by the desire of the US to fight during the spring or fall i.e. not the summer whihc would have presented weather problems, then by the fact that holding troops in Kuwait to invade had costs and there was no clear benefit to holding them longer.
Instead of eliminating Saddam's long term threat, I propose the US was interested in removing Iraq's long term threat.
This link was supposedly written by a right wing Israeli in the mid 1980's (plenty of time to plan)
http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html#23
[Quote - Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.]
I've written before the Iraq has been caught in a vortex of co-reinforcing religious and racial bigotry on the part of the Americans. This vortex is used and directed by Israelis but not created by them.
According to the Israeli quoted above, no Iraq that is stable and unified preferable to an Iraq that is divided and embroiled in civil war with the possible exception of an Iraq that is securely governed by an unpopular pro-Western leader such as Jordan's Abdullah or Egypt's Mubarak.
From that point of view, the current deepening civil war is the plan itself.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
Saddam at 65 a long term threat? Old men seldom become more aggressive, though they may occasionally bark (like Castro). It is unlikely Qusay as a successor would be much more than than the nominal head of a rather treacherous baathist junta. Would Saddam develop a WMD only to hand it over to medieval opposite, Bin Ladin? Rather a comedown for the Lion of Iraq. Also as demonstrated by his wars, his judgement was extremely poor( deep down he probably guessed as much) and he must have distrusted his fawning advisors. It all seems rather unlikely to me, but what in the mind of a neo-con like Bush constitutes a threat? Everything?
Given the lack of real information, (except those special CIA concoctions) I can only speculate what Saddam's long term threat was.
_____________________________________________________________________
"But if that is accepted, then the conclusions of either criminal incompetence or recklessness and lack of sufficient consideration for loss of American (or other) lives or for creating more long-term grave dangers on the part of the administration…"
Well if you have a better plan, now is as good a time as any to bring it forward.
I also agree with Mark.
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Khaleel wrote "Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq"
Abu Khaleel, the motive was/is because the U.S loves Iraq and Iraqis. That is what a U.S person just wrote on a forum. I wish you could see me so you can understand what I think of that.
/ Nadia
_____________________________________________________________________
Mr. Democracy the link you gave does not work. Can you please fix it, I would love to read more about what you wrote!
- Nadia
_____________________________________________________________________
No need for a link I got a new one!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1025.htm
- Nadia
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Khaleel:
Personally, my vote for the lack of planing is incompetence, which was largely driven by blind adherence to ideology as well as abhorence for what they deemed the "Clintonian" process of "nation building." A relatively scholarly approach to the lack of planning for post-invasion Iraq can be found in Anthony Cordesman's, Iraq's Evolving Insurgency. See p. 1-10, the link is http://www.csis.org/features/050512_IraqInsurg.pdf . Mr. Cordesman is the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Stragetic and International Studies. He is generally considered blunt and thoughtful and was, by the way, a critic of the lack of post-invasion planning well before it had begun.
Cordesman, contrary to Pollack's analysis, argued that the crippling economic sanctions on Iraq could have been continued until the time of Saddam's death or until Iraq became so impoverished that is no longer posed an military threat. To me, this doesn't sound like a signficantly more palatable solution to dealing with Saddam's regime as it would have meant the burden of sanctions fell largely on the innocent Iraqi people.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
_____________________________________________________________________
Oh well! I’ve been keeping quiet, Abu, but Charles’ latest tempts me irresistibly back to the bad old days of abusive and repetitive argument. Honestly, Charles, you haven’t changed a bit.
1) "Saddam was a proven threat." He posed no immediate or long-term threat to the USA sufficient to justify a precipitate attack or an under-resourced and bungled occupation. (He posed no immediate threat to regional stability or US regional interests, either, come to that.) Read what Abu has just written, for Goodness sake. And please read my whole sentence to the end (where the period is!) before leaping to your keyboard - note and meditate upon the word "immediate." And then look up and meditate on the word "pre-emptive."
2) "No amount of plans will ever make the act of fighting a war a good thing." No, but if you are going to conquer and occupy a country just to show what a great War President you are, just a little bit of planning seems likely to be a "good thing." You will doubtless be unaware of this, Charles, since it presumably hasn’t featured on Fox News, but be assured that those of us who can read have seen recently leaked British Cabinet Office minutes proving (a) that the war was decided on by mid 2002, and (b) that even then the British could see, and expressed alarm at, the lack of planning for the occupation. (And no, Charles, these aren’t the wimpy effete left-wing British that US conservatives love to hate, these are your brave main allies, remember? The practical efficient British Army which has done a ten-times-better job of occupation than your Army has.)
3) "One thing for certain is that Iraq would be a lot better off if it weren't for the terrorists..."
As above. There’s not a lot of "terrorists" in the British zone. Hell, one of your Generals in Iraq has just admitted that he’s creating three terrorists for every one he kills. We get into the same old argument - I say, clumsy US tactics and lack of sufficient boots on the ground have allowed the insurgency to flourish, then you say, well, bleat bleat boo hoo, poor little US can’t do it alone, the rest of the world should help out, then I say, the rest of the world (unlike in 1991) didn’t want to join in an illegal and unnecessary war, then you go back to 1) above and round and round we go. Ho hum. Bottom line, If US military intelligence had actually possessed any military intelligence, they would have anticipated, planned for and thwarted the terrorists long ago. And demanded more boots.
4) "US soldiers are dying almost every day to secure freedom for your children." Some of them may think they are, but to those of us in the free world who have access to real news, it seems more accurate to say that most of them are dying because their leaders were ignorant, arrogant, dishonest and made mistakes.
Reminds one of Rudyard Kipling’s epitaph for the British dead of World War One:
"If they ask you why you died,
"Tell them, because our fathers lied."
5) "I do sincerely hope that there is a silver lining in here somewhere. Let's see where we are in 5-10 years." That’s a bit gloomy. Perhaps 5-10 months will be enough, Charles, if the polls continue to show reducing US support for the war and Bush’s performance, and if Army recruitment continues to fall off.
Look at the soldiers marching by! Our Charles is the only one in step!
Sorry about that Abu. Just for old time’s sake.
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
Why do you ask me questions when you seem to know all the answers to things like what’s best for Iraqis, who the insurgents are… and what Iraqis feel?
But this is all Circular’s fault (just as things were quieting down a bit!) I think it serves him right to get into a fresh argument with you ;)
But to tell you the truth, I was almost tempted myself to respond to that first comment of yours up there. I mean, really Charles, after all I have been saying!! Are we back to propaganda and 'Freedom and Democracy' stuff? I thought we have already over-discussed that.
_____________________________________________________________________
Circ:
What would you have done about Saddam's regime? Are you a hard eyed "realist" like Cordesman that would continued the "containment policy," which in effect merely shifted the long term suffering to the Iraqi people for Saddam's sins? Or did you want to substantially lift sanctions and trust Saddam's bona fides?
Mark-In-Ch-Town
_____________________________________________________________________
Mark
"What would you have done about Saddam's regime?"
Just a quick answer, not thought through: it’s evident from the memos that the focus all along was really on regime change. As I’ve said before, the UN in general has no real legal mandate for this, but maybe it is about time it developed one. Iraq could have been the "test case" in which the world, led by the US, brought pressure on the regime to either change or step down.
(I doubt that sanctions which harmed only the people should have continued, but Saddam had no allies, no one to re-arm him, and no potential for local aggression. He may have had no option but to listen to world opinion, with the threat of really concerted military action in the background.)
Sure it may have taken another 5-10 years to get anywhere, but isn’t that what Charles has just suggested in respect of the present unconcerted military action?
Which basically came about because Saddam kept making defiant noises which upset a vain President easily manipulated by the neo-cons and eager for military glory.
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
"As I’ve said before, the UN in general has no real legal mandate for this, but maybe it is about time it developed one. Iraq could have been the "test case" in which the world, led by the US, brought pressure on the regime to either change or step down."
We tried that for ten years!
"Saddam had no allies, no one to re-arm him, and no potential for local aggression. He may have had no option but to listen to world opinion, with the threat of really concerted military action in the background.)
Sure it may have taken another 5-10 years to get anywhere,"
I have a nice bridge for sale.
_____________________________________________________________________
Madtom
Actually I was addressing Mark, but whatever.
No, I won’t buy your bridge, thanks. I suspect it’s the same shonky item that you and Charles bought, with rotting girders of WMD, false "imminent threats," and having to go to war right now with "the Army you have, not the one you would want or wish to have."
(What’s with this Rumsfeld guy, anyway? What’s the difference between wanting and wishing? Don’t he spika da English?)
Would you like to buy some Instant Freedom and Democracy Soup? Just boil up some bullshit, add a cupful of Marines, half the world’s supply of bombs and bullets, and stir like buggery. Guaranteed to be undrinkable!
Circular
(Sorry again, Abu. Promise I’ll be good from now on.)
_____________________________________________________________________
No I won’t!
This story for some reason really upsets me. (It’s about the shooting of a female Iraqi teacher by a panicky US soldier.)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=2&u=/krwashbureau/20050615/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_usiraq_shooting_wa_1
Read it, everyone!
Taking up something Charles said earlier, I’d be willing to lay a small bet on the following:
granted it’s an absurd hypothesis, but if the British had been given the Mosul/North West/Syrian border region to administer, I reckon that that area would now be relatively stable and peaceful. And if the US Army and Marines had the Basra region, it would now be a hotbed of affronted Iraqis, insurgents, terrorists, fortifications and chaos.
And no, Charles, it’s not one unfortunate incident. It’s one unfortunate incident multiplied by ten thousand. You know how to multiply? Use the "X" sign?
How can you guys export "freedom and democracy at the point of a gun" when your troops are the living opposite of freedom?
Aaaaarrrgh.
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
that's
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=2&u=/krwashbureau/20050615/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_usiraq_shooting_wa_1
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel,
no, I do not agree at all with your conclusion ("In summary, there may have been a case for Saddam being regarded as a long-term threat to the USA for that factor to be considered a motive for the invasion").
The (very) hypotetical threat Saddam represented or might have represented to the US in the future was definitely NOT a motive for the invasion. Even if the sanctions had been lifted in the future, a many time bashed Saddam, with no friends in the area and with a regime that had lost the support of the vast majority of the Iraqis, would have been in no conditions to rebuild his military arsenal in such a way to represent a threat to Iraq's neighbours, and even less to the US. As far as the only real WMDs are concerned (atomic weapons), they (and especially their vectors) are not things you can build in your backgarden or in the kitchen. Saddam did try in the late Seventies, at the height of his power and consent by the governed, but didn't manage (and the Israelis destroyed the Osirak reactor). The chance he could have re-started a nuclear program in a post-sanctions Iraq are much slimmer than very thin (and everybody would have noticed in time, anyway).
The real link between Saddam the Bogeyman and the US invasion is shown instead, surprisingly, in the post by our friend Charles. Not in the terms he uses, of course ("Saddam was a proven threat"), but in the insight he unwillingly gives of the frame of mind of the American public.
"After 9/11, Saddam was the guy 'not to be.' Just his bad luck I suppose. Poor Saddam". Precisely that. In choosing a target, after Afghanistan, to start their pre-emptive war for the conquest of the world (and it is only for the courage of Iraqi patriots that such New American Century war is for the moment stuck in a quagmire), Saddam was the obvious choice of election. And the choice of the target could be very easily sold to the American public.
That's the only link between Saddam's non-existent 'long-term threat' and the 2003 invasion.
(BTW, Charles, I do know a rogue State "dallying with terrorist groups" more than any other State on earth, and customarily using them as its operatives. Ever heard of that gentleman, Luis Posadas Carriles, just an example among thousands? Maybe Fox News didn't tell you.)
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Mark,
'What would you have done about Saddam's regime? Are you a hard eyed "realist" like Cordesman that would continued the "containment policy," which in effect merely shifted the long term suffering to the Iraqi people for Saddam's sins? Or did you want to substantially lift sanctions and trust Saddam's bona fides?'
A good question. From Bush's viewpoint, there was no way to allow Iraq to go into full oil production( his #1 priority) with his enemy, Saddam at the helm.
From a humanitarian viewpoint, the biggest threat to Iraqis was probably sanctions (Saddam was not Pol Pot and he stopped bombing the Kurds). Again, Bush couldn't simply reverse 'containment'policy without explanation. 911 provided an opportunity. Under international law, the US doesn't have the right to change governments by war. Having invaded, he should have withdrawn as soon as possible.
_____________________________________________________________________
"Funk said the report also found that Khinaisar's car was 15 feet from the Humvees, so close that had she been a suicide bomber, the soldiers likely would have been seriously hurt, he said. The Iraqi men at the traffic circle gave conflicting accounts, putting her as far as 100 feet away.
Some family members speculated that Khinaisar, frightened, may have hit the gas instead of the brake when she heard the warning shot. Indeed, the military said that after the warning shot, she moved faster, not slower. "
Circular's link
A tragic story,from a war zone.
"No, I won’t buy your bridge, thanks."
But yet you are willing to believe that saddam could have been "reasoned" with, that pressure could have been brought, that we only had to wait 5-10 years, and then it would all be all right.
Well how about all the people that "were" dieing during the ten years of NFZ's and sanctions?
What bridge were they sold, god knows they paid dearly for it.
_____________________________________________________________________
No, madtom. You are a true rival for Charles in the "don't get it" stakes.
It's not a "tragic story, from a war zone." Iraq is not a war zone. There is no conflict between states going on.
It is a tragic story from a country that was invaded and conquered by the USA, and has been ruled by the USA, exactly like British colonies were, for two years now.
Such stories are the responsibility of the conqueror or colonialist - it is their moral duty, if they take over another country, to provide conditions which prevent such things from happening (over and over and over again.) For example, they should not have one law for native motorists (give way to the right?) an another for colonist motorists (if a car comes too close to you, shoot at it!) That is not showing the natives an example of civilised behaviour. It's just showing them an example of cowardice and bullying.
Not doing very well at this civilising caper so far, are you?
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
"There is no conflict between states going on."
Then who is killing our troops, and Iraqi civilians by the bucket.
I think that calling the US colonizers is a straw man.
And I do not believe Iraq needs civilizing, another straw man, all they needed was to get rid of saddam and his henchmen and they should get along fine.
And just so you know, I am new around here, I am not a Bush supporter. Never have been, never will. I voted for the other guy.
_____________________________________________________________________
"And I do not believe Iraq needs civilizing, another straw man, all they needed was to get rid of saddam and his henchmen and they should get along fine."
Well yippee! You've done that, Saddam and his mythical WMDs and terrorist ties are gone, the Iraqi people have elected a new so-called Government, everything is just hunky-dory.
So why are you still driving around Iraqi streets (not your streets, their streets) ignoring the traffic rules and shooting at passing female motorists.
You've done brung them democracy, I guess this must be the freedom part?
Just like Alabama when the niggers was uppity?
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
"So why are you still driving around Iraqi streets "
I told you, the war. It's not over yet, who told you that?
They lied.
But just in case it is over someone should tell the enemy, they surely don't know it yet.
_____________________________________________________________________
"You've done brung them democracy"
Another straw man, you know if your not interested in a discussion, why do you reply?
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
I would have to say that it is not clear that the US administration needed or felt it needed more time to plan the invasion and occupation.
The timing was driven by domestic politics, meaning the need for war to be a prominent issue in the 2002 congressional elections, then by the desire of the US to fight during the spring or fall i.e. not the summer whihc would have presented weather problems, then by the fact that holding troops in Kuwait to invade had costs and there was no clear benefit to holding them longer.
Instead of eliminating Saddam's long term threat, I propose the US was interested in removing Iraq's long term threat.
This link was supposedly written by a right wing Israeli in the mid 1980's (plenty of time to plan)
http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html#23
[Quote - Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.]
I've written before the Iraq has been caught in a vortex of co-reinforcing religious and racial bigotry on the part of the Americans. This vortex is used and directed by Israelis but not created by them.
According to the Israeli quoted above, no Iraq that is stable and unified preferable to an Iraq that is divided and embroiled in civil war with the possible exception of an Iraq that is securely governed by an unpopular pro-Western leader such as Jordan's Abdullah or Egypt's Mubarak.
From that point of view, the current deepening civil war is the plan itself.
# posted by 
: 15/6/05 3:31 AM
: 15/6/05 3:31 AM Hello Abu Khaleel,
Saddam at 65 a long term threat? Old men seldom become more aggressive, though they may occasionally bark (like Castro). It is unlikely Qusay as a successor would be much more than than the nominal head of a rather treacherous baathist junta. Would Saddam develop a WMD only to hand it over to medieval opposite, Bin Ladin? Rather a comedown for the Lion of Iraq. Also as demonstrated by his wars, his judgement was extremely poor( deep down he probably guessed as much) and he must have distrusted his fawning advisors. It all seems rather unlikely to me, but what in the mind of a neo-con like Bush constitutes a threat? Everything?
Given the lack of real information, (except those special CIA concoctions) I can only speculate what Saddam's long term threat was.
# posted by : 15/6/05 8:42 AM
: 15/6/05 8:42 AM "But if that is accepted, then the conclusions of either criminal incompetence or recklessness and lack of sufficient consideration for loss of American (or other) lives or for creating more long-term grave dangers on the part of the administration…"
Well if you have a better plan, now is as good a time as any to bring it forward.
I also agree with Mark.
Abu Khaleel wrote "Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq"
Abu Khaleel, the motive was/is because the U.S loves Iraq and Iraqis. That is what a U.S person just wrote on a forum. I wish you could see me so you can understand what I think of that.
/ Nadia
# posted by : 16/6/05 12:47 AM
: 16/6/05 12:47 AM Mr. Democracy the link you gave does not work. Can you please fix it, I would love to read more about what you wrote!
- Nadia
# posted by : 16/6/05 12:56 AM
: 16/6/05 12:56 AM No need for a link I got a new one!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1025.htm
- Nadia
# posted by : 16/6/05 1:21 AM
: 16/6/05 1:21 AM Abu Khaleel:
Personally, my vote for the lack of planing is incompetence, which was largely driven by blind adherence to ideology as well as abhorence for what they deemed the "Clintonian" process of "nation building." A relatively scholarly approach to the lack of planning for post-invasion Iraq can be found in Anthony Cordesman's, Iraq's Evolving Insurgency. See p. 1-10, the link is http://www.csis.org/features/050512_IraqInsurg.pdf . Mr. Cordesman is the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Stragetic and International Studies. He is generally considered blunt and thoughtful and was, by the way, a critic of the lack of post-invasion planning well before it had begun.
Cordesman, contrary to Pollack's analysis, argued that the crippling economic sanctions on Iraq could have been continued until the time of Saddam's death or until Iraq became so impoverished that is no longer posed an military threat. To me, this doesn't sound like a signficantly more palatable solution to dealing with Saddam's regime as it would have meant the burden of sanctions fell largely on the innocent Iraqi people.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
# posted by : 16/6/05 4:15 AM
: 16/6/05 4:15 AM Oh well! I’ve been keeping quiet, Abu, but Charles’ latest tempts me irresistibly back to the bad old days of abusive and repetitive argument. Honestly, Charles, you haven’t changed a bit.
1) "Saddam was a proven threat." He posed no immediate or long-term threat to the USA sufficient to justify a precipitate attack or an under-resourced and bungled occupation. (He posed no immediate threat to regional stability or US regional interests, either, come to that.) Read what Abu has just written, for Goodness sake. And please read my whole sentence to the end (where the period is!) before leaping to your keyboard - note and meditate upon the word "immediate." And then look up and meditate on the word "pre-emptive."
2) "No amount of plans will ever make the act of fighting a war a good thing." No, but if you are going to conquer and occupy a country just to show what a great War President you are, just a little bit of planning seems likely to be a "good thing." You will doubtless be unaware of this, Charles, since it presumably hasn’t featured on Fox News, but be assured that those of us who can read have seen recently leaked British Cabinet Office minutes proving (a) that the war was decided on by mid 2002, and (b) that even then the British could see, and expressed alarm at, the lack of planning for the occupation. (And no, Charles, these aren’t the wimpy effete left-wing British that US conservatives love to hate, these are your brave main allies, remember? The practical efficient British Army which has done a ten-times-better job of occupation than your Army has.)
3) "One thing for certain is that Iraq would be a lot better off if it weren't for the terrorists..."
As above. There’s not a lot of "terrorists" in the British zone. Hell, one of your Generals in Iraq has just admitted that he’s creating three terrorists for every one he kills. We get into the same old argument - I say, clumsy US tactics and lack of sufficient boots on the ground have allowed the insurgency to flourish, then you say, well, bleat bleat boo hoo, poor little US can’t do it alone, the rest of the world should help out, then I say, the rest of the world (unlike in 1991) didn’t want to join in an illegal and unnecessary war, then you go back to 1) above and round and round we go. Ho hum. Bottom line, If US military intelligence had actually possessed any military intelligence, they would have anticipated, planned for and thwarted the terrorists long ago. And demanded more boots.
4) "US soldiers are dying almost every day to secure freedom for your children." Some of them may think they are, but to those of us in the free world who have access to real news, it seems more accurate to say that most of them are dying because their leaders were ignorant, arrogant, dishonest and made mistakes.
Reminds one of Rudyard Kipling’s epitaph for the British dead of World War One:
"If they ask you why you died,
"Tell them, because our fathers lied."
5) "I do sincerely hope that there is a silver lining in here somewhere. Let's see where we are in 5-10 years." That’s a bit gloomy. Perhaps 5-10 months will be enough, Charles, if the polls continue to show reducing US support for the war and Bush’s performance, and if Army recruitment continues to fall off.
Look at the soldiers marching by! Our Charles is the only one in step!
Sorry about that Abu. Just for old time’s sake.
Circular
# posted by : 16/6/05 4:15 PM
: 16/6/05 4:15 PM Charles,
Why do you ask me questions when you seem to know all the answers to things like what’s best for Iraqis, who the insurgents are… and what Iraqis feel?
But this is all Circular’s fault (just as things were quieting down a bit!) I think it serves him right to get into a fresh argument with you ;)
But to tell you the truth, I was almost tempted myself to respond to that first comment of yours up there. I mean, really Charles, after all I have been saying!! Are we back to propaganda and 'Freedom and Democracy' stuff? I thought we have already over-discussed that.
Circ:
What would you have done about Saddam's regime? Are you a hard eyed "realist" like Cordesman that would continued the "containment policy," which in effect merely shifted the long term suffering to the Iraqi people for Saddam's sins? Or did you want to substantially lift sanctions and trust Saddam's bona fides?
Mark-In-Ch-Town
# posted by : 16/6/05 7:50 PM
: 16/6/05 7:50 PM Mark
"What would you have done about Saddam's regime?"
Just a quick answer, not thought through: it’s evident from the memos that the focus all along was really on regime change. As I’ve said before, the UN in general has no real legal mandate for this, but maybe it is about time it developed one. Iraq could have been the "test case" in which the world, led by the US, brought pressure on the regime to either change or step down.
(I doubt that sanctions which harmed only the people should have continued, but Saddam had no allies, no one to re-arm him, and no potential for local aggression. He may have had no option but to listen to world opinion, with the threat of really concerted military action in the background.)
Sure it may have taken another 5-10 years to get anywhere, but isn’t that what Charles has just suggested in respect of the present unconcerted military action?
Which basically came about because Saddam kept making defiant noises which upset a vain President easily manipulated by the neo-cons and eager for military glory.
Circular
# posted by : 16/6/05 11:06 PM
: 16/6/05 11:06 PM "As I’ve said before, the UN in general has no real legal mandate for this, but maybe it is about time it developed one. Iraq could have been the "test case" in which the world, led by the US, brought pressure on the regime to either change or step down."
We tried that for ten years!
"Saddam had no allies, no one to re-arm him, and no potential for local aggression. He may have had no option but to listen to world opinion, with the threat of really concerted military action in the background.)
Sure it may have taken another 5-10 years to get anywhere,"
I have a nice bridge for sale.
Madtom
Actually I was addressing Mark, but whatever.
No, I won’t buy your bridge, thanks. I suspect it’s the same shonky item that you and Charles bought, with rotting girders of WMD, false "imminent threats," and having to go to war right now with "the Army you have, not the one you would want or wish to have."
(What’s with this Rumsfeld guy, anyway? What’s the difference between wanting and wishing? Don’t he spika da English?)
Would you like to buy some Instant Freedom and Democracy Soup? Just boil up some bullshit, add a cupful of Marines, half the world’s supply of bombs and bullets, and stir like buggery. Guaranteed to be undrinkable!
Circular
(Sorry again, Abu. Promise I’ll be good from now on.)
# posted by : 17/6/05 1:41 AM
: 17/6/05 1:41 AM No I won’t!
This story for some reason really upsets me. (It’s about the shooting of a female Iraqi teacher by a panicky US soldier.)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=2&u=/krwashbureau/20050615/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_usiraq_shooting_wa_1
Read it, everyone!
Taking up something Charles said earlier, I’d be willing to lay a small bet on the following:
granted it’s an absurd hypothesis, but if the British had been given the Mosul/North West/Syrian border region to administer, I reckon that that area would now be relatively stable and peaceful. And if the US Army and Marines had the Basra region, it would now be a hotbed of affronted Iraqis, insurgents, terrorists, fortifications and chaos.
And no, Charles, it’s not one unfortunate incident. It’s one unfortunate incident multiplied by ten thousand. You know how to multiply? Use the "X" sign?
How can you guys export "freedom and democracy at the point of a gun" when your troops are the living opposite of freedom?
Aaaaarrrgh.
Circular
# posted by : 17/6/05 3:45 AM
: 17/6/05 3:45 AM that's
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=2&u=/krwashbureau/20050615/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_usiraq_shooting_wa_1
Circular
# posted by : 17/6/05 3:47 AM
: 17/6/05 3:47 AM Dear Abu Khaleel,
no, I do not agree at all with your conclusion ("In summary, there may have been a case for Saddam being regarded as a long-term threat to the USA for that factor to be considered a motive for the invasion").
The (very) hypotetical threat Saddam represented or might have represented to the US in the future was definitely NOT a motive for the invasion. Even if the sanctions had been lifted in the future, a many time bashed Saddam, with no friends in the area and with a regime that had lost the support of the vast majority of the Iraqis, would have been in no conditions to rebuild his military arsenal in such a way to represent a threat to Iraq's neighbours, and even less to the US. As far as the only real WMDs are concerned (atomic weapons), they (and especially their vectors) are not things you can build in your backgarden or in the kitchen. Saddam did try in the late Seventies, at the height of his power and consent by the governed, but didn't manage (and the Israelis destroyed the Osirak reactor). The chance he could have re-started a nuclear program in a post-sanctions Iraq are much slimmer than very thin (and everybody would have noticed in time, anyway).
The real link between Saddam the Bogeyman and the US invasion is shown instead, surprisingly, in the post by our friend Charles. Not in the terms he uses, of course ("Saddam was a proven threat"), but in the insight he unwillingly gives of the frame of mind of the American public.
"After 9/11, Saddam was the guy 'not to be.' Just his bad luck I suppose. Poor Saddam". Precisely that. In choosing a target, after Afghanistan, to start their pre-emptive war for the conquest of the world (and it is only for the courage of Iraqi patriots that such New American Century war is for the moment stuck in a quagmire), Saddam was the obvious choice of election. And the choice of the target could be very easily sold to the American public.
That's the only link between Saddam's non-existent 'long-term threat' and the 2003 invasion.
(BTW, Charles, I do know a rogue State "dallying with terrorist groups" more than any other State on earth, and customarily using them as its operatives. Ever heard of that gentleman, Luis Posadas Carriles, just an example among thousands? Maybe Fox News didn't tell you.)
# posted by : 17/6/05 3:48 AM
: 17/6/05 3:48 AM Hello Mark,
'What would you have done about Saddam's regime? Are you a hard eyed "realist" like Cordesman that would continued the "containment policy," which in effect merely shifted the long term suffering to the Iraqi people for Saddam's sins? Or did you want to substantially lift sanctions and trust Saddam's bona fides?'
A good question. From Bush's viewpoint, there was no way to allow Iraq to go into full oil production( his #1 priority) with his enemy, Saddam at the helm.
From a humanitarian viewpoint, the biggest threat to Iraqis was probably sanctions (Saddam was not Pol Pot and he stopped bombing the Kurds). Again, Bush couldn't simply reverse 'containment'policy without explanation. 911 provided an opportunity. Under international law, the US doesn't have the right to change governments by war. Having invaded, he should have withdrawn as soon as possible.
# posted by : 17/6/05 4:42 AM
: 17/6/05 4:42 AM "Funk said the report also found that Khinaisar's car was 15 feet from the Humvees, so close that had she been a suicide bomber, the soldiers likely would have been seriously hurt, he said. The Iraqi men at the traffic circle gave conflicting accounts, putting her as far as 100 feet away.
Some family members speculated that Khinaisar, frightened, may have hit the gas instead of the brake when she heard the warning shot. Indeed, the military said that after the warning shot, she moved faster, not slower. "
Circular's link
A tragic story,from a war zone.
"No, I won’t buy your bridge, thanks."
But yet you are willing to believe that saddam could have been "reasoned" with, that pressure could have been brought, that we only had to wait 5-10 years, and then it would all be all right.
Well how about all the people that "were" dieing during the ten years of NFZ's and sanctions?
What bridge were they sold, god knows they paid dearly for it.
No, madtom. You are a true rival for Charles in the "don't get it" stakes.
It's not a "tragic story, from a war zone." Iraq is not a war zone. There is no conflict between states going on.
It is a tragic story from a country that was invaded and conquered by the USA, and has been ruled by the USA, exactly like British colonies were, for two years now.
Such stories are the responsibility of the conqueror or colonialist - it is their moral duty, if they take over another country, to provide conditions which prevent such things from happening (over and over and over again.) For example, they should not have one law for native motorists (give way to the right?) an another for colonist motorists (if a car comes too close to you, shoot at it!) That is not showing the natives an example of civilised behaviour. It's just showing them an example of cowardice and bullying.
Not doing very well at this civilising caper so far, are you?
Circular
# posted by : 17/6/05 8:04 AM
: 17/6/05 8:04 AM "There is no conflict between states going on."
Then who is killing our troops, and Iraqi civilians by the bucket.
I think that calling the US colonizers is a straw man.
And I do not believe Iraq needs civilizing, another straw man, all they needed was to get rid of saddam and his henchmen and they should get along fine.
And just so you know, I am new around here, I am not a Bush supporter. Never have been, never will. I voted for the other guy.
"And I do not believe Iraq needs civilizing, another straw man, all they needed was to get rid of saddam and his henchmen and they should get along fine."
Well yippee! You've done that, Saddam and his mythical WMDs and terrorist ties are gone, the Iraqi people have elected a new so-called Government, everything is just hunky-dory.
So why are you still driving around Iraqi streets (not your streets, their streets) ignoring the traffic rules and shooting at passing female motorists.
You've done brung them democracy, I guess this must be the freedom part?
Just like Alabama when the niggers was uppity?
Circular
# posted by : 17/6/05 8:30 AM
: 17/6/05 8:30 AM "So why are you still driving around Iraqi streets "
I told you, the war. It's not over yet, who told you that?
They lied.
But just in case it is over someone should tell the enemy, they surely don't know it yet.
"You've done brung them democracy"
Another straw man, you know if your not interested in a discussion, why do you reply?
<< Home
