Bush to Iran: Don't You Wish We Had Been Disarmed?
I apologize for posting something that isn't completely germane for this blog, but this New Yorker article on the White House's plans for Iran is truly frightening (especially to people in the Middle East). One of my game theory students tipped me off to it because some of the analysis is "strategic," but I told him that I didn't think the following had accurately captured the utility functions of the "Islamo-fascists":
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.�
It's also pretty crazy about 25% through the article, when they discuss the White House's annoyance that the Joint Chiefs are very reluctant about using a first-strike with nuclear weapons. I can't understand why these crazy Muslims are so suspicious of Bush!
Comments (41)
'I can't understand why these crazy Muslims are so suspicious of Bush!'
ok...now you're just sad...
buh-bye
Published: April 16, 2006 1:43 PM
Frightening stuff indeed. Yea, anti-Americanism is just SO irrational. Paul Hollander take heed...
Published: April 16, 2006 1:49 PM
Thanks for posting this, Bob! As many Americans need to read this as possible (not that most of them care one way or another). It looks like Bush and his cronies are hell-bent on establishing themselves in the history books as the Khmer Rouge of the twenty-first century, sociopathic nihlists who revel in death and destruction for its own sake.
Published: April 16, 2006 7:29 PM
From what I read in the conservative blogs, the invasion of Iran is going to happen, and when it does it will involve not merely attempts to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities, but will also involve taking control of Khuzestan province - which abuts Iraq, is Shiite-Arab and has 90% of Iran's oil wealth - through support of an "independence" movement (OPLAN 1002-04 - the "Khuzestan Gambit"). European speculation is that an attack would be timed to assist Republicans in the midterm elections.
The only question is whether the administration can build a legal case against Iran, but one should note that we have already prepared to attack Iran if another terrorist attack occurs in the US; according to ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi in the American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html):
"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."
I recommend Congressman Ron Paul's recent speech on Iran: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/index.php. These adventures serve to dissipate our national wealth, for the benefit of large defense contractors, oil companies and those handling the national levers of power for their benefit.
Published: April 16, 2006 10:09 PM
It seems the administration feels secure enough about the soundness of the dollar that they don't fear entirely eliminating all global cooperation and goodwill toward the USA. If the news is to be believed, a nuclear strike is being seriously discussed by the Pentagon folk. Would not such an attack be likely to embolden nations like China and the Oil nations to drop their dollar investments in protest, and perhaps form a coalition of non-dollar trade organizations..?
- Dewaine
Published: April 16, 2006 11:51 PM
Iran is a problem because it is a horrendously barbaric regime led by homocidal fanatics and one Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was expressed the desire to expedite the coming of the "12th Imam" ...
The mistake that you make is to suggest that we are not in fact dealing with crazy Muslims or with Islamofascists practicing the coercive submit-or-die approach to their ideology/philosophy/religion/worldview/you name it.
Under the current regime Iran is one of the major instigating and driving forces of terrorism; an incubus which smothers its subjects and a fervent source of organized suicidal fascism seeking to arm itself with nuclear weapons. That is simply intolerable, and therefore you are wrong to advocate appeasement and retreat. That has been tried before and the result has been that the cause of liberty would suffer grievous setbacks while tyranny advanced. This hasn't changed because the two things can't coexist in harmony. How can you have harmony with freedom in peril and in some cases out of the picture alltogether?
It is the duty of anything that can truly be called a government to protect its civilization from such dangers. History has taught us, time and time again, that we do not have to wait until we have born very high consequences until we take the ravings of madmen seriously enough to stop them in their tracks.
Published: April 17, 2006 5:13 PM
History has taught us, time and time again, that we do not have to wait until we have born very high consequences until we take the ravings of madmen seriously enough to stop them in their tracks.
I agree, that's why I made this blog post.
Published: April 17, 2006 5:48 PM
Is there any way any of the editors at mises.org can lead me to some great articles at Anti-war.com or any sort that thoroughly disprove the WMD, Osama/Saddam connection/ imminent threat/ uranium fallacies in detail? Thanks.
Published: April 17, 2006 6:44 PM
"It is the duty of anything that can truly be called a government to protect its civilization from such dangers."
Sounds like you're encouraging Iran to keep improving their defenses, considering the US is probably the most war-thirsty empire today, vastly more capable and willing to hurt Iranians than vice versa.
"…we do not have to wait until we have born very high consequences until we take the ravings of madmen seriously enough to stop them in their tracks."
You have a plan to stop Bush? We're all ears! :)
Published: April 18, 2006 8:08 AM
"Under the current regime Iran is one of the major instigating and driving forces of terrorism; an incubus which smothers its subjects and a fervent source of organized suicidal fascism..."
Absolute nonsense. Iran is not some medieval caliphate where sheiks with ivory-handled daggers de-flower young virgins and receive an annual tribute of their bodyweight in gold and jewels. Iran is a modern nation-state with ski resorts, shopping malls, and a large middle class. It allows its citizens to sue the government for abuses during the Khomeini-era. The idea that it is some redoubt of the Caliph and his Assassins is absurd.
Published: April 18, 2006 10:50 AM
"Is there any way any of the editors at mises.org can lead me to some great articles at Anti-war.com or any sort that thoroughly disprove the WMD, Osama/Saddam connection/ imminent threat/ uranium fallacies in detail? Thanks."
No, Brett. This is because the Bush-lied meme is pure propaganda, issued by enemies of the United States, those abroad as well as those within.
The campaign slogan is "Saddam had no WMD" - but the fact that the WMD that Saddam's regime produced are yet unaccounted-for should only highlight the nature of the threat which was posed by allowing the Hussein regime to continue - even after its material breaches of the terms of ceasefire which it violated up until Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.
The Iraq Survey Group found that the Saddam regime continued to conceal laboratories, new WMD programs, and equipment. That together with the buried MIGs and SVU fighter jets that were found indicate that the terrorist dictator of three Iraqi decades had calculated that he was just going to wait another American president out -President Bush's time in office by 2003 was already halfway out- and Uday and Qusay Hussein would inherit Iraq as their personal rape room and that his personal pals (Chirac for example) would continue to sell out the Iraqi people for lucrative contracts with the devil.
Quoting from David Kay's Iraqi Survey Group report: "We have discovered DOZENS of WMD-related program activities and significant equipment" that Iraq concealed from the U.N." Anyway, we at least know NOW that Saddam will never be able to have WMD. And the fact that America's enemies are more likely to see that America means business doesn't hurt, it makes the world safer.
Less than 5% of some two million documents that were captured by America and her friends which were authored by the former "government" of Iraq have been translated and reviewed.
To deny the Saddam-bin Laden connection can only be the product of mendacity, ignorance or a a stunning combination of the two things.
A 1997 Iraqi Intelligence document corroborates the 9-11 Commission report that bin Laden requested that Iraq broadcast anti-Saudi messages and that his request was granted. And that supports
After al Qaeda attacks against the United States intensified throughout the 1990s the Clinton Justice Department issued an indictment in 1998 against bin Laden and al Qaeda charging, quote, "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
This is three years before 9-11, Brett. I just want to know something. How in the world can you want to declare George W. Bush guilty of lying (an unsubstantiated claim) while declaring Saddam Hussein innocent (as the information everincreasingly indicates the opposite)??? According to your worldview, Bush wants to kill people, including Americans, while harmless little Saddam who was responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead civilians; who openly maintained that the war against America was not over; whose regime had documented (by both America and his own Mukhabarat) meetings with al Qaeda; and who regarded bin Laden as an intelligence asset (as early as 1992), as the DIA told 60 Minutes.
That is absolutely incredible.
"Iran is a modern nation-state with ski resorts, shopping malls, and a large middle class." -Reactionary
At least Mussolini made the trains run on time, right? You forgot to mention that Iran also executes homosexuals. I don't support perversion, but that is just downright tyrannical. Is it OK if the gay is killed in Iran as opposed to California? Does your scorn for Bush's opposition to your political and social thinking screw you up so much that you become a witting or unwitting mouthpiece for terrorists?
You might want to do a little bit of homework before you tell people just how nice the Iranian government is. See Free Iran News (http://www.activistchat.com/)
Those who sincerely do want peace have to understand that the world of today is just not going to provide it instantly. Tyrants get into power when people either don't resist them or are too weak to resist them. Nobody in their right minds really wants to fight, but fighting is the alternative to submission, to oppression. People opposing the United States military action in Iraq are not really anti-war, because the violence doesn't end with American retreat, it gets worse.
Anyone that calls themselves anti-war at any given point in history needs to first be able to explain the nature of the conflict; you know, the facts on the ground as well as the consequences of inaction as opposed to action.
For instance, how do you deal with the threat and intolerable injustice of Islamofascism??? Saying "I don't want to fight" or "they are only hurting 'those' people" wasn't good enough in dealing with the Nazis.
Published: April 18, 2006 1:09 PM
Listen, if Valentine isn’t some recording/ghost hologram from 2002, and he really believes all of this, then I must go further in explaining the truth.
This is really interesting. Of course Saddam is not innocent. Why do you assume I believe that? However, we have no business interfering; whether he was a tyrant or not means nothing. He was not a tyrant who could harm us.
I suppose you believe that tiny pathetic dictator was stronger than the US. Then, why couldn’t our great nation assassinate him without a war? Why couldn’t a voluntary military venture without taxpayer exploitation assassinate Saddam? Why was he a threat? He was not. The CIA itself has reported that no large-scale genocide ever occurred by Saddam's hand.
Why was the war planned before September 11th?
Saddam had no WMDS other than the “WMDS� our government sold him, which were mostly useless. The Kay ISG report has been discredited. You are knowledgeable of the Duelfer report, right? You acknowledge Duelfer went further than the UN in declaring the absence of WMDs, right? They found a vial of skin cream. Baathist Holocaust potion, right?
But, why was the war planned as early as 2001?
No, there was no Iraq-Osama connection. Osama may have wanted help from Saddam, but they were ignored. Are you reading the PNAC paperback version of the 9/11 commission? The 1997 statement seems to be simply used for Hussein's political advantage. Terrorist hate of America did not need Hussein's endorsement otherwise. 9/11 was planned well without Iraq's attention, and in spite of it.
The 1998 Clinton report seems to be another in grasping-for-straws statements by our government. Why should I trust Clinton? following 9/11, mostly all of the 'evidence' for a link was conjecture and assumption. If this is all the evidence, did Saddam have the WMDs to give to Osama? No, he didn't...
Read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz3.html
Yet, the government was preparing to go to war even before that rationale was crafted.
Why can't Bill Gates assume that Canada is trying to nuke Alaska? Yet the State can?
"And the fact that America's enemies are more likely to see that America means business doesn't hurt, it makes the world safer"
We have chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Hamas victory. I don't feel any safer.
In the end, the Constitution calls for defense. Nowhere for preemptive war. Nowhere for enlarged bureaucracies and executive branches who fail to act on intelligence and distort it. Nowhere for forcing 'democracy' on nations who don't want it. Nowhere for a huge standing army and corporatism.
Why do you still believe this stuff?
Published: April 18, 2006 2:40 PM
Valence, not Valentine. (hehe)
Published: April 18, 2006 2:48 PM
Sirc,
"At least Mussolini made the trains run on time, right?"
The majority of Iranians are apparently quite content under their government, just as substantial numbers of Italians supported Mussolini until he decided to try to make Italians act like Germans. It is really none of my business either way.
"You forgot to mention that Iran also executes homosexuals. I don't support perversion, but that is just downright tyrannical. Is it OK if the gay is killed in Iran as opposed to California?"
Again, it's none of my business who the Iranian government executes. Indonesia executes the sellers of some drugs while pharmaceutical executives walk the streets as free men. That is for the people of Indonesia to determine.
"Does your scorn for Bush's opposition to your political and social thinking screw you up so much that you become a witting or unwitting mouthpiece for terrorists?"
The Iranians are not terrorists. (The Iraqis weren't either, btw.) They are a modern, educated people.
Published: April 18, 2006 4:01 PM
Is their some delusion going on here that terrorists are not modern or educated? This has no empirical basis.
Published: April 18, 2006 6:44 PM
Righly said, Graeme Bird. Very rightly said.
ATTN: Reactionary, Brett. Please excuse the delay. Thanks for your patience.
"The Iranians are not terrorists"
I mean the regime, not the majority of Iranian civilians. Please don't take me out of context.
"The majority of Iranians are apparently quite content under their government..."
It doesn't appear that way to me and to many others, Reactionary.
If you voice opinions that the Islamofascist theocracy doesn't agree with you can suffer terrible consequences. Even if you are Canadian, like Zahra Kazemi. It is difficult to get information from rigidly oppressive places such as Iran where students and journalists are tortured and killed (see Frontline special: FORBIDDEN IRAN http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran/).
You do not have personal and political freedom in Iran where even understanding how human potential is smothered in such a dictatorship would be a pretty challenging to comprehend, much less challenge. The nature of a dictatorship is fundamentally antithetical to liberty, if anything is more obvious than that I can't see what it is.
The fact that most prisoners did not escape from Alcatraz nor took control of the institution is hardly an expression of their consent to being confined and deprived of liberty.
---
Brett Celinski, I am definitely not saying that Saddam "was stronger than the US." That is why he was even given 48 hours to get out of Iraq. Some of his material and people did, but my position is that he was an intolerable threat to the people of the United States and that helping the 25 million Iraqi people (and thus future generations) join the civilized world by overthrowing the regime, would, in the long term encourage mideast reformers and moderates across the region while enhancing American security. As we saw in Lebanon and Libya, this has been happening. Nothing is guaranteed in any long-term struggle, but bear in mind that this is exactly what we are engaged in.
"The CIA itself has reported that no large-scale genocide ever occurred by Saddam's hand."
I recall that Saddam deliberately caused one of the world's biggest environmental disasters by draining 20,000 sq km of wetlands of the estimated 400,000 Madan Marsh Arabs, destroying their communities, forcing over three-hundred thousand to become refugees. He deliberately bombed civilians, slaughtering some 30 to 60 thousand of them. That's one of the reasons for the no-fly zones, by the way.
And I suppose that the targeting and massacre of Kurds at Halabjah can't be considered a genocidal act either. I know it may not matter to some of you, but I would consider a look at how they are doing post-Saddam regime and factor that into the debate about the use of force in Iraq
Before
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html
After
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001126.html
By the way, the wetlands are being restored.
"Saddam had no WMDS other than the “WMDS� our government sold him, which were mostly useless."
The United States never sold Saddam WMD, in fact the bulk of his conventional weaponry was sold to him by France, China and Russia who he owed billions of dollars. They stood to lose big-time as a free Iraq would owe them nothing for the weapons that Saddam often used against the Iraqi people.
As for the Duelfer report, you ought to actually take a look at it. Quote: "The Regime quickly came to see that [the Oil-For-Food program] could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development...By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999."
Charles Duelfer said that he did not expect any significant WMD finds. I don't either, but that doesn't mean case closed. Besides, Duelfer also found that "Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually." That doesn't sound like a reformed Saddam Hussein who saw the light and was going to become cooperative after yet another "serious consequences" bluff. It sounds more like someone who expected the status quo ante bellum. President Bush was not bluffing.
And as I recall, Paul Gaubatz, one of those tasked with investigating the intelligence said that four sites which he identified were not searched by the ISG.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21924
There should be an inquiry as to why the sites that were identified by Gaubatz's mission in or around Suk Ash Shuyakh and Umm Qasr have not been searched. Things might add up once we find out WHO decided that this information wasn't going to go beyond the people on the ground who risked their lives to get it.
And those captured Iraqi documents that I mentioned, people are finding interesting stuff. See: March 2003 Top Secret Memo: TRANSFRER OF SPECIAL AMMUNITION (POTENTIAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS) Translation of ISGP-2003-0001498
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616468/posts
That would corroborate Anthony Zinni's Feb. 29, 2000 statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, that Iraq "retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions."
"Of course Saddam is not innocent. Why do you assume I believe that?"
The Iraq-alQaeda connection is not new, yet you continue to deny it. I didn't make any of the information up, not the documents, not the CIA and DIA reports, not the indictment, none of it.
I read the Al Lorentz piece, and the citation of than MSNBC story that the agency raised some questions about a detainee's allegation that Saddam provided al Qaeda with WMD prior to the war is not in and of itself an argument against Iraq and al Qaeda's long documented history of cooperation. The CIA is supposed to raise questions about everything, I believe that would include whatever a terrorist tells you. What does Mr. Lorentz have to say about the report that Musab al Zarqawi was being treated at an elite Iraqi hospital for wounds prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom?
B.T.W., I am not quite sure that Al-Libbi's allegation about al Qaeda obtaining WMD from Saddam was false. Perhaps someone could help me determine this matter. But before you respond, whoever takes me up on this, check out
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016
Yes, the Baathist and Al Qaeda political ideology diverge from one another at some points, but they come together at others, such as the mutual strategic enmity that both corporate bodies/organizations have for the United States, which includes the desire to do harm to the US. Bin Laden was driven from Saudi Arabia because of his even more virulent intolerance for infidels than his former countrymen and Saddam was attacked from Saudi soil. That makes for a very powerful motivation for strategic cooperation. Of course we know the history of the way that al Qaeda's attacks against the U.S. intensified and escalated in level of sophistication and intensity throughout the 90s culminating in 9-11. We also know Saddam's tendency to resort to terrorism to get his way (besides his attempted clandestine relationship with al Qaeda), for instance by supporting organizations which attack Israel through terrorist attacks, terrorist organizations in the Philippines, etc.
According to Thomas Joscelyn, one of the captured documents has London-based al Qaeda propagandist, Muhammad al-Massari, in contact with Iraq officials to "establish a nucleus of Saudi opposition in Iraq".
If you get a chance, ask Mr. Lorentz why the Iraqi government through its embassy sent Ahmed Hikmat Shakir to work for Malaysian Airlines to work as a greeter during the 4-day al Qaeda retreat in which he was observed by the United States with Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, both of whom wound up slamming Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11. The January 2000 meeting included Tawfiz al Atash, the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole.
When Mr. Shakir was arrested in Qatr by the government there why did the Iraqi government go out of its way to energetically call for his release??? By the way, he was of interest because he had received a phone call from the New Jersey headquarters of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Seven months before 9-11 al-Watan al-Arabi published the following: "German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be SERIOUS INDICATIONS BETWEEN IRAQ AND BIN LADIN. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies." There's alot more than this missing in the Al Qaeda in Iraq piece which its author would do well to think about.
In terms of there being plans for Iraq or Iran being revisited when things heat up while events are unfolding, for instance: the Pentagon working on military scenarios in Iraq prior to House Joint Resolution 114 of 2002 authorizing the use of force in Iraq.. it would be irresponsible NOT TO as it is the job of the military to be prepared at all times in a world that is constantly in flux. You can't wait until the last minute for these things when our blood and treasure is at stake.
President Bush was right to confront our murderous enemies, regional and ideological, now rather than kick the can down the road to someone else, before the barbarians at war with civilization can improve on their weapons. My libertarian friends, you seriously need to consider what some of the Muslim crazies are watching on their state-controlled and wahabbist influenced tv screens and what they are being told in their madrassas, it is not a pretty picture and it explains alot. Without our help, moderate and civilized Muslims in the region basically have no chance for peace and neither does anyone else.
Published: April 18, 2006 9:20 PM
Codevilla says either destroy the regime or get used to them having nukes. He thinks all this in-between stuff is not only mucking about but harmful since it conveys irresolution. He doesn't seem to predjudice either option. He doesn't seem to see a role for trade restrictions at all.
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2006/codevilla.html
But nowhere do we need to pretend the regime is OK. Or to confuse the regime with the people.
Published: April 18, 2006 10:31 PM
“he was an intolerable threat to the people of the United States and that helping the 25 million Iraqi people (and thus future generations) join the civilized world by overthrowing the regime, would, in the long term encourage mideast reformers and moderates across the region while enhancing American security. As we saw in Lebanon and Libya, this has been happening. Nothing is guaranteed in any long-term struggle, but bear in mind that this is exactly what we are engaged in.�
By ‘we’ you mean the government.
Lebanon and Syria? As for Syria and Lebanon, they have largely happened with no thanks to US military force. Do they really effect the invasion? Again, most further developments in the Mid East point no real direction towards moderation or conformity to Pentagon demands
The Oil for Food program? Why would you think that libertarians would support this? A socialist affair that was caused by the very governments that enforced the sanctions which were to starve the nation of Iraq, so that the US could replace his regime with a regime the government wanted. Oh boy, shocked are you that Saddam would misuse that paycheck, huh? But, why no long face about the 9 billion from Iraq that has vanished far after the invasion? Don’t you think the possibility exists that those missing funds were to be used by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the military and the Administration for lining the pockets of pro-US installed cronies?
Now, the WMDs. As David Gordon has said, “Suppose that Saddam did possess WMDs: would this suffice to justify war against him? Certainly, self-defense counts as a legitimate cause of action in just war theory; but the mere possession of such weapons by an unfriendly power hardly counts as an imminent threat of invasion… Even powers hostile to the United States are within their rights in acting to secure dangerous armaments. The fact that the position of the United States has been worsened through such an arms buildup by an unfriendly power does not justify war under the traditional criteria. To doubt this at once generates absurd results.� http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon8.html
That Iraq failed to follow a treaty does not justify war. Could we have not used threat of arms buildup for more aggressive inspections? Why not? Why regime change for hypothetical weapons and weak ones at that?
The Marsh Arabs and the attempted genocide are well evident. But they are not genocide, and they on no grounds call for the use of violence and military force by the military at the expense of Americans’ liberties at home. No nation has the right to enforce its rules and ‘ethics’ on the affairs of another nation for the hell of it. There are no humanitarian grounds for the enforcement of US weaponry and presence in Iraq.
We have exaggerated the case against Ansar- Islam as well, as is the desire of the military, which has nothing to do with liberty or security when it functions as a institution of socialism and empire.
Mr. Hakir? “Ahmed Hikmat Shakir is also not the person that [Victor] Hanson presents him as. Juan Cole has shown that this alleged Saddam-al-Qaeda connection is actually a case of mistaken identity. There is an al-Qaeda operative at one time based in Malaysia named Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, and there is also a former Lieutenant Colonel who served under Saddam named Hikmat Shakir Ahmad. The two do not even share a familial name, but because most people in the government don’t understand how Arabic names work, they screwed up and thought them to be one person.� This from John W. Payne and Juan Cole.
Sure, Zinni’s word is tantalizing for neo-cons. But why aren’t the 140,000 soldiers patrolling the countryside daily not finding anything?
So, why do you continue to say there is a ‘long and documented history’ of a Saddam/Laden connection? Zarqawi? What a demon he is. How much isn’t allegation? Is he even real? http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/11/01/zarqawis_role_in_iraq_overstated_analysts_say/
As Paul Craig Roberts notes, “On November 14, 2005, Middle East expert Juan Cole reported that the 911 Commission Report revealed that captured al Qaeda members Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Zubayda informed the US government that Osama bin Laden prohibited al Qaeda operatives from cooperating with the secular Arab nationalist Saddam Hussein. In the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, this critical information was withheld from Congress and the American people. Instead, the Bush administration worked to create the belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11 attacks.�
“That makes for a very powerful motivation for strategic cooperation. Of course we know the history of the way that al Qaeda's attacks against the U.S. intensified and escalated in level of sophistication and intensity throughout the 90s culminating in 9-11. We also know Saddam's tendency to resort to terrorism to get his way (besides his attempted clandestine relationship with al Qaeda), for instance by supporting organizations which attack Israel through terrorist attacks, terrorist organizations in the Philippines, etc.�
Sure, terrorists and tyrants hate the American government. But Israel being attacked is Israel’s business, unfortunately, and not the stuff to spend an American’s paycheck on.
The end result is this: Saddam had no WMDs. He may have had many weapons in the past, including the not so destructive (for us, infortunately not for the Iraqi citizens) ones the US State sold him. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp
He had no WMDs in the period before the war and he has none now. Taking out a potential, symbolic evil is not self-defense. We could have armed ourselves against Saddam, used intelligence to find out movements of his regime against us. Our intelligence bureaucracy, with the failure of our past and current Administrations, failed to do that when it could have been successful against a threat. 9/11 happened.
And, hypothetically, taking all these maybes, shreds and flakes of evidence that seem more important to FreeRep and other neocon outlets, even if they existed, they had no capability to inflict harm on the United States’ territory. He had no way to use them on American shores. A WMD’s existence anywhere in the world could cause harm, but so is the presence of heroin. No war on tha- wait...
So, why did PNAC write its paper? Empire?Yes, the UN did not make Saddam a saint. But would he continue to have the capabilities to inflict terror on America even then? How much evidence suggests that he would quickly be on the run to get more nukes? Did we have to invade for conjecture? Give me one argument that the weapons Saddam used during the 90s had any capability for harming Americans.
Why does Bush now respect and parrot the word of the UN when before he demonized it?
What it comes down to is that if Iraq was a threat, then just war theory as understood by the Constitution applies. However, Iraq was not a threat, and the various threats were used by the government to exaggerate their importance. The end result is bigger government, a bigger police state, a more wasteful empire that hurts our culture and our people, not to mention the safety of our daily lives, and a loss of liberty in the name of arrogance and power.
Published: April 18, 2006 11:47 PM
"'There is an al-Qaeda operative at one time based in Malaysia named Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, and there is also a former Lieutenant Colonel who served under Saddam named Hikmat Shakir Ahmad. The two do not even share a familial name, but because most people in the government don’t understand how Arabic names work, they screwed up and thought them to be one person.' This from John W. Payne and Juan Cole."
The same Juan Cole who who referred to Iraqi culture as Mediterranean culture?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19292
The guy can be pretty funny, but I don't think I can cover all examples here without changing the subject.
“On November 14, 2005, Middle East expert Juan Cole reported that the 911 Commission Report revealed that captured al Qaeda members Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Zubayda informed the US government that Osama bin Laden prohibited al Qaeda operatives from cooperating with the secular Arab nationalist Saddam Hussein."
While the War On Terror continues Saddam's al Qaeda allies deny history of their collaboration, corroborating claims by the lib media, and the impetuous Bush administration dared to deprive us of such "critical information"?! How dare this sinister President not join the disinformation campaign being waged against him and his country?
And I almost forgot to ask you how does the name-confusion story change the fact that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir (Lt. Col or no Lt. Col) was working on behalf of the Iraqi embassy as a greeter during the 2000 terrorist summit which put him in contact with 9-11 conspirators and hijackers and who happened to stop working there after this meeting and who was found in posession of the phone numbers of high-ranking al-Qaedas?
Neither the Washington Post nor Juan Cole answer this. As Stephen Hayes put it, "That the Post has finally acknowledged the existence of Shakir might be considered a promising development, since his name has never previously graced its pages. But having whetted our appetite for substance, the Post account simply ends." I'de say that's noteworthy. Hayes had originally stated that "It's possible, of course, that there is more than one Ahmed Hikmat Shakir" so the fact that that the left found the name worth mentioning only after people thought that they guy might have also been a member of the Fedayeen shows that the supporters of America's enemies have an interesting approach to evidence that undermines their arguments.
You brought up a piece, The Fantastic Illusions of Victor Davis Hanson, written by John Payne, who wrote, "it it is entirely disproportionate to use war as a means of apprehending [Abu Abbas]." The war was not launched to apprehend him or Yasin, they were simply citations of Saddam's ties to terrorism historically. Even in the case of bin Laden and Afghanistan, the U.S. went to war against the Taliban because it was helping bin Laden as the United States was attempting to apprehend him.
Another misleading statement is "Ansar al-Islam, the terrorist group Zarqawi was said to have led before the invasion, operated in Kurdistan, an area where Saddam had no power because of the no-fly zones". The statement does not answer Mr. Hanson's argument that "Ansar al-Islam was doing Saddam's dirty work in fighting the Kurds" which would be a way to extend his objectives because of said no-fly zones!
Payne also falsely stated that "the American government has found no WMD programs in Iraq" totally ignoring the ISG reports of both Duelfer and Kay. Typographical/editorial error perhaps. But he was right that a war is typically not required to end sanctions, but in this case that is the way that they were ended. The reason that Iraq was sanctioned was as a means to "contain" Saddam. That only slowed him down and he obviously cared more about maintaining his power than making sure that the Iraqi people were OK.
Quoting Mr. "RoughOlBoy" one more time, "I wonder if Hanson has ever considered the idea that having the U.S. military largely tied up in Iraq has emboldened Iran in its quest for nuclear power" I think I should point out that Iran's nuclear program preceeded the overthrow of Saddam's regime by many years, and I would argue that the Iranian regime was shaken up rather than "emboldened," but I won't really quibble there as the business of counterproliferation will either succeed or fail in the case of Iran. However U.S. intelligence performed on Iraq, the leadership of President Bush has strengthened America's credibility with her enemies which are likely to understand that they are not dealing with the weak-kneed and their empty rhetoric when America is involved.
The approach which you and other opponents of President Bush's approach present amounts to simple surrender by negotiation and appeasement. You can't take down a wreckless and inhumane government even if its legally and morally justified and you can't really do anything to constrain it - WTF then?
"No nation has the right to enforce its rules and ‘ethics’ on the affairs of another nation for the hell of it."
Of course not. "For the hell of it" doesn't apply in Iraq's case, as Iraq was on a CONDITIONAL ceasefire with the United States because it had tried to swallow up a neighboring state in an old fashioned land grab.
Thus clauses in the authorization of Operation Iraqi Freedom from HJR 114 such as "Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;" (as was discovered in 1991 after Iraq was ejected from Kuwait) and "Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;"
"Could we have not used threat of arms buildup for more aggressive inspections? Why not?"
That DID happen. Saddam just continued to reject unobstructed and unconditional access to UNSCOM. Numerous UN resolutions were intended to achieve just that but you can only say "this is the last time" so many times before warnings and statements about continuing Delay, Evasion and Noncompliance become meaningless and unheeded.
After 12 "resolutions" Iraq continued to systematically and breach the terms of ceasefire which the regime was under. Saddam was in fact in violation of Resolution 1441, Saddam's chance in 2002 to finally come clean, even after being surrounded by 200,000 troops. Iraq never "provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all apsects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons" as Res. 1441 required.
"And, hypothetically, taking all these maybes, shreds and flakes of evidence that seem more important to FreeRep and other neocon outlets, even if they existed, they had no capability to inflict harm on the United States’ territory."
As far as WMD being used in a terrorist attack that is definitely a capability to inflict harm on Americans which all terrorists must be deprived of. And you continue to ignore the fact that American intervention in Iraq was not based on conjecture, as you say, read the war resolution and the President's case for action in Iraq for yourself. Stockpiles, which could have been destroyed by US forces, smuggled into Syria and or Iran, or could still be buried in Iraq somewhere, were one among many reasons to take down Saddam Hussein.
"Give me one argument that the weapons Saddam used during the 90s had any capability for harming Americans."
I know that Iraq produced nerve agents, such as Ricin which could kill an individual with a single drop and there is no antidote. That can cause many more casualties than were caused on 9-11 in a similar attack and might never be traced to Saddam if he insulated himself by farming out the attack to other terrorists, which is what a state-sponsor of terrorism would try to do and get away with.
"Why does Bush now respect and parrot the word of the UN when before he demonized it?"
President Bush's position, as he said in 2002, is that he wants "the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful" that is hardly demonizing it. He was right to try to push the UN away from its corrupt ways and deal with Saddam Hussein firmly ("the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.") and if that reflects poorly on the UN that can hardly be blamed on the American President.
"There are no humanitarian grounds for the enforcement of US weaponry and presence in Iraq."
If you say so. But I don't think that you fully appreciate what the problem with socialism is, exactly. Socialism is unjustified coercion, it is by its nature the violation of the sovereignty of the individual by the state. You unfortunately blanket dictators as sovereign rulers as you would a legitimate head of state. I think that much of your confusion, as well as that of many other people, begins there.
Published: April 19, 2006 5:50 AM
Graeme,
I understand what you are saying, but casualties from terrorism are just going to be unavoidable because to "cut the regime's head off" here means to aim at state sponsors of terrorism.
The confrontation with Iraq and with Iran centers around prohibiting the worst kind of barbarians from attaining the ability to more efficiently do their homicidal "holy work."
Just as freedom fighters were likely to run into machine gun fire while landing on the beaches of Nazi-controlled territory, they are likely to "be blown up at any time" while helping the people of the Mideast break the yoke of the terrormasters and Islamofascists who are at war with civilization.
Does civilization have the fortitude required to overcome today's wickedness? I pray so.
Published: April 19, 2006 5:55 AM
When considering the question of why any state behaves the way that it does, the best approach is to consider which organized interest groups within the state aim to benefit from any given state action. Modern corporate-social democratic states are organized as oligopolies of interest groups pursuing their own respective agendas, forming coalitions with those whose agenda overlaps their own. Who benefits from the Bush regime's imperialist assault on the Islamic nations? There is a vast array of such interests, primarily the Israeli lobby and the oil cartel, but also an assortment of international banking interests, armaments interests, ambitious politicians, ideological zealouts, "anti-terrorism" hysterics, dispensational Christians, those looking to settle personal scores and much else.
If we accept the dubious proposition that the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq or (quite possibly) Iran are motivated only by a sincere desire to "protect Americans from terrorists" and not by any other agendas, then the question of whether or not the Bush Doctrine will actually have that effect still needs to be examined. What have been the stated aims of Bush's war policy? 1) to destroy Islamic terrorists groups 2)to disarm Iraq 3) to spread "democracy" to the Islamic world and, presumably install pro-American regimes in all of the Islamic nations. Are these objectives, sincere or not, actually being achieved? Islamic terrorism has only increased and gotten more brazen (London, Madrid, Bali). Bin Laden has evaded capture and has been transformed into a mythical Robin Hood type of character in the Islamic world. Iraq, once the most liberal, secular and prosperous of the Islamic nations has been laid to waste and transformed into a Mecca (no pun intended) for Islamic terrorists a la Afghanistan. What of the goal of spreading "democracy" and "pro-American" sentiment? The Iraqis rewarded their liberators by electing a pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalist regime (whose Ayatollah Sistani has called for the killing of homosexuals in "the most extreme way", BTW). Iran, once leaning towards liberalization and moderation, has been pushed towards hard-liners. Elections in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have each brought about gains for Islamic fundamentalists and anti-Americans. Further democratization in the Islamic world would be the end of the pro-American regimes in Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Gulf states with Pakistan's nukes and Saudi oil wealth falling into the hands of al-Qaeda sympathizers.
We can draw some important lessons from the foreign policy of the German regime of WW2. The Hitler regime was a coalition of corrupt state-connected crony capitalists and equally corrupt racial nationalists much like the Bush regime of today. Both regimes sought to undertake a program of large scale military conquest under the auspices of avenging a previous national humiliation (September 11 for America, Versailles for the Germans). Just as Bush claims his war policy is to preserve civilization from the barbarian hordes of Islam, so did Hitler claim to be defending the West from the red hordes of Communism. Where did the German war policy lead? To the destruction of the German nation, and the conquest of much of Europe and Asia by Communism. Where will Bush's war policy lead? To the destruction of the American nation via imperial overstretch, economic bankruptcy and international alienation and retaliation. Meanwhile, revolutionary Islam will continue to grow, eventually establishing an Ottoman like empire for itself in the Middle East and will continue to export itself into Europe.
The principal threat to the West from Islam is demographic, not military. Just as the pagan Greco-Roman civilization was overthrown by a religious/revolutionary movement originating from the backwaters of the empire once the empire became corrupt and unsustainable, so will modernity likely be overthrown by a similar religous/revolutionary movement now that its empire is entering its geriatric years.
Published: April 19, 2006 9:15 AM
I take a slightly different view than most people with whom I discuss this, be it liberal, conservative or whatever. I'm more of a chess man. I believe that whatever, WHATEVER the cause of 9-11, whether our corporations or our government or both did something untoward to piss off the Arab nations in the last century, I really don't give a shit. I also believe that any American who values his country and its way of life, should feel the same. You know why, because the world isn't fair. The United States didn't become the shining beacon of democracy (or republicanism) over the last 200+ years by playing fair all the time. That may be a news flash, but it shouldn't be to anyone who understands competition, and for that matter freedom. Freedom isn't won by words and it's not won by being fair. Our forefathers didn't play fair when they teamed with the Indians and kicked the British out of the Colonies. I daresay we haven't played fair in any war we've won. I will agree that we have more scruples than most, if not all, of our opponents, but you have to play dirty jsometimes and root out your enemies wherever they may be and wherever they may be conspiring against you. The cost of freedom is sometimes your ideals. I hate that trade-off, but it has happened in EVERY WAR WE'VE FOUGHT. It's nothing new. The government has to streamline the machinery to focus on war. Yes, I'm aware of the Orwellian possibilities. I do not wish this path. However, our country has enacted similar restrictions, rations, etc., in every wartime era. The beauty of our system is that we have been able to win wars and then restore freedoms that were sacrificed during wartime.
So, did Saddam plot against the U.S.? Most definitely. Shit, we were at war with him fifteen years ago. You bet, he has been our active enemy during that time. Can you really convince yourself that he was our friend or at best an innocent bystander in the Jihad? Please. I'll leave the Food-for-Oil conspiracy for another discussion. After 9-11, our president needed to take action. The people demanded it. Honor demanded it. Our reputation as a nation who is capable of defending itself demanded it. The dilemma: how do you fight a war against an invisible enemy, one who claims no nation except the imaginary ancient Ottoman Empire come again? The answer, you can't.
He needed someone to pound hard to make an example of. America did not need the going-through-the-UN bullshit. That never, ever works except for making the "talkers" happy and feel like justice and fairness is being served and action is being taken. The problem is, Action is NOT being taken. The UN doesn't take action. The UN talks and, when the talking is done, inevitably turns to the US to take action when it feels like it's ready for us to take it. I am done with the UN. They are a waste of time. They have proven so over and over and over.
Thus, declare that "any country that harbors or protects or aids terrorists will be our enemy." I agree with this, and most Americans did at the time. It's pretty clear that Saddam had a close relationship with several terrorist organizations. Why not go after him? He's a despot. He aids terrorists. He is our declared enemy. He was probably the worst of the Arab leaders. Take him out. The biggest problem with that plan: our traditional Allies (save UK) had betrayed us for money and politics. They not only sat this one out, but they worked against us politically.
The bottom line is: I don't care if Bush lied. Hell, there are theories that FDR lied by sitting on evidence that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor. On retrospect, I think that was the right choice. It was a shock to the complacent American psyche that caused our country to kick itself into gear in time to stop Hitler and Tojo from world domination. So, it doesn't matter if he lied or not. Personally, I don't think he did. He had the same reports every other Western nation's intelligence community had and all agreed that Iraq probably had a nuclear program further along than it was. We needed to bloody somebody's nose to show the world that we weren't going to take things lying down any longer, i.e., Clinton years of pacifism regarding terrorism.
In the larger view, this war, and this is a WAR, has been coming a long time. We tried to walk away from it. Clinton tried to walk away from it and follow political channels. Obviously, that didn't work. When you have an enemy that is religiously bent on destroying you and your way of life and is preaching the diatribe to a poor repressed population of zealots, your chances of turning the tide by talking are very slim.
If we walked away from Iraq right now, do you believe the Jihad would disappear? If we had not invaded Iraq, do you believe the Jihad would not have continued to attack us? This is a war that they have been bringing to us for years. We finally brought it back.
If we fail in this war, the West will fail. Not tomorrow, maybe not in the next ten years, but our lives will be hell sooner than that. Now, Iran is openly led by a terrorist who has stated his objective of getting nuclear weapons with which to attack our ally Israel and America itself. The fact that a portion of our population finds that acceptable is a sign to me that we do NOT have what it takes to defend ourselves and stick out a hard bloody war any longer. By the way, Iraq is not a hard bloody war as wars go. Two thousand casualties over a period of years doesn't even begin to compare with all of the other wars we've ever fought.
Back to my original point, the reason I don't care if we did something wrong twenty years ago to piss somebody off, is because I'm not willing to let those SOB's bomb us for it today. That may be cold, but it's life. The world is filled with people who are not going to play fair. I say, play as fair as you can, but you still have to do what's best for your country. And, you know why it's important for selfish, mean old America to do that? Because we have been and still are the best experiment in democracy in the history of the planet. We cannot let our country fail because a lot would be lost worldwide. You may laugh this off, but if a dirty nuke or two goes off in one or more major American cities, would we have the fortitude, as a country, to recover and respond with the necessary drive and strength? I don't know. The Arab terrorists don't think so. They've stated as much. Hell, we won't even secure our own borders after we've been attacked. We have too many corporations who make too much money with them open, and we have too many liberals pandering to illegal immigration interests.
Well, that's way more than my two cents,
GHR
Published: April 19, 2006 10:02 AM
A war is when people are urged to stop taking tax deductions and buy war bonds to finance the government's mobilization. War is when all able-bodied young men are drafted for the national cause and the government institutes rationing and directs industrial output. War is people poring over the casualty reports to see if their loved ones are among the whole and living for one more day.
The War on Terror, like the War on Drugs, is simply a jobs program for a few government employees. Paradoxically, this is why there is no strong anti-war movement as with Vietnam: there isn't really a war going on. In fact, the withdrawal from Iraq has already begun.
Invade Iran, and you will get your war.
Published: April 19, 2006 10:20 AM
Reactionary is right. What we have seen thus far is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what may come in the future. If indeed there is a full-scale war between America and the Islamic world (Iran, Syria, etc.), it will indeed be interesting to witness how Americans react to corresponding factors like reinstatement of the draft, economic fall-out, high casualty rates, terrorist reprisals, etc. My first guess would be that Americans will do what they have done in most recent wars: Turn and run at the first sight of blood. The question is: How will a regime that is hell-bent on continuing the war effort respond to public unrest? Possibly, by the imposition of martial law. Plans for this were drawn up during the Reagan era. All the neocons need to do is to implement them.
The old Roman republic that our founding fathers modeled the US constitutional system on lasted about two hundred years before succumbing to full-blown empire, militarism and executive dictatorship. America is about due to fall in a similar manner.
Incidentally, I suspect the Muslims would come out the eventual winners in such a war and for the same reason that they defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan or that the Vietcong defeated the US: a much superior martial spirit and will to victory.
Published: April 19, 2006 11:46 AM
Buchanan has said it over and over: Americans make terrible imperialists. We lack, as Keith notes, the ruthlessness and the martial spirit necessary for maintaining a fight so far off our shores.
Not to get the discussion off track, but a people who entrust their own borders to unionized bureaucrats are no match for the thousand-year old tribal loyalties in the Middle East.
Published: April 19, 2006 12:15 PM
Hypothetical weapons, hypothetical evidence, hypothetical threat, and we invade a sovereign nation to find terrorists that go across its and many other's borders to waste taxpayer money, spy on our own citizens, lose untold lives and grow government? Your proofs still have no ties whatsoever to bringing down Saddam as a solution and invading a State to bring more terrorists in.
Published: April 19, 2006 12:15 PM
Keith, the trouble in the West today results from its corruption in academia. In the United States this manifests itself in the form of politicized courses with a blame-America first and anti-Christian tilt. Many people have lost touch with America's primary principles and values because the left is at war with them and the result has been ideologies which are antithetical to the American enterprise in government. That is why so many people who went to college and university in the U.S. wound up undermining the forces of freedom and in some cases actually becoming agents for the Soviets (some we didn't know about for years and years of denial and treason).
Indeed, the rise of Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's Party, the spread of Communism in Europe and Asia, and the anti-Capitalist foaming-at-the-mouth Mussolini regime all stem from the same academic corruption that has come to American territory. This problem has yet to be addressed in the serious manner which it requires, and it dovetails with the general ignorance about the nature of the Islamofascist threat to the United States -which is part and parcel to the same general problem in academia today.
Demographic changes are natural, the fact that you would imagine that this is a bigger problem than the 5th Column professors aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States and attacking her from within says something about your previous statement that racial nationalists are behind President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. You seem to be attributing your own concerns and thinking to your opponents.
What you call "revolutionary Islam" is absolute barbarity and the reason that the Mideast suffers from so much ignorance and fanaticism today. To fight that threat is justified, and your prediction is wrong, it will not lead to "the destruction of the American nation", only cowardice and defeatism would do that. As long as Americans don't fall for the propaganda and defeatism of America's enemies that will not happen.
"If indeed there is a full-scale war between America and the Islamic world (Iran, Syria, etc.), it will indeed be interesting to witness how Americans react to corresponding factors like reinstatement of the draft, economic fall-out, high casualty rates, terrorist reprisals, etc."
You're jumping ahead of yourself because we do not know whether attacking the Iranian regime and destroying their nuclear program will piss off the Iranian people or encourage them to overthrow their oppressors with some serious support from the U.S. Much of the terrorism in the world today, including in Iraq, is instigated and supported by our Iranian enemies, so getting them out of the picture could be very beneficial to our efforts to help the Iraqi people join the civilized world.
When you talk about the Afghan/Soviet war you have to recall that the Afghans couldn't drive the Soviets out with native forces and volunteers from neighboring states alone. Planning and material aid from OUTSIDE Afghanistan sustained the fight against the USSR. Eliminate that support (American support) from the equation and the Soviets would have eventually won the fight there.
I agree that we would likely see terrorist reprisals resulting from an invasion of Iran, but denying terrorists yet another haven from which they can dominate terrain, coordinate and plan attacks, and find logistical opportunities for their war against civilization in the long run would be another great blow to their despicable cause.
The British did far less to piss of America's founders than her terrorist enemies are doing today. They would not have lost the Vietnam war by doing what the Johnson administration did, which was to pu**yfoot around on the battlefield by declining the military's requests to follow the enemy to their sanctuaries to eliminate them. You have to remember that throughout Vietnam the indecisive DemocRAT president did not allow American soldiers in harms way to take out the infiltration routes outside of the battlefield - even as Americans in harms way identified them and requested permission to. President Bush must not repeat that error. You can't win a war of attrition against suicidal fanatics, you have to actually destroy the apparatus that produces them. That is the way to victory. That is why Germany was destroyed militarily in WWII.
Your argument that the American constitutional system is harmed BY ITS DEFENSE cannot bear serious scrutiny. It is fine to examine the perils of war, but please don't use pseudo-constitutional arguments to cloak the do-nothing approach that you suggest will make the world safer.
Published: April 19, 2006 2:21 PM
"Iran, once leaning towards liberalization and moderation, has been pushed towards hard-liners."
The fact that Iran is vehemently protesting the way that America is curtailing Islamofascists ability to attain weapons of mass destruction hardly means that it was on the road to liberalization. The tantrum-throwing results from the fact that they are no longer going to get away with what they used to.
"Further democratization in the Islamic world would be the end of the pro-American regimes in Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Gulf states with Pakistan's nukes and Saudi oil wealth falling into the hands of al-Qaeda sympathizers."
WOW, and here I was thinking that further democratization would improve the situation. I suppose that the situation would be better for us today if Kuwait, Jordan, etc., were more like Iran.
It is easy to be frustrated by the crazies and the way that they want to institute backwardness through democratic means, but we must not allow that to become defeat. In the long run it is more difficult to keep people in ignorance and fanaticism if they are allowed to resist it which is what a democratic government as opposed to a dictatorship does.
I'm not always happy with the way Americans vote, no one gets everything that they want in elections which teach us to compromise with eachother, no matter how foolish some of us can be. I can see how the "people are too stupid to be free" argument works: it doesn't.
Published: April 19, 2006 2:35 PM
You'll get no argument from me that most of the American Left, particularly the academic Left, is an intellectual wasteland, but that's beside the point.
The "racial nationalists behind President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq" that I am referring to are the neoconservative/Straussian/Zionist/Likudnik elements who have managed to get control over the mainstream American Right, the Republican Party and the Bush administration. The ambition of these people is to use America's military power for the purpose of eliminating Israel's Muslim enemies in the Middle East so that a broader Zionist empire can be established. This has been the ambition of the Likudniks for many years and plans for this were drawn up by US neocons long before September 11 or the election of George W Bush. These elements are precisely the kind of 5th column subversives you (correctly) identify previous generations of American Communists as having been. They care nothing for the well-being of Americans, it's all about Israel Uber Alles.
Is not a first-strike use of nuclear weapons against a nation that has not initiated aggression against the US an act of barbarism? That is what the neocons are planning. Their ambition is the nuclear incineration of Muslim communities under the auspices of destroying non-existent nuclear weapons.
How will the Iranians respond to this? Well, probably not by running out to embrace Americans as their liberators. We've heard the neocons spout this kind of deranged fantasy before. Remember the great "cakewalk" that Iraq was supposed to be? Iran has indeed become much more "liberal" than it was under the Ayatollah Khomeini but present threats to its national security posed by the US and Israel have driven its people towards the Islamic conservatives.
My point about the democratization of the Middle East is that if this were to occur, most (probably all) of the Islamic nations would elect governments that are more conservative and hostile to America than the ones currently in place. There is considerable precedent for this as I mentioned in my previous post. If "free elections" were held in Saudi Arabia, Osama would be President for Life. Maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe not. But I doubt that would be of much benefit to America.
Regarding your comments concerning the British, I would go much further and argue that the present US regime has done much more damage to the American people that the British colonial government our forefathers expelled by force of arms.
Imperialism and militarism are NOT defending or upholding the traditional US constitutional system. Rather, these are driving the welfare-warfare state towards ever greater tyranny. Check out "Crisis and Leviathan" by Robert Higgs.
If Bush and cronies nuke Iran, they will not be bringing the Muslim world into civilization. Rather, they will be removing America from civilization.
Published: April 19, 2006 4:22 PM
Thus clauses in the authorization of Operation Iraqi Freedom from HJR 114 such as…�
This dated mass hysteric resolution proves much of nothing. It was done, as below, before the UN and the CIA were even thought of to finish the inspections and caught the mystery weapons which actually have a greater chance, if they exist, to be used against us, because of the invasion.
“And I almost forgot to ask you how does the name-confusion story change the fact that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir (Lt. Col or no Lt. Col) was working on behalf of the Iraqi embassy as a greeter during the 2000 terrorist summit which put him in contact with 9-11 conspirators and hijackers and who happened to stop working there after this meeting and who was found in posession of the phone numbers of high-ranking al-Qaedas?�
Still hypothetical. He could have been anything, like Zarqawi. Why did Hayes keep mixing up the Malaysian Hakir Azzawi, the al Qaeda greeter in Malaysia, with Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Fedayeen col?
And, if this Fedayeen col (NOT Azzawi), somehow had a connection to Malaysia and AQ (which he did not), How come our intelligence could not and cannot find out this man’s role if it is so conducive to Iraq?
Why does it just float in the air like so many other mystical ‘what ifs’? Anti war sites write about the camps Halliburton is building on domestic soil. How is that hypothetical evidence any different from the Hakir story? Are they just being lazy? http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000835.html
“While the War On Terror continues Saddam's al Qaeda allies deny history of their collaboration, corroborating claims by the lib media, and the impetuous Bush administration dared to deprive us of such "critical information"?! How dare this sinister President not join the disinformation campaign being waged against him and his country?�
Believe what you want; you must have incredible faith, reason or not.
“The war was not launched to apprehend him or Yasin, they were simply citations of Saddam's ties to terrorism historically. Even in the case of bin Laden and Afghanistan, the U.S. went to war against the Taliban because it was helping bin Laden as the United States was attempting to apprehend him.�
Terrorists who are still at large, both Yasin and bin Laden. The war is apparently part of “the War on Terror�. Not regime change, not democracy, but to catch terrorists. The invasion failed to do that. We went to war against the Taliban and not only did we turn the nation to further chaos, Bin Laden is still on the loose.
Another misleading statement is "Ansar al-Islam, the terrorist group Zarqawi was said to have led before the invasion, operated in Kurdistan, an area where Saddam had no power because of the no-fly zones". The statement does not answer Mr. Hanson's argument that "Ansar al-Islam was doing Saddam's dirty work in fighting the Kurds" which would be a way to extend his objectives because of said no-fly zones!
Again, the no-fly zones were more or less violated by US and UK planes and not the other way. How could the US declare rules on Iraq’s own airspace with its alleged weapons that did not exist? As for Ansar al-Islam, I will quote Lorentz:
“Jund-Al-Islam had Taliban type goals, i.e. women would now wear burkas, segregation of the sexes, crackdowns on religious sects, etc. During this time, the PUK and Jund-al-Islam fought against each other; although both desired an independent state, PUK wanted a free and more traditional Kurdistan whereas Jund-al-Islam wanted a Talib style Islamic enclave formed within Iraq. This latter goal put them at odds with not only the PUK but also with the official Iraqi government, Baathists who were decidedly secularist.
Jund-al-Islam’s (which later became Al-Ansar) Taliban orientation put them at odds with the secularist regime of Saddam who allowed and encouraged the very things that Al-Ansar sought to stamp out. As such they received no support from Saddam and were unable to control or affect Kurdistan in any significant fashion. Saddam was merely content to allow these rival groups to fight one another, allowing his dwindling power projection to be concentrated on other troubles within his borders.
There were other reasons why Al-Qaeda and Taliban sought to assert control via Al-Ansar. First, Kurdistan, specifically inside the Kurdish green line, was outside of Saddam’s control. Second, the Kurds were not an autonomous part of Iraq and were already rebelling against Saddam Hussein with the stated goal of establishing their own homeland of Kurdistan.
Throughout history, terrorist groups have sought to establish enclaves or save havens in de-stabilized areas lacking a strong central government and the ability to root them out. For this reason, the north of Iraq in the Kurdish zone presented just such an opportunity. Kurdish intelligence and military forces were much weaker and less well established than those of Iraq which, it was believed, would allow Al Qaeda to flourish. Fortunately the Kurds were against such radical Islamist goals and fought themselves against Al Qaeda and Jund-al-Islam.
Sadly though, Al Qaeda are now in the central regions of Iraq thanks to the power vacuum created by the war and ongoing combat operations there. Due to the presence of an army of occupation, Al Qaeda and other groups with divergent and conflicting goals appear to now have a common enemy. The unavoidable conflict between an army of occupation and the civilians of that nation creates anger and hostility. This animosity provides recruits and support for radical organizations who would normally not enjoy any such aid and comfort.�
“Of course not. "For the hell of it" doesn't apply in Iraq's case, as Iraq was on a CONDITIONAL ceasefire with the United States because it had tried to swallow up a neighboring state in an old fashioned land grab.�
Hmm, Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait, and the good ‘ol moral ceasefire. As above, I also leave you this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/prather/prather18.html
And, as to the stockpiles in Syria and Lebanon argument, to conserve space: http://www.lewrockwell.com/frank/frank27.html.
Again, why doesn’t the Admin break out this ‘evidence’ with chests pumped? Why aren’t they?
“Payne also falsely stated that "the American government has found no WMD programs in Iraq" totally ignoring the ISG reports of both Duelfer and Kay. Typographical/editorial error perhaps. But he was right that a war is typically not required to end sanctions, but in this case that is the way that they were ended. The reason that Iraq was sanctioned was as a means to "contain" Saddam. That only slowed him down and he obviously cared more about maintaining his power than making sure that the Iraqi people were OK.�
No, he means that before and leading up to the invasion, there were none, with any capability and effectiveness. They are still hypothetical. The sanctions were working all too brutally well on the Iraqi people and for the political benefit of Saddam. See the Oil for Food program.
So, you are saying that he still may have had WMDs. They still may even exist now, they are harmful and they would have destroyed America. Correct? And, if the ones he had were not harmful enough, in time a terrorist could pick one up and use it against us, even without Saddam’s help, correct?
However U.S. intelligence performed on Iraq, the leadership of President Bush has strengthened America's credibility with her enemies which are likely to understand that they are not dealing with the weak-kneed and their empty rhetoric when America is involved."
This just isn’t rational in any way. US military credibility with AQ, Iran and Muslim nations has been strengthened? Are you serious? Our credibility to give the terrorists leeway and shelter has been strengthened.
“The approach which you and other opponents of President Bush's approach present amounts to simple surrender by negotiation and appeasement. You can't take down a wreckless and inhumane government even if its legally and morally justified and you can't really do anything to constrain it - WTF then?�
Unfortunately, this war has been nothing more than appeasement to the terrorists, Valence. There are more terrorist movements in Iraq than before. Therefore the hypothetical still maybe shred of WMD that may lurk in Iraq has a greater chance of being used by a terrorist than before the ‘liberation’.
Explain how we are less able to be attacked by a WMD using terrorism because of this war. The UNSCOM If Saddam could help a terrorist by giving him a weapon that takes years to develop to use adequately, could not France? Russia? North Korea? Have we not done the same? Is that simply a reason enough to use invasion?
From Jude Wanniski: Saddam has not once threatened his neighbors or the world in any way since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, a dozen years ago. He has not defied any UNSC resolutions, complying with each one in turn as the UNSC tightened the terms established in 1991 for the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction in his possession. Since November 1991, Iraq has insisted it had destroyed all WMD, an assertion that now appears to have been true all along. The last of these UN resolutions was #1441, which Iraq was in total compliance with at the time the President chose war. His advisors insisted they knew he was hiding WMD that the UN inspectors did not know about. Remember, Dr. Rice? Not only did Baghdad invite the USA to send CIA teams to Iraq to find WMD the inspectors were not seeing; the UN itself had concluded diplomacy was working and Iraq was accepting every request made of it by the UN inspectors. Every request!!�
More or less, Iraq was following 1441. Yet you still claim that even after that there were weapons he would and allegedly would give to terrorists. Possible weapons. Hypothetical weapons. Again, a threat exists but with no evidence to suggest that there were capabilities at hand before the invasion, and that Saddam could have used them are no grounds for ‘shocknawe’-ifying a nation into a chaotic cesspool of terrorism.
For Syria and Iran, again a case of deliberately muddled intelligence by the Adminstration and the Pentagon. Why does an invasion guarantee by stripping one regime down we will instantly have the terrorist agents, unconnected to any state, easily found? Afghanistan is proof of the failure of that fallacious thinking, and has cost us a loss of safety.
Sure, AQ operatives existed in Iraq. But there is not enough credible evidence that suggests that Osama or any deliberate, organized actions were being negotiated between the Baathists and any cell of AQ. AQ is decentralized, while Saddam was centralized and secular.
From Jude Wanniski again:
“Strip away all gabble we hear today and you should remember the US position was that it was NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSPECTORS to locate WMD, it was Iraq's responsibility to 'fess up and take the inspectors to the locations where they were hiding WMD!! To be quite correct, this was essentially the thrust of the 1991 UN resolution, which required Baghdad to own up to any unconventional weapons they had, show them to the inspectors, and have them destroyed. The record now indicates Iraq did EXACTLY that in 1991, but none of that mattered as the US did not want to lift the sanctions that were crippling the Iraqi economy. The neo-cons had their hidden agenda of occupying Iraq, which is where we are now.�
The desire to attack Iraq was a twisting and manipulation, once again, of our national security. The Administration and the Pentagon went to war deluded with little evidence beyond Saddam’s capabilities and desires to have weapons. Nothing else.
“That DID happen. Saddam just continued to reject unobstructed and unconditional access to UNSCOM. Numerous UN resolutions were intended to achieve just that but you can only say "this is the last time" so many times before warnings and statements about continuing Delay, Evasion and Noncompliance become meaningless and unheeded.�
“After 12 "resolutions" Iraq continued to systematically and breach the terms of ceasefire which the regime was under. Saddam was in fact in violation of Resolution 1441….�
Alleged weapons are just that, allegations. There is still not enough proof, that the weapons could be delivered by agents swiftly. The proof behind 9/11 was all documented, that it was going to happen. Clinton was warned of it. Bush was warned of it.
The attackers came from no organized nation, it was a decentralized operation. Yet our Administration failed, and perpetuated the failure by invading, yes, despotic nations, but only bringing in new masters no different from the old, and letting the terrorists with the most evidence supporting their role in the attacks escape and flourish.
Centralized bureaucracies, just in anywhere else, cannot effectively protect us against terrorism. We must think in a truly American way to effectively battle terrorists and be alerted of their actions.
Following up on Wanniski, what was working before the war should have been continued. That the war ended this was our mistake. It leaves the WMDs still hypothetical. The war you clamored for justifies your claim and the ISG’s claim that weapons still exist. The war caused this possibility, and strengthened it, as well as the possibility that terrorists could acquire the weapons, as their numbers in the insurgency are on the rise.
Saddam was doing what we asked, to admit his ‘weapons and take the inspectors to where they allegedly were. Those regions of Iraq you cited earlier were not on the list for inspection because we did not demand it. Why did war come before a total search? Why not search the country 100% before the war?
Saddam wanted us to send the CIA to inspect areas where there were possible weapons even after he had passed UNSCOM and 1441. The UN said he was doing fine, but they did not want us to believe he was a prettyboy. They were not going to leave until they had finished, and the rate they were going, they were nearly finished. They wanted us to be 100% sure that there were no WMD. Yet we stopped negotiations, and THEN said that Saddam broke these negotiations.
Yet, we did not send the CIA. We should have and took the initiative. Before UNSCOM and 1441 were totally complete by our possible CIA search, we ended negotiations and said Saddam violated UNSCOM and 1441. We just started a war. WTF? And now, another rationalization the Admin is giving is that Iraq failed the UN’s test. WTF?
“I know that Iraq produced nerve agents, such as Ricin which could kill an individual with a single drop and there is no antidote. That can cause many more casualties than were caused on 9-11 in a similar attack and might never be traced to Saddam if he insulated himself by farming out the attack to other terrorists, which is what a state-sponsor of terrorism would try to do and get away with.�
Then why declare war on a nation where it is dubious at best as to the whereabouts of these weapons? Why must the ‘war on terror’ (which has always existed in as much as a ‘war on evil and violence’ exists for the desires of individuals. A state cannot wage war on a concept with no rational basis.
All national security (why must it be centralized and coercive of the citizenry? You do realize that our standing army and military industrial complex is a form of corporatism, a soft fascism with a socialist planning board to take care of its empire?) Whether public or private has the capabilities to intercept possible threats from individual terrorists and try to detain them.
If Saddam had terrorists in his territory (which there are more of after we ‘liberated’ it), we get the terrorists. If Afghanistan had Osama, the military services go to get- wait…
“If you say so. But I don't think that you fully appreciate what the problem with socialism is, exactly. Socialism is unjustified coercion, it is by its nature the violation of the sovereignty of the individual by the state. You unfortunately blanket dictators as sovereign rulers as you would a legitimate head of state. I think that much of your confusion, as well as that of many other people, begins there.�
I think it’s a bit strange that you are assuming this on a libertarian forum. Have you heard of Mises, Rothbard and the Austrian school? Our major critique of interventionism is that it fosters socialism at home and planned chaos abroad. Unconstitutional Militarization is forced coercion of the citizenry, even whether the army is volunteer or draft.
And with the events following 9/11, with the PATRIOT Act, the NSA, and the increasing web of doublethink, our government is growing and turning us into fear-stricken, hallucinating automatons. Ripe prey for terrorism, be it decentralized and centralized.
“As far as WMD being used in a terrorist attack that is definitely a capability to inflict harm on Americans which all terrorists must be deprived of. And you continue to ignore the fact that American intervention in Iraq was not based on conjecture, as you say, read the war resolution and the President's case for action in Iraq for yourself...�
It is not any State’s role to force its control over another state. Imperialism is socialism, here and abroad. When welfare-sucking and anti-capitalist corporations support it, it is fascism. This has nothing to do with race or religion.
We are not promoting democracy in Iraq. Every effort to do so has resulted in more state control and corruption in that nation. Even Japan.
You get your thinking from indeed, in your own logic, a leftist-neocon (same thing) hero, Woodrow Wilson. His decision to explode government power and force led to our terrible involvement in WWI and the rise of fascism and communism.
Democracy at gunpoint is not American democracy, it is not liberty.
You speak of the “left� as it is any different from the neocon “right�. Right and left are outdated concepts with no credibility whatsoever in political science.
If anything, neoconservatism embraces the ‘leftism’ you demonize. It seems the pro-socialist and pc movement in academia has led to the emergence of neoconservatives, such as yourself. You really don’t have any claim to conservative thinking, only neo-Trotskyite.
Published: April 19, 2006 5:43 PM
"Why did Hayes keep mixing up the Malaysian Hakir Azzawi, the al Qaeda greeter in Malaysia, with Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Fedayeen col?"
He was raising the possibility that we were getting new information about an Iraq directed individual, specifically that the Fedayeen Colonel was one of Saddam's 9-11 connected people. Like I had to point out to you before Hayes pointed out early on that it might not be the same individual. The theory didn't stand, but more interestingly the Iraqi government WAS linked to al Qaeda which you had previously denies, and was observed by the U.S. government in the Shakir case to be in contact with individuals involved in the 9-11 attacks and by the Czech government in the Muhammed Atta case to be in contact with the ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
I know it can be a small world, but not that small. The difference between the "war for oil" allegation and the "Saddam was a terrorist" allegation is that one is true and the other is false.
"How could the US declare rules on Iraq’s own airspace with its alleged weapons that did not exist?"
First, the statement that Saddam's WMD did not exist has not been confirmed, yet that appears to be the probability. The 2002 Congressional authorization for the commencement of military action against the Iraqi regime was necessary because inspectors would never be allowed by Saddam Hussein to finish (which you suggest you wanted right before saying that Saddam should be allowed to do whatever he wanted to do). This is proven by 12 years of denial, deception, and ceasefire violations. Apparently you probably forget your own question "Could we have not used threat of arms buildup for more aggressive inspections?"
As for the no-fly zones, those not blinded by ideological misconceptions might remember why they were there.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/020325fa_FACT1
"Terrorists who are still at large, both Yasin and bin Laden. The war is apparently part of 'the War on Terror. Not regime change, not democracy, but to catch terrorists."
Catching and killing terrorists has to be one component of a strategic approach to the War On Terror, one which is incorporated into a plan which involves denying them sanctuary and diminishing their destructive capabilities. You really have to stopper the flow, and that involves becoming more serious in our dealings with terrorist states and the people in them.
The fact that bin Laden and the 1993 World Trade Center bomber who deceived the FBI and went to Iraq haven't been found is a very bad for pacifism in the face of terrorist states.
"Jund-al-Islam’s (which later became Al-Ansar) Taliban orientation put them at odds with the secularist regime of Saddam who allowed and encouraged the very things that Al-Ansar sought to stamp out."
This is the argument that Saddam would not cooperate with Islamic extremists (dismissing all the evidence that he did exactly that) because he was a devout secularist, right? That's why Saddam started hosting jihadist conferences, I assume. That's why Uday published an editorial in 1998 describing bin Laden as an "Islamic hero."
How does Al Lorentz claim that there "is no Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda link" while Faruq Hijazi, the former deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, was meeting with al Qaeda in the 1990s according to the 9/11 Commission? What about the Iraq/alQaeda contacts through Hassan al-Turabi of Sudan (also included in the 9/11 report) which preceeded the renaming of Jund-al-Islam to Ansar Al-Islam, which were nothing but trouble to the pro-American Kurds outside of the reach of Saddam's aircraft?
"Saddam was a Baathist, a secularist whereas al-Qaeda are fundamentalist Muslims with a radically different set of goals." -Lorentz
Yeah, one could have said the same exact thing about Lynne Stewart and Abdul Rahman, yet that didn't stop the "humanitarian" from illegally smuggling deadly messages from the convicted terrorist to his organization. America is the greatest obstacle to her despicable enemies, regardles of their beliefs they need to cooperate with eachother to enhance their ability to do harm to the U.S. Al Lorentz has failed to make the case that they have not.
"Our credibility to give the terrorists leeway and shelter has been strengthened."
I don't think that they feel "sheltered" by being hunted down and destroyed, but I could be wrong. My point was that action in Iraq puts the United States in a better position to negotiate an end to WMD programs with nations such as Iran because of the additional pressure produced by the understanding that there are consequences attached to the pursuit of WMD.
"There are more terrorist movements in Iraq than before."
Well, Saddam did train thousands of terrorists in camps such as Salman Pak, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
So you have to take that into consideration. Intelligence about Iraq was very very poor as we have discovered. The inner circle wasn't penetrated, and to quote Bob Woodward, the chief of the Iraqi Ops Group at the CIA "was discovering that the CIA reporting sources inside Iraq were pretty thin. What was thin? 'I can count them on one hand,' Saul said, pausing for effect, 'and I can still pick my nose.' There were four."
You are right about Russia, North Korea and France hypothetically handing terrorists WMD. If you recall, Jacques Chirac did attempt to provide Saddam Hussein with a nuclear reactor, but war with a democratic country, no matter how cowardly or foolish, should generally be avoided.
"Saddam has not once threatened his neighbors or the world in any way since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, a dozen years ago. He has not defied any UNSC resolutions, complying with each one.."
Besides yourself and Michael Moore, who else would support that statement? I have to say that a guy who won't even admit that Saddam gassed the Kurds is probably somewhat demented. It is also interesting that you quote that Saddam was in "total compliance" with UN Res 1441, which happens to state the way that Saddam was in fact defying UNSC resolutions by obstructing inspectors, refusing them access on numerous occassions and expressly pointing out "Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions".
And it is absurd and dishonest to suggest that the final UN Resolution to the Saddam regime meant "we will just pass more resolutions if you violate this one" when it speaks of "serious consequences". Iraq continued to be in material breach of its obligations as the defeated party of the Gulf War. It was not up to him to set conditions and limitations, as his supporters argue, but to finally provide unconditional cooperation on the WMD question which he refused to do. Now, if you have faith in an individual displaying that kind of judgement then you are probably not quite rational.
"The record now indicates Iraq did EXACTLY that [fess up about the WMD] in 1991, but none of that mattered as the US did not want to lift the sanctions that were crippling the Iraqi economy."
How could it both not matter that Iraq "fessed up about the WMD" to the UN in 1991 while the UN in 1999 concluded that Saddam did not? Please exlain how that is that a coherent thought.
"And, as to the stockpiles in Syria and Lebanon argument...Again, why doesn’t the Admin break out this ‘evidence’ with chests pumped? Why aren’t they?"
I think that it would encourage opponents to once again falsely claim that the president's case for war on Iraq rested solely on finding Saddam's stockpiles, which was the only thing that is in question today with regard to the numerous clauses in the Congressional authorization for the commencement of military action.
If there are WMD to be found it would probably be best to revisit the argument once their exact location is known. The odds of accounting for Saddam's WMD are high right now. But as retired Gen. Michael DeLong pointed out "Two days before March 19, 2003, we saw quite a number of vehicles going into Syria. We could not go after them because we said we'd give Saddam 48 hours. A lot of (Iraqi) leaders went into Syria, and a lot of WMD went into Syria. We've gotten indications some went into Lebanon, and probably some went into Iran." There are other leads that one could follow up on, so the probability of a speedy accounting of whatever WMD may be out there is low. In order not to allow that fact to criple and stifle us us in what needs to get done, basically, a nonspecified "some of the intelligence on Iraq's WMD is incorrect" position allows us to keep going forward and working on pressing tasks: neutralizing enemies while advancing and defending civilization - as a means and an end in and of itself.
Published: April 20, 2006 11:39 AM
"And with the events following 9/11, with the PATRIOT Act, the NSA, and the increasing web of doublethink, our government is growing and turning us into fear-stricken, hallucinating automatons."
So what exactly is the problem with allowing American law enforcement agencies to go after terrorists utilizing the same tools that it already uses against organized crime? Give me the language in the Patriot Act which you disagree with so we can discern who exactly is guilty of being "fear-stricken, hallucinating automatons." I want to know why you think you have a right to dial bin Laden without having the communication intercepted.
"You get your thinking from indeed, in your own logic, a leftist-neocon (same thing) hero, Woodrow Wilson."
I don't look to him for any of my opinions and beliefs and I believe that I have more disagreements with him politically and philosophically than agreements. That said, I have to agree with his statement that "The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." The freedom that YOU have, assuming you are American, is protected because of the sacrifice of others. In the American Revolution democracy was indeed "at gunpoint."
"If anything, neoconservatism embraces the ‘leftism’ you demonize."
Leftism is self-demonizing, it attacks America and her values while encouraging America's enemies abroad to do the same. See Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz, for starters.
To say that wild-eyed fanatics closer to the libertarian ideology than to neo-conservative ideology produced the latter is absolute nonsense. It is not neocons who defended the Saddam regime, it is not neocons who without reason attack the Patriot Act. It is not neocons who argue that terrorism is going to triumph over democracy, or who regularly express common cause with America's enemies; e.g. the call by a professor at one leftwing madrassa for "a million Mogadishus"
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2006/February2006/ColumbiaMillionMogadishus020606.htm
Published: April 20, 2006 12:01 PM
OK. The US invaded Iraq for the second time. Over two thousand American boys well and truely dead. Many others crippled for life (loss of limbs, mental problems, mysterious syndromes etc). Tens of thousands of Iraqis dead. Hundreds of thousands injured, many crippled for the rest of their lives. Prior to that we had a decade of low level war against Iraq prosecuted by the USA led UN "coalition." Millions impoverished. Hundreds of thousands injured, sickened or killed. And prior to that the USA led its first great invasion of Iraq. Tens of thousands of deaths.
Madeline Albright reckoned it was worth it to be responsible for killing tens of thousands of people (and causing the suffering of millions of others) when she was in charge. Perhaps that's what the current administration thinks as well. "It was worth it."
Prior to asking whether "it was worth it." One needs to ask, "What precisely has been achieved?"
Sione
Published: April 20, 2006 4:34 PM
I really would like to move this debate to some other forum, as I'd like to continue it.
What do the mises.org staff think about this? This isn't really the institute's space to be having a foreign policy debate.
If its ok with the site staff I will continue debating this issue here and expanding it to debate more points on foreign policy.
Published: April 20, 2006 5:52 PM
Sione, in a better world there will be no more war, but unfortunately we live in one where the struggle for liberty and the defense of civilization continues. Ignoring that fact doesn't make anybody safer. If you notice, where there is the least resistance to tyranny you find the greatest suffering.
It is fair and reasonable to ask "what has been achieved" but one must remember that history has not ended and that we have yet to really see if it was "worth it" to go into Iraq, going on the offense against terrorist states.
Brett, what would you continue doing, besides being wrong and consistently so? You have yet to explain any of your numerous false statements or those which you have quoted and chosen instead to "move on" to others after each of my replies.
Our debate is over, and I'll rely on the judgement of other readers to decide that.
Published: April 20, 2006 7:36 PM
Woah, all I was saying was to ask the mises.org staff if the debate could be continued elsewhere, as it is a foreign policy debate and not on topic for this forum.
So much self-assurance. However, the debate is far from over. The effort lies in persuading those who still cling to the idea of the war.
Published: April 20, 2006 7:54 PM
“He was raising the possibility that we were getting new information about an Iraq directed individual, specifically that the Fedayeen Colonel was one of Saddam's 9-11 connected people. Like I had to point out to you before Hayes pointed out early on that it might not be the same individual. The theory didn't stand, but more interestingly the Iraqi government WAS linked to al Qaeda which you had previously denies, and was observed by the U.S. government in the Shakir case to be in contact with individuals involved in the 9-11 attacks and by the Czech government in the Muhammed Atta case to be in contact with the ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers.�
A false possibility is still false and lacking evidence. And the link still does not stand. The Shakir involved with the 9-11 contributors was still in Malaysian politics and was not connected with the Iraq govt. Not connected. Atta. http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=8583, and http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7312 It seems the answer, again, lies on the failure of the government. Security of a people does not work with military socialism. It has never worked. The neo-conservatives have left the school of liberty in their fervent belief that it does.
“The 2002 Congressional authorization for the commencement of military action against the Iraqi regime was necessary because inspectors would never be allowed by Saddam Hussein to finish (which you suggest you wanted right before saying that Saddam should be allowed to do whatever he wanted to do). This is proven by 12 years of denial, deception, and ceasefire violations. Apparently you probably forget your own question "Could we have not used threat of arms buildup for more aggressive inspections?"�
Again, you aren’t seeing the point. We had no reason to go to war after 1441. Saddam proved what the demands asked of him, having weak, worthless weapons, already being a tinpot dictator in a shell of a nation, and even asked the CIA to inspect further. The government failed to disclose ‘information of hypothetical weapons’. If the intel was bad, why act on it? The duelfer and Kay reports acknowledged that there were no capabilities for using weapons before the war. It is the government who lied and should be held responsible for this. We have wasted taxpayer money at the expense of government growth and damage to US freedom and the safety of its citizens. Our civilization and its liberal tradition is taking a hit thanks to our masters in the Pentagon and the White House. Saddam doing whatever he wanted to do? He could do nothing. Whatever he wanted to do was worthless and would have been worthless. His possible connections were non-existent. Yet we cannot catch the terrorists who now go freely through his territory. Yet we must somehow justify the destruction of the people he tyrannized with even greater and systematic fashion.
“The fact that bin Laden and the 1993 World Trade Center bomber who deceived the FBI and went to Iraq haven't been found is a very bad for pacifism in the face of terrorist states.�
I tend to think that is bad for the Admin and the government. Why are civilians being held accountable for a government’s mistake? This is all on the Admin. For all of the 90s leading up to and before 9/11, on both Clinton and Bush’s watch, it was bureaucratic bumbling and proud militarization that bungled mostly every effort to intercept and deter the 9/11 attackers. Yet we are forced to accept the government’s own conspiracy theory. http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski57.htmlSaddam’s terror camps at Salman Pak are another unsubstantiated claim. During the 6th of april when US forces overran the camp, there was no evidence to suggest that there were terrorist training materials. Even before the war, the CIA and DIA conceded that there was no evidence to back up the claims of the Iraqis who made the allegations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility http://yourplanetisdoomed.blogspot.com/2005/12/salman-pak-911-pure-fantasy.html
Syria hypothesis: if we bring this info out, we will have people deny it and comfort terror so we have this hypothesis waiting to use against the people who will deny it and comfort terror. Carnival-quality logic there.
“I don't think that they feel "sheltered" by being hunted down and destroyed, but I could be wrong. My point was that action in Iraq puts the United States in a better position to negotiate an end to WMD programs with nations such as Iran because of the additional pressure produced by the understanding that there are consequences attached to the pursuit of WMD. “
Again, there are more terrorists still on the loose since the war began. Hatred of US presence is growing and the chances of an attack have risen. And now you speak of negotiation? Irrational to an ugly t. Again, there is no justification, constitutional or just war theory-wise, for invading a nation based on a hypothetical threat.
“How could it both not matter that Iraq "fessed up about the WMD" to the UN in 1991 while the UN in 1999 concluded that Saddam did not? Please exlain how that is that a coherent thought.�
Good sophistry there. What happened in 1999 was Iraq’s failures to meet UNSC due to the sanctions and the worthless decision to send him funding. However, after 1441, there is sufficient evidence that the scraps of weapons found here and there were not WMD and not sufficient as a program to cause harm. No grounds for invasion.
I’d like to know what Constitutional provision allows the government to wage war on a hypothetical threat and a shell, pretend ‘weapons program’ that has no capability to inflict harm. France and India have nuclear weapons. Why not invade them? We have the intelligence to know where terrorists are going. We have the technology to find these terrorists and kill them. Our centralized big-government military-industrial complex fails to act on it. The free market would have made quick work of this. Yet military socialism is seen as effective. Instead, we invade nations for still undisclosed reasons. http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne24.html
“It is also interesting that you quote that Saddam was in "total compliance" with UN Res 1441, which happens to state the way that Saddam was in fact defying UNSC resolutions by obstructing inspectors, refusing them access on numerous occassions and expressly pointing out "Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions". And it is absurd and dishonest to suggest that the final UN Resolution to the Saddam regime meant "we will just pass more resolutions if you violate this one" when it speaks of "serious consequences". Iraq continued to be in material breach of its obligations as the defeated party of the Gulf War...�
Again, what I have said before stands. The UNSC violations, caused by Clinton and military blunders during the 90s and due to the sanctions, led to 1441. Saddam met and Duelfer and Kay verify that the resolution had been met. There were no effective weapons nor weapons programs. Hypothetical weapons with little backing evidence, again, are no justification for invasion and war. . And again, Saddam had no capabilities to bring the weapons. You continue to run in circles and post the same arguments. Give me one conclusive piece of evidence that states Saddam, after 1441, still had weapons that he wouldn’t let us inspect, had weapons that only military force could ‘find’, had weapons that were fully ready in that time frame to attack us and inflict massive damage, had verifiable and definite terrorist connections to supply those exact weapons and bring them to the US, and that these plans were imminent. If this is all true, than invasion of Iraq still does not hold up because there was no definite proof. Apprehension of the terrorists with said weapons does hold up, and our govt failed on this. Morally this could and should be done by private, voluntary efficiency, not an increasingly bloated and fascistic military-industrial complex.
I am busy with freshman College work, so I might be away from the blog for a bit, but debating will continue soon.
Published: April 20, 2006 8:52 PM
Keith, Brett and Sione, I'm with you.
Sirc, did you see the new Mises, mug? The struggle for "liberty, property and peace" is often the struggle with the tyranny of one's own government. Yes, there are real enemies in the world, but what underlies our militarized foreign policy are (i) an unrealistic, Manicheaen view that enemies are best destroyed, rather than coopted and turned into allies (this view is belied by the strong economic growth that accompanied postwar economic and political integration), (ii) supported by the growth in defense and other government expenditures for the benefit of favored rent-seekers. We now have a war machine that strongly supports Republicans, who in turn have found political and financial benefits in supporting wars. Not only jingoism, but gerrymandering and finding cultural threats such as gays have further entrenched Republicans, so that rent-seekers have found that it is more efficient to seek lucre from Republicans than Dems. With control of the White House and Congress, there has been no effective check on the Republicans, so spending has spiralled out of control (and despite Republicans' professions of concern for taxpayes and fiscal discpiline).
On the international scene, we are wasting our reputation, money and political capital in wars that are entirely counterproductive. That we could much more easily deflated our enemies by trading with them should be obvious. Our continued enmity towards Iran and Cuba just ensures more nationalistic support for their demagogues.
But if you only have a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Persians actaully on a whole are very favorably disposed to the US, despite the abuses we inflicted on them through the Shah, and our subsequent hostility (including support of Saddam in his war against them). Relaxing our embargo and our rhetoric would do wonders. But I suspect that this Administration is hooked on the political benefits of war and on bestowing favors to the corporate beneficiaries of the war machine, and sees an invasion of Iraq as (i) a way to eleiminate an enemy, (ii) distract from Iraq and retain politcal power and (iii) to seize Iran's oil fields (the Khuzestan province that neighbors Iraq) as a strategic move to contain China, to secure more levers over Japan and Europe, and to obtain "cheap" oil.
Do not be blinded by appeals to "patriotism", behind which lie only rascals and the deceived. Yes, we have a long-term challenge in dealing with Islam, but patience holds more promise than direct confrontation. We should get our troops out of the mideast, and consider taxing imported oil.
Published: April 20, 2006 11:41 PM
Sirc_Valence
It sure is easy to wash away hundreds of thousand of deaths and the suffering of millions, just so long as it aint you and yours.
Replacing one tyranny with another is not achieving much, is it? And for so high a cost....
Sione
Published: April 23, 2006 3:32 PM
TokyoTom
The best policy would be to get out of the middle-east. Leave those people to themselves.
Bring the military home.
But taxing oil is not on. Leave people to work out what they want to do about getting their energy supplies. Taking more and more of their wealth just feeds the big govt. rort. Better to strangle it of all funds, rather then allowing it to survive.
If the mid-east is abandoned, it is likely the cost of oil will increase anyway. Some people will start to seek alternatives. They'll find them too. You do not have to do anything to encourage them. Just leave them to their own devices and they'll surprise you. Some will do very well.
Sione
Published: April 24, 2006 11:40 PM
Sione, I am very much in agreement with you on policy in the Middle East. The neocons and other true believers may be absolutlely convinced that an aggressive miltary policy is essential, but it seems pretty clear that they are deluded. Our policies under Bush have been spectacularly expensive and counterproductive, but the seeds for this blowback were planted long ago, and Clinton watered them as well. We would be much better off out of the ME, but political gains and rent-seeking make it hard for us to deflate the military.
I share your general faith in the market on energy - oil is fungible after all - conservation and alternatives, but realistically I don't see the incentives currently given to fossil fuel producers being lifted or environmental externalities being eliminated, so I am in favor of energy taxes. We need them to eliminate our huge budget deficit anyway. I suspect an anarchist may disagree, but I think that energy taxes are a great way for us to stopn all of the other pork-barrel spending.
Regards,
Tom
Published: April 25, 2006 6:11 AM