I want to take a few days and assemble them (the core arguments against the war) in one place and then take a few more days and respond to them and see what kind of discussion ensues.
I think this is a critical and timely effort because – largely – I feel a sentiment solidifying in the discussions I overhear; I see it in the news media. It is the presumption of defeat, of surrender, of hopelessness.
I’ve argued for a long time that this negative view is in no small part a matter of intellectual fashion as much as that of political advantage. It’s not cool to believe in progress any more; all progress does is make the indigenous people suffer, destroy the environment, and so on ad nauseum. And more, because our political leaders fantasize that they are in separate boats – or better, are like Siamese twins who hate each other and believe that if only the other would die, all would be well – there can’t be a possibility of progress, because that would acknowledge some success by the other side.
But regardless of my own feelings, the sentiment is real, it is abroad, and – to be honest – it looks like it’s washing other sentiments away before it.Right now is, I believe, the critical window for our national attitude toward the war. We’re tired of it, horrified by it, subject to the endless litany of those who believe it to be a failure. And so we will decide – to push forward and (I believe) prevail, or go “Oops! My bad…” and pull back, amid hollow declarations of victory.
Can you tell which side I’m on?
But at the same time, it’s not enough for me or anyone else to simply stand on our self-perception of rightness. So let’s have a discussion.
First, what I’d like to do is simply list the core arguments against the war. Then I’d like to list my own response to each of them and let the fur fly.
So here goes. These are, in my own mind, the strongest, most central arguments against the war. Please add your own in the comments, and I’ll generate a final list. Note the rules, however:
# America has never before engaged in a pre-emptive war; this war was pre-emptive and thus morally outrageous.
# We entered the war because of the Administration’s lies.
# The war was illegal.
# The war was a distraction from the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the fight against terrorism.
# The war used up money and manpower which could/should have been used to secure our borders, airports, and ports.
# The war has cost us allies in Europe and the Middle East, and damaged our standing and ability to lead in the world.
# The pre-war planning ignored postwar humanitarian issues.
# The war is unwinnable, because the insurgency is too powerful politically and militarily.
# The war is unwinnable because the Administration has no coherent plan.
# The war is costing too many casualties, both in our own forces and Iraqi civilians.
There are certainly more, and I’d like to ask you to list them in the comments below. But – this is my house, and there are house rules.
# No snark. If you have to ask, don’t post it. We’re looking for honest, direct expressions of the best arguments against the war. If, like me, you’re pro-war, you’ll have a chance to counter later on. If you’re anti-war, you’ll have a chance to defend later on.
# No moonbattery. Yes, there were Jews in the WTC, and no, the Pentagon wasn’t hit by a missile. If you post this kind of stuff, I reserve the right to mock you within your own comment, and others certainly will in the comments that follow.
That’s about it. Let’s see what develops…
The presumption of defeat, surrender, and hopelessness has been solid since day 1 of the war (indeed, since before the Iraqi front opened, and even before Afghanistan… “dreaded Afghan winter,” anyone?) – and very consistently promulgated.
Given that these are a priori positions, debating them won’t make them go away. At best, it may clarify counter-arguments for those already inclined to make them.
also, # the war is a crime, a war crime. Get those leaders who prosecuted it up in the dock in the Netherlands !
Joe, I’m not so sure. First, I have great faith in the sensibility of the average person. Second, we live in interesting times, and memes do change – and part of what we ought to be doing here is working hard to change them.
And finally, to give up in the face of pervasive hopelessness is itself hopelessness, and I flatly refuse to participate in it.
A.L.
Say when on the rebuttal part. Thanks.
Hey A.L.,
Good post. Looking forward to seeing how the conversation develops.
I’m in real agreement that there does seem to be a certain… wavering… among many who originally supported the war, and clearly this comes from the contstant stream of negativity. God forbid anyone should ever report anything positive. Why, that’d make them no better than Fox! Can’t have that.
Don’t think any of the doubters will ever be convinced, though, and good luck hoping for better from the MSM. I mean… every time the Mapes thing comes back up they STILL pretend like those idiot memos were never proven fake, for example… but hopefully you can help stiffen the backbones of the rest…
-Boo
You may have covered some of these under one of your other headings so forgive me if i repeat
(1) the war in Iraq has created terrorism in a country that had no terrorism before (unless you go for that saddam knew zagarwi was there stuff , but no evidence has ever been provided .
(2) the war in iraq has divided the world community The UN is in a constant battle with the US damaging the one world body that has done more then any country to prevent conflicts since 1947 as it wanted to wait for blix to comlete (2 months) and the US refused to wait (often these days used to attack france who infact did not refuse military action)
(3) the word of the US is no longer trusted (due to its failings to be accurate on Iraq . now with issues such as Iran and North korea (Even Iraq still) US information , once the must trusted source one could find , is now assumed as being false or propoganda , for example the Iran tape found a weeks ago by the US was greated by the world with “so , we can all make one of those”
(4) world opinion has shifted againt the US making it less safe for americans everyhwere , they call bush a “war criminal” and burn US flags in Argentina , brazil , London , france , moscow , australia , asia and of course the middle east by its pre-emtive philosphy it has changed the worlds view from one of peacefull supper power to one of dangerous bully the UK aproval dropped from 80 % to 35 in france it was 75 % down to 21 , and those were the good guys
(5) the concept to defeat terrorism could only take place with the help of terrorists , we needed the kurds (who possesed the only genuine Al-qaeda camp in Iraq ) and had more much direct links to terrorism , and rhe human rights record of the countries we used as bases (such as kuiwat) are as bad as saddams . So by picking this fight , we seem hypocritical , the world knows the CIA spends 500 million a year supporting “freedom fighters” and so is just viewed as hypocritical
(6) watching the deaths of muslims on TV in places such as falluja has inspired MODERATE muslims to join in there thousands
Osama Bin laden clearly said that his ambition (after 9/11) to get the US to declare war on him for that would be greater then any recuritment that he could inspire , all we are doing is allowing young arab men to watch their brother and sister die and each death brings to more , at the moment they will keep on recuriting as you keep hunting terrorists and you will keep hunting terrorists as long as they keep recruiting
described by this quote “the war on terror is like trying to remove cancer with a blow torch , you certainly get theinfected cell , but you have now have thousands of dangerous infected cells to deal with”
(7) wars against terrorists can not be defeated by an army , thats not its job , the terrorists do not wear uniforms ,they become excempt from the GEN CONV , but thats because they are criminals , interpol probably has better success
short ones now
(8) Guilt hasn’t yet been proven. , the us war college and many others said there was “no evidence” saddam gassed the kurds , early white house documents show blame was hinted at Iran not Iraq ,even tests to (so they say) show that it must have been iran for Iraq uses mustard gas
(9) a new rule has been set for the world where pre-emtive action is OK , if Iran gets pissed with Israel it can say with a smile , hey you guys do it , it makes americas ‘part’ in policing the world harder
(10) the common one i hear is that america doesnt understand the middle east , you can notbring western democracy to middle eastern culture , a democracy is where everyone votes for whom they see as best
In Iraq , sunni vote for sunni , shia for shia and kurd for kurd , if only it wa that simple , almost ALL Iraqi’s that voted waited to be told by the tribal leaders whom to vote for ,
hence making the man wanted for the Murder of US soliders (a certain mr sadr) free and walking the sreets , immune to everything and telling his followers whom to vote for , this will make sadr and people like him the NEW saddams (though not secular , purely islamic)
(11) IRAN , IRAQ called an axis of evil by Bush , but as we know hated each other , the british have always advised to avoid creating a shia powerbase , something saddam did (in his not so nice ways) and the british did during their control , Iran and Iraq are now friends and in time the shia powerbase crossing two countries will become a major threat to world peace
(12) having to give the kurds a pseudo independence will create a war with turkey within a few years
(13) the fact that Iraq was picked to be delt with and not the Israeli / palastinian issue
(14) the fact that Iran had been running a moderate government for many years and seemed to have no possible way of electing anyone extreme , democracy was on its way to Iran , but with the Iraq war and the western troops so near to the arabs , it is claimed that fear drove Iranians to elect this extreme leader ,and the fall out of that could be worse then saddam , and outside the US the view i here is that its the coalition actions that drove Iran to the extreme
(15) getting bored now LOL , so i will stop there and if there any help then i will gladly put more
but PLEASE NOTE i am not advocating all of these things as points that belong to me
some i agree with , some i dont , i just repeat and rinse views i come acros as you have asked for reasons
I am against the war , but thats not what this is for , so please dont assume anything i wrote is a personal opinion , merely an offer of some reasons , if you think there shit , just dump them , i just had 5 mins to spare
respect
I suppose I’ll wade in, as a WoC reader and a war opponent….
To me, one has to look at the war as a cost-benefit issue. What were the costs of continuing our former policy of containment against the Saddam Hussein regime? Certainly, there were many- and I reject those on the left that naively claim that Iraq was a fine and dandy state minding its own business before we intervened.
Chiefly, the sanctions fostered a humanitarian disaster, and as we know the “Oil for Food” program was riven by corruption (but nonetheless partially effective). Saddam did provide financial support to the families of deceased Palestinian suicide bombers. We also know that Saddam would continually attempt to reconstitute his WMD program and we all shuddered to imagine the day when Saddam’s death would usher in rule by his psychopathic sons. These were all tremendous worries, and clearly Iraq wasn’t going to easy.
But was it worth going to war to topple Saddam? He was an uncooperative, vicious bastard, but I thought the likelihood of Saddam posing a threat to the US or collaborating with al Qaeda was too small to justify the great costs of our war.
The costs have indeed been great. First, it is far from certain that Iraq will emerge as a US-Friendly, secular democracy. Second, more than 2,000 American soldiers have perished and thousands more gravely wounded. Third, thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives as well, and it pains me to think that they’ll end up with a less-than-decent regime in the end.
To me, failed states present a far bigger problem to US security than do rogue states. There are certainly signs of progress in Iraq, and I disagree with those on the Left (and some on the paleo-Right) who blithely dismiss the entire operation as an unmitigated disaster. But my concern is whether enough Iraqis will profess loyalty to their nation-state over their clan/religious affiliation/ ethnicity. If they do not, then the odds of Iraq becoming a failed state are frightfully high.
These caveats to the invasion were widely known, and many reasonable people were quite skeptical with Rumsfeld’s pie-in-the-sky predictions of a peaceful, stable Iraq immediately following the invasion. I was among them.
The Iraq matter was not an easy one for me, as I’m sure it wasn’t for many other people in both “for” and “against” camps. But I just didn’t think the benefits, in the long term, would outweigh the costs. War is a terrible thing, and I didn’t feel that the Administration exhausted all other possibilities before marching on Baghdad.
Anyway- this is far from a complete account, but these were my personal reasons for being a war opponent. I look forward to constructive dialogue here at WoC.
Cheers
Joe-
bq. Given that these are a priori positions, debating them won’t make them go away. At best, it may clarify counter-arguments for those already inclined to make them.
So… you’re just giving up on rational debate entirely? People either get it or they don’t, and they’re not worth bothering with if they don’t get it?
Maybe I’m misreading you here, and if so I apologize for what I’m about to say. But if that is, in fact, what you’re saying, then that’s completely and totally pathetic. For shame. Anyone looking for evidence that at least some in the pro-war faction have gone completely intellectually bankrupt need look no further than your post.
Chris…how about commenting on my post, rather than Joe’s comment?
A.L.
some of these might be restatments of previous ones (last post seemed to cover lots).
1 Containment was working so there was no need.
2 It risked turning Iraq into another taliban era Afghanistan
3 Never choose to wage war on two fronts (a verion of the ‘should have finished in aghanistan’ one).
If I could just offer a general concept that people really should question, which I think, if we are honest about the answer, is a really significant point:
Were we at peace with Iraq before 2003?
like 90% of the ‘anti war’ arguments are founded on the premise that we were. But I suggest if you looked at what was really going on between the US and Iraq in the 90’s (periodic bombardment, fighter jets patrolling airspace, blockade of harbors, covert operation to destabilise the government, the list goes on), it’s a false premise. It’s much more like we just changed war strategies; from a siege to ground assult.
They really are *vastly* different issues, whether invading Iraq was a pre-emptive attack as advertised, or rather the end of a siege, ending the way sieges end.
In any event I very much hope you address the question that every single war critic always leaves unanswered: If we didn’t invade, would continuing the embargo for who knows how many more decades really been any better?
Wrote my last post while Matt was positng his.
Got to say that’s the best thought-out, most grounded in fact, anti-invasion position I’ve seen. I respectfully disagree, I see all possible outcomes of either continuing the embargo, or lifting it, worse than how invasion’s ended up panning out, but it is an oppinion I can respect.
AL-
It’s a reasonable list, but it’s already been colored and positioned by your pro-war sentiments, to the point where the list is both inaccurate and an easy target for well-worn hawk counter-arguments. I’d suggest something more along these lines:
bq. 1. America has never before engaged in a pre-emptive war; this war was pre-emptive and thus morally outrageous.
It’s not the case that America has never engaged in a pre-emptive war – it’s not even the case that America has never engaged in a war without good cause. However, I think it’s fair to say that we don’t _think_ of ourselves as the kind of country that would go to war without a good reason, especially these days, and I suspect a good chunk of the rest of the world thought so too.
Rightly or wrongly, the way we entered in to the Iraq war, and the way we’ve prosecuted it (especially the torture bits – not even the nasty little outbreaks at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo but the administration’s official stance against anti-torture legislation) have lost the US major support at home and abroad. If there were a clear and present danger in Iraq, or the prosepct of a clear victory ahead, perhaps some tarnish on our image would be tolerable, but there’s isn’t, so it’s not.
bq. 2. We entered the war because of the Administration’s lies.
No. We entered the war, at least in part, because of the administration’s exaggeration and willingness to (generally) only hear and repeat things that supported the “get rid of Saddam ASAP” line. That’s not the same thing as lies, but it’s a fairly serious charge in and of itself.
bq. 3. The war was illegal.
I doubt you’ll hear this one much from the mainstream left, because it simply doesn’t make sense: wars are beyond law.
bq. 4. The war was a distraction from the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the fight against terrorism.
If you change this to “the fight against Al Qeada”, I’m fine with it.
bq. 5. The war used up money and manpower which could/should have been used to secure our borders, airports, and ports.
Again, a reasonable and accurate anti-war talking point. However, it should be noted that very few people were under the impression that spending money on border/port security was _all_ we needed to do to be safe from AQ.
bq. 6. The war has cost us allies in Europe and the Middle East, and damaged our standing and ability to lead in the world.
Yep, no problems here.
bq. 7. The pre-war planning ignored postwar humanitarian issues.
Yes, but the pre-war planning ignored virutally _all_ post-war issues, from the military to the political to the economic to the humanitarian. Limiting this to humanitarian issues invites the strawman argument that “well, Saddam was infinitely worse as far as humanitarian issues were concerned”… which is unquestionably true, but is still only part of the big picture of stability for Iraq and the Middle East.
bq. 8. The war is unwinnable, because the insurgency is too powerful politically and militarily.
Where, exactly, did you get this one from? I don’t know many people who think the insurgency is _too powerful_ – rather, I’ve seen it argued that the insurgency simply has the kind of time and manpower to burn that we simply don’t, given that our leaders have elections to deal with and theirs have only undying hatred.
bq. 9. The war is unwinnable because the Administration has no coherent plan.
The lack of a coherent plan is part of it, but it’s still somewhat inaccurate: the plan we have, of course, is “as the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.” But there’s a good deal of evidence to suggest that we’re simply logistically incapable of hanging in there as long as that strategy requires us to, at least given the resources we’re currently diverting towards the war. Absent a major push forward, we seem destined to fall out of Iraq regardless… and more than anything else, this is the point I wish you’d substantively address.
bq. 10. The war is costing too many casualties, both in our own forces and Iraqi civilians.
I think you have to qualify this statement somewhat: 2,000 isn’t “too many”, nor would 10,000 be too great a burden to pay, _if it looks like we can win_. But that kind of certainty is no longer in evidence, and even one life given to a lost cause is one too many.
That said, thanks for addressing these issues, AL – you’ve made an admirable effort so far. I do hope that you’ll take some of the points I’ve raised into your existing list, and I look forward to seeing your rebuttals.
Clarifying counter-arguments for those already inclined to make them is worthwhile.
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “sensibilty” means:
1 : ability to receive sensations : SENSITIVENESS
2 : peculiar susceptibility to a pleasurable or painful impression (as from praise or a slight) — often used in plural
3 : awareness of and responsiveness toward something (as emotion in another)
4 : refined or excessive sensitiveness in emotion and taste with especial responsiveness to the pathetic.
Jerry Pournelle has for a long time pressed two arguments that are also accepted by many others. If these are ideas barred from this discussion as moonbattery, then anyone looking here for ideas to counter those arguments would have no option but to condemn Mr. Pournelle and all those who think like him as moonbats, rather than trying to answer their arguments. I don’t think that would or should wash.
1. The war on terror implies and/or is an important step on the road to empire and away from a true republic.
2. The correct alternative would have been to spend the money on technology to make America independent of oil. (Plus some police work of course.)
In this view, the war on terror represents the ascendancy of imperialism and a strategy of domination (particularly over those with oil) as opposed to science and freedom. (Or, interchangably with freedom, a republic.) Therefore the war is to be deplored, regardless of the motives of those who instigated it. (Which does not imply that Bush and his gang must be held blameless.)
From this point of view, an American Caesar (or Caesarism) is relevant (Ave Bush!), and the “enemy” in the war on terror is not highly relevant.
Nevertheless nothing in this view prevents one from being a thoughtful, clear-eyed observer of all sorts of things. Jihad terror attacks do not have to be excused, the Jews need not be blamed, and so on. On the contrary, this is one of the most sensible counter-positions, because it accepts the responsibility for suggesting an alternative.
bq. Chris…how about commenting on my post, rather than Joe’s comment?
Done, I just thought his was a quick point that needed to be addressed before I got to your post. That said, I’ve said my piece about Joe’s remarks, and won’t muddy the waters any further.
Face it, the primary argument honest liberals would cite is that George W Bush is leading it. If Clinton were president, all would be roses, peaches, and blue dresses with liberals.
I think you have listed the most widely spewed arguments against the war in Iraq, but not the best ones.
The best arguments against the war take two forms. First, they argue that it was unnecessary, because even if containment of Saddam had collapsed (as supporters of the war, including me, believed that it would have) and even if thereupon Saddam had built an atomic bomb, Saddam was ultimately deterrable. Therefore, we did not need to remove him, and any expenditure of blood and treasure to remove him was wasteful.
Supporters of the war generally held (a la Kenneth Pollack, before he wimped out) that Saddam had a long history of irrational and reckless decision-making that made it impossible to conclude that he was deterrable.
Realist opponents of the war say Saddam could have been deterred. Realist supporters of the war say that there was too much evidence to suggest that he could not have been to allow him to get WMD. Therefore, any discussion of this question in retrospect needs to take a stand on the basic question, was it an acceptable risk for an American president to believe that Saddam was deterrable?
This was an interesting enough question in absence of a war against al Qaeda. In the context of the war against al Qaeda, it becomes much more tricky. Realist opponents of the war will say that even if we had to remove Saddam at some point, containment was not going to collapse in March 2003. We had time to deal with Saddam once we had beaten al Qaeda. More to the point, invading and occupying an Arab country would motivate more Muslims around the world to join the jihadis.
The realist case for the invasion said precisely the opposite: that the war against al Qaeda made it more urgent that we deal with Saddam. This argument took several forms. One version was that Saddam and al Qaeda would start cooperating, or that the risk that they might cooperate was too great to countenance. Another version — the one I subscribe to — was that al Qaeda’s strength derived in part from the widespread perception that America was weak and vulnerable. Saddam’s defiance of the West was particularly powerful evidence to support that perception. We therefore had to discredit that perception by crushing Saddam, and we had to do it by putting boots on the ground and lives at risk.
Either way, this made the case for war in 2003 more urgent, rather than less.
So, setting aside all the lefty moralism and political posturing, I believe that these are the two interesting questions:
1. Would Saddam have been deterrable following the collapse of post-Gulf War containment?
2. Did the war against al Qaeda make the removal of Saddam more urgent, or was it a reason to defer the Saddam problem until after the reduction of al Qaeda?
Hi H
I’m gonna take a quick stab at yours. I’m just going to put my answer next to the number that corrosponds with the reason you presented.
Also – with every response I give I wont spend any time revisitting what we contributed to the situation. I figure its a given that if we are part of a situation we’ve contributed to it being posative or negative. So dont presume my not mentioning this in each response somehow implies I believe the US to be free from any blame. If there’s blame to be had.
——————-
1. I don’t know if this would be called a straw man or what. But, imho, its definitely one of those statements that seem designed to cloud a conversation. Because it makes as much sense as being opposed to the Normandy landings because they brought death and destruction where there had previously only been an oppressive occupation. Of course there’s massive terrorist activity.
The point in choosing Iraq – (and this goes to a following reason of yours as to terrorists not being a unified fighting force that armies can deal with as well etc) – aside from the reasoning used to topple Saddam. Picking Iraq had everything to do with deciding where best to go toe to toe with the Islamists fascists. Iraq’s central location as well as it being a known sanctuary for terrorists seems quite logical. And yes there was evidence that Saddam was aware who was in his country. He allowed them in for medical treatment and established low-level contacts with them under the assumption that there might be future interactions they would find mutually beneficial. Read conclusions of 9-11 commission as well as the info they sourced to reach those conclusions.
2. The war in Iraq didn’t do anything but shine daylight on already existing realities. What Iraq has done is give allot of people the excuse they needed to say in public what they’ve been saying privately and behind the backs of others for ages. What we have now aren’t some newly degenerated relationships. What we finally have is the truth in regards to who our friends are and who gave lip service to it when necessary. If you’ve traveled much then you know that the attitudes you attribute to Iraq have in fact been prevalent for years and years prior to iraq ever happening. Just before it was bad manners to publicly express repellant anti Americanism. Now its not. One of the greatest disservices our government has done over the years is perpetuating this “friends and allies” facade in regards to certain countries. When it was widely known that in places like France, Germany as well as many Latin American countries there was a virulent anti Americanism that ran rampant through the population. Fueled by stereotype and ignorance. Stoked constantly by certain media outlets thru their choice to portray the country and the people who live here in a denigrating manner.
The root cause for the sentiment runs much deeper and goes back much further than the war in Iraq.
3. See number 2. The use of conspiracy theories to try and explain American actions is so entrenched in many countries that often we are assumed to have capabilities of near cosmic proportion in the minds of many. So no. Iraq didn’t suddenly create some new lack of trust. Once again it shed daylight on the deranged reasoning applied by some to American activities. Where before it was impolite to speak aloud the idea that its all some Zionist cabal. Now it’s quite accepted. This doesn’t say anything real about what we do – but it does say allot – and all of it bad – about the current state of mind among many outside this country.
4. See 2 and 3.
5. Someone’s subjective reality – has nothing to do with any actual strategy to defeat terror. Bit of a straw man.
6. Death horrifies us all. It’s only where the Islamists are allowed to corrupt the reasoning of others that people respond to those images with a desire to go get themselves killed. All the more reason to do whats required to change the mental landscape those people exist within..
Oh.. and as to those from the west who join the islamist fascists. They seem to be more motivated by narcissism than any deep ideological belief in jihad.
It should also be pointed out that what we do now is intended to benefit our children more than it is us. So the assumtion that we’re going to reap immidiate benefits from any of this is wrong headed.
7. The point of terror is to cause a reaction. Osama clearly thought ours would be to fold. He honestly thought that we’d be so unnerved by the 9-11 attacks that we’d withdraw in fear from most of our dealings around the world. With us out of the way and cowering he’d have an easier time consolidating power among the Muslim masses. Who, upon seeing him slay the paper American tiger, would rally to him. At which point he had intended to use that power to foment popular uprisings to remove the house of Saud, the Egyptian government, Kuwait.. Etc. THAT was the reaction he sought. He NEVER expected to be stuck in some cave in Pakistan 4 years after 9-11.
Once the “blame America first” filter has been removed.
There are many very valuable lessons to be learned from the reaction others had to the liberation of Iraq.
I don’t think it is a fair to frame the debate as you have.
It is easier to shoot down other positions, especially if they are posed, as in this case, by someone who already admits a bias against them (in agreement with #12).
To be fair, you should also either provide, or link to, a parallel set of arguments that you believe are the strongest in support of the war in Iraq.
Mike,
You write that Osama expected us to fold and not to end up in a cave in Pakistan. I don’t disagree with you, but what do Osama’s whereabouts have to do with the Iraq war? They appear to be a perfectly logical consequence of our invasion of Aghanistan, a war that I (and many others who subsequently opposed Iraq) supported.
In his Forward Forum article, Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War, Martin Van Creveld – surely a serious name – argues that America should withdraw from Iraq now, on the Vietnam model, as America cannot afford to arm Iraq with modern weapons, and the Iraqis could not use them anyway.
“Article by Martin Van Creveld”:http://www.forward.com/articles/6936
“And whereas in the early 1970s equipment was still relatively plentiful, today’s armed forces are the products of a technology-driven revolution in military affairs. Whether that revolution has contributed to anything besides America’s national debt is open to debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world’s largest and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.
Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.
Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began.”
“For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president’s men.”
I think a more pertinent topic would be to identify arguments against the continued conduct of the war given where we are now. Otherwise it becomes an academic debate. We are in it, and if withdrawal supporters want us out, they should articulate why.
greetings mike ( let me first say for reasons of honesty , I am English not American so my angles my come from different points )
(1) you said “. Picking Iraq had everything to do with deciding where best to go toe to toe with the Islamists fascists.”
why ? there was support for Hamas in Iraq (as everywhere in the middle east) , but al-qaeda was saddam hated al-qaeda , his secular government with a christian in a position of power and the rights of women in iraq were something Al-qaeda had spoke out agaisnt , where is the link ?
you said
“And yes there was evidence that Saddam was aware who was in his country. He allowed them in for medical treatment and established low-level contacts with them under the assumption that there might be future interactions they would find mutually beneficial.”
this is a common myth , and it seem your using the zaqarwi myth
Oct. 26, 2005 – A secret draft CIA report raises new questions about a principal argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq: the claim that Saddam Hussein was “harboring” notorious terror leader Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi prior to the American invasion.
But before the American-led invasion, Saddam’s government would never have known he was there. The reason: he used an alias and was there under what one U.S. intelligence official calls a “false cover.” No evidence has been found showing senior Iraqi officials were even aware of his presence.
its a myth . there is not a single piece of evidence that saddam knew he was there
as for Iraqi officials meetings with Al-qaeda , like richard clarke i would be shocked if they had not , at the same time the british MI6 were meeting with al-qaeda and the american intelligence agencies as well , thats what intelligence agencies do , there is NO evidence anything sinister took place
as for there was plenty of reasons to pick Iraq , well bringing terrorism to Iraq may be better for Americans , but what does it have to do with the iraqi’s
I have read the 9/11 report
(2) you said “2. The war in Iraq didn’t do anything but shine daylight on already existing realities. What Iraq has done is give allot of people the excuse they needed to say in public what they’ve been saying privately and behind the backs of others for ages. What we have now aren’t some newly degenerated relationships. What we finally have is the truth in regards to who our friends are and who gave lip service to it when necessary. ”
well is that why the entire world joind the US in its fight on terrorism , france was there , germany was there , afghanistan was supported by the entire world
are you aware that the largest amount of support to catch terrorists leaders came from Syria ?
they opened all their files for they had been at war with al-qaeda for years , it was THEIR intelligence that is responsible for many of the key terrorists you now have in places like gitmo
the war in Iraq destroyed that coalition , even Iran is a natural enemy of the terrorists , Iran is democratic
with respect i find your answers to 2 and 3 and 4 a little niave , it is the war on iraq that has done the damage , i live in a city that was reccently hit by terrorists who CLEARLY would not have done what they did if it was not for Iraq
number 5 i said “the concept to defeat terrorism could only take place with the help of terrorists , we needed the kurds (who possesed the only genuine Al-qaeda camp in Iraq ) and had more much direct links to terrorism , and rhe human rights record of the countries we used as bases (such as kuiwat) are as bad as saddams . So by picking this fight , we seem hypocritical , the world knows the CIA spends 500 million a year supporting “freedom fighters” and so is just viewed as hypocritical ”
whats subjective ? the kurds ARE linked to Al-qaeda directly , sounds like avoidance to me
(6) you say “6. Death horrifies us all. It’s only where the Islamists are allowed to corrupt the reasoning of others that people respond to those images with a desire to go get themselves killed. All the more reason to do whats required to change the mental landscape those people exist within..
Oh.. and as to those from the west who join the islamist fascists. They seem to be more motivated by narcissism than any deep ideological belief in jihad. ”
erm .. your failing to understand the culture of the middle east , you have a western ideolism that your placing on an islamic mind . it doesnt work
“we dont see the Image that they do,”:http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28 , and to explain the key failure of understanding in this point is something i could not do as a single bullet point in a reply of many
(7) you said ” The point of terror is to cause a reaction. Osama clearly thought ours would be to fold. He honestly thought that we’d be so unnerved by the 9-11 attacks that we’d withdraw in fear from most of our dealings around the world. With us out of the way and cowering he’d have an easier time consolidating power among the Muslim masses. Who, upon seeing him slay the paper American tiger, would rally to him. At which point he had intended to use that power to foment popular uprisings to remove the house of Saud, the Egyptian government, Kuwait.. Etc. THAT was the reaction he sought. He NEVER expected to be stuck in some cave in Pakistan 4 years after ”
this is just speculation apon speculation , you have no evidence Osama had any of these thoughts , you have no evidence that osama even survived this long , he could be well dead ,
the first rule of war is “Know your enemy” and if thats the first rule then it seems we are failing badly
please note , I am merely replying to the 7 of the 15 points you replied to , none of the 15 points would be in the first 15 reasons i have against the war , but they are already covered above by others
i must say my favourite comment so far has to be
“3. The war was illegal.
I doubt you’ll hear this one much from the mainstream left, because it simply doesn’t make sense: wars are beyond law.”
well you heard it from the the head of the United nations , watch yourself” British Broadcasting Corporation”&title=”Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General ”
LOL , the US helped to create the geneva convention in 1947 to draw up the very laws of war that no longer seem to apply
the US has signed up to the UN charter that clearly says
“Article 2 of the geneva convention
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members….
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”
that makes the war illigal , the US broke the terms of the UN charter
this could end up as a debate that gets nowhere , i have no desire to convince anybody or go off on rants , i just answered the call for ‘reasons’ but to assume the reasons can be easily dismissed would probably be a key to working out why we are in this mess to start with
PS sorry for the bad grammer , i am useless at typing , i will clarify anything that is requested
PPS
the article is the article 2 of the UN charter , not “Article 2 of the geneva convention “
This is a very clever attempt at AL to turn rationality on it’s head. The argument against going to war is obvious. It is WAR and not to be engaged in lightly. That is all you need to know.
AL is trying to get you all to accept the presumption that the presidents war on Iraq needed no more justification than does the presidents choice of a Supreme Court Justice: unless you have very good reasons to oppose it, then it should be approved.
But this is totally wrong. Unlike a SC appointee the presumption on war is that we do not go to war without overwhelmingly good reason. So the burden is on AL to defend the reasons Bush used to convince Americans to allow him to wage a war on Iraq. Without that support the war on Iraq would never have been launched.
But AL runs into a problem here because the reasons Bush used to convince Americans to support his war were essentially lies.
I’ve certainly heard a lot of people argue that “all war is bad”, sometimes qualified with “except defending against an invasion”.
There are arguments against the US having the moral authority to wage war, which may be subsumed by your point 3.
There are arguments made that the US should instead have been working to deal with N. Korea, Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia first, rather than Iraq, and therefore we must immediately withdraw from Iraq to confront these “more immediate threats”. (And of course, this is a parallel to the point about how we should instead have more troops in Afghanistan.)
H-
The UN charter is not law per se; it’s a set of guidelines that’s enforceable only insofar as other countries use diplomatic and/or military pressure to enforce compliance. Or, to put it another way, the UN has never superceeded the sovereignty of its members – and the power of law dervices from sovereignty.
Which is not to say that breaking UN resolutions is a good thing to do, but it’s not illegal.
Ken I agree with you , the argument was slanted in AL’s favour
but it seems there are around 40 to 50 points above and to my mind not one has been answered in any way that concludes the point and most of the points have not been looked at yet
even with the criteria set as it is , it would be increadibly stupid for anyone to think they can dismiss them all
Iraq did not harbour terrorists (there is no proof of a direct link)
Iraq did not have WMD
Iraq did not get uranium from niger (why would they , uranium is a natural resource of Iraq)
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
the war did not have international authortity
we hav given Al-qaeda the best recruitment tool they could have wished for , who doubts that there are now thousands more terrorists then there was after 9/11
we have re shaped the middle east making it a haven for SHIA terrorism to return to the center by allowing the influence of Iran to cross national borders
we have pushed the turks to the verge of war , one we will NOT be able to prevent
we have failed to make israel safer , the government of the new ISLAMIC iraq will be even more anti Israel then saddam was
….
Chris
Not getting a second UN resolution is what makes it illigal
Lord goldsmith (tony blairs lawyer) admited this himself nefore changing his mind 24 hours before war, kofi anan also said so ,
along with france / russia / china thats the other 3 perm members of the security council
you needed a second resolution to make it lawful under international law , it was not
“Iraq did not harbour terrorists (there is no proof of a direct link)”
Flat out untrue. Google Abu Nidal. Christopher Hitchens interviewed him in an Iraqi government office he was working out of.
“you needed a second resolution to make it lawful under international law”
You also need a resolution condemning the invasion. Good luck with that. I suppose we’ll just hide behind out veto like China vis-a-vis Tibet and Russia did for half the cold war. Or France essentially invading the Ivory Coast for that matter. I figure if everybody else hides behind their UN manuevering we should be able to as well, no?
Mark , abu Nidal has nothing to do with Al-qaeda thats very base , LOL
the US is currenttly harbouring the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles His resume contains a long list of terrorist “accomplishments,” including the bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner over Barbados in which all 73 people aboard died.
But Mr Bush refuses to hand him over ,
so it seems you do make a distinction between terrorists and those that harbour them
Carriles escaped from jail and ran to the US where he will soon be given US citizenship
will you soon be invading yourself ?
finding those who support the actions agaisnt ISRAEL in the middle east is like finding a mcdonalds in the US , just dip your hand in
lt me re-phrase Iraq did not harbour terrorists anymore then any other nation such as the United States ,
there is no direct evidence to link AL_QAEDA to saddam and hence 9/11
btw just google Luis Posada Carriles 🙂
“You also need a resolution condemning the invasion.” <---- what , what logic is that "try again . listen carefully to the words":pnm://rm.bbc.net.uk/news/media/video/40076000/rm/_40076368_annan07_fullinterview16_vi.rm?author="http://news.bbc.co.uk/"©right="© British Broadcasting Corporation"&title="Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General "
I got to say that I’m stunned to hear Martin Van Crevald write that peice. I’ve got half my works on his shelf and he’s always seemed to be a highly reasonable and intelligent person. His work ‘Logistics’ is one of the classics of military writing. It’s almost impossible for me to believe that a person with as much knowledge of military history as Mr. Van Crevald would write this:
“For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them…”
I simply see no way that a military historian acquainted with the annuals of military folly could defend such hyperbole, to say nothing of the rest of his strange conclusions. I mean as an excerise how many military debacles do you think we could come up with in the last 2000 years that exceed by every standard the failure of the current war? Just off the top of my head, Operation Barbarossa doesn’t count as more foolish than this? It’s not like its recent military history and Van Crevald covers its insanity in detail in his books. This is a guy whose opinion I really respect and whose writings are normally marked by measured consideration backed by weighty analysis. I don’t expect him to go flying off the handle like that into some sort of ranting bizzaro world.
“I’ve got half my works on his shelf..”
Duh, I mean his works on my shelf.
The most extraordinary thing about this is I could FISK (and Fisk HARD) that peice by Van Crevald. I should love to be at the War College publicly debating with an opponent that offered up such an irrational position. There are more holes in that from a military perspective than in the average seive.
AND THIS IS VAN CREVALD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! ONE OF THE GREATEST MILITARY HISTORIANS OF THE 20th CENTURY!!!
What is the world coming to when lowly me could stand up in a debate with Mr. Van Crevald?
I’m really tempted to call foul on this one. I’ve read alot of Van Crevald, and that just doesn’t sound like Van Crevald. He doesn’t use hyberbole. He doesn’t make unmeasured judgements. He backs his positions with clear facts. He doesn’t make use of bad logic. Either the man has completely taken leave of his senses, or else he didn’t write that and the attribution is faked.
Face it, the primary argument honest liberals would cite is that George W Bush is leading it. If Clinton were president, all would be roses, peaches, and blue dresses with liberals.
No, that is a moronic comment, honestly.
Give you another few reasons; North Korea, A’stan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, etc etc.
Now that we are tied down in Iraq we are unable to cope with more powerful threats.
PS as a side note- if come January the elected government of Iraq asked us to leave their country, should we abide by their wishes?
We need to clarify something about the relevance of Abu Nidal and the ‘Al Quida connection’ and whatnot. People who say ‘what’s Abu Nidal have to do with Al Quida?’ are thinking in terms of retribution for 9/11. That wasn’t the point.
The point is this: Before 9/11 we all thought that the Atlanic Ocean was a buffer between our country and foreign threats. We could tolerate a Saddam Hussein because he’s a regional problem and our homland is out of his reach.
Osama Bin Laden proved the falicy of that.
If a private individual living in a cave in the Hindu Kush could reach across the Atlantic and destroy the Pentagon with merely a few determined men weilding box cutters, our geographic isolation was no protection against a nation state. Especially a nation state which is willing to use terrorist organizations to achieve it’s ends. Hussein, who did consort with terrorsits, and was (I argue) already at war with us, was such a nation state.
Before 9/11, Iraq was a problem that was 6 thousand miles away. After 9/11, Iraq was right outside our window. *That* is the relevance of Saddam’s terrorist ties, and why the level of threat he posed needed to be re-evaluated.
Seth . I feel your failing to make a key distinction that the Intelligence agencies of the world make
the extreme of your view is that all extremists muslims who blow things up are one thing , and they are ALL some kind of threat tothe united states
you can not make such a sweeping generalization
take the view of a former MI6 agent who worked ‘with’ these terrorists setting false flags etc
interviewer
You make a distinction between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizb Allah, and al-Qaida or al-Qaida related-groups, that are more global in their actions?
Alastair Crooke ( MI6)
I think there is a big difference between the two, in that what you have is Hamas, Hizb Allah, Jammat Islamiya, Muslim Brotherhood and these groups.
They may be seen on the one hand through the optic of using resistance or violence, in support of their objectives, but these groups all favour elections, they look for reform, they’re looking for constitutional change in their society, and that is an important difference between these groups and some of the other Salafi, Takfiri, extreme radical groups who are looking for polarisation.
to just connect the dots due to these people all being Muslim and ‘terrorists’ is as simplistic as to connect the dots due to them all being male ….
{stopping the merry-go-round a moment}
I predict that this exercise will be useless, WRT changing anyones mind. It’s been beaten to death in this space for over two years. It gets really old.
The problem isn’t the arguments. It’s the premises. Those who thought that Saddam presented a threat that could no longer be tolerated favor war, those that didn’t, don’t. This is the immutable truth.
{merry-go-round now resumes}
_H_
You’re conflating Hussein with the GWOT. Let me explain. It doesn’t particularly matter if Hussein shared common cause with this or that terrorist group, or what any particular groups’ agenda is, the mere fact that he’s willing to employ people for suicide missions, and has access to people willing to conduct suicide missions, was enough.
We all know by now that suicide bombers come in all shapes and sizes. The maoists in Shri Lanka have done more suicide bombing than Al Quida, and they’re atheists. Zarquawi’s imported dupes kill muslem children. So, it’s not like Hussein would need a sincere cause to attract recruits for suicide missions. His support of suicide attacks against Israel, and his conduct of terrorist operations against Syria, Iran, etc., and his many ‘ins’ to numbers of terrorist organizations, meant he had the access and will to recruit and insert operatives just as Bin Laden did.
If Bin Laden could reach across the Atlantic, so could Hussein. We didn’t think that on 9/10, but 9/11 was a proof of concept, requireing us to re-think our presumption that Hussein was merely a regional threat.
And the goal posts go amoving. To paraphrase:
-Iraq was harboring no terrorists?
-Abu Nidal?
-Oh, no, I meant Iraq was harboring no _Al Qaeda_ terrorists (and oh btw the US and Israel are terrorist states).
Wouldnt bother me as much except that I guarantee the exact same false claim will be towed out by the same people. Correcting someones point is pretty useless if they simple dont care to tell the whole truth going forward.
Oh, and btw, Luis Posada Carriles is sitting in a US jail right now, not giving press conferences at Republican National Headquarters. Im so sick of these lies that turn into double standards that turn into accusing the US of being as bad as the terrorists. Im glad this thread topic was made because everyone can see how the anti-war arguments devolve into such crap when confronted with actual counterarguments.
so seth . why are is the US harbouring Luis Posada Carriles
to remove the INDIRECT threat of saddam you had to ally with the Kurds who were allowing Al-qaeda (who had ACTUALLY attacked the US ) to have training camps on their land
check out another friend(now deceased) Uzbekistan and their direct links with al-qaeda
saudi arabia , who produced 80 % of the hijakers
Pakistan , who also have funded al-qaeda
come on , thats just standard excuse rhetoric
If the US was serious about attacking those who harbour terrorists , they would not be offering and giving protection to Luis Posada Carriles
who is responsible for more deaths then abu Nidal
or does the fact that you blow up a plane full of civilians suddenly not become terrorism due to US say so ?
there was NO threat from Iraq to the united states
Luis Posada Carriles is sitting in a US jail right now,
OH MY GOD !!!
you almost make that sound like he is in jail for TERRORISM , he is in jail for imagration offenses
now , sneaking into a country where most experts agree he will get to become a US national
and planting a bomb on an areoplane which murders women and children , infact ALL on board
are two different things
you may spin that on the uninformed but thats just crap
spin spin spin , i am starting to agree with lurker this is pointless
bq. Im glad this thread topic was made because everyone can see how the anti-war arguments devolve into such crap when confronted with actual counterarguments.
Mark, really? Why not take on some of the arguments from my post #12, then? Hell, just explain to me how the increasingly strong signals of withdrawal from the Bush administration somehow validate the pro-war position.
He is in prison. He isnt going anywhere. He _certainly_ isnt giving his autobiography to Christopher Hitchens in a Baghdad Baathist office. You really dont get it. Carrilles isnt going to be bombing any airliners from his jail cell. But the most wanted man in the world kicking back with Saddam’s goons is the same thing? Fundamentally unserious.
bq. If Bin Laden could reach across the Atlantic, so could Hussein. We didn’t think that on 9/10, but 9/11 was a proof of concept, requireing us to re-think our presumption that Hussein was merely a regional threat.
Seth, a lot of people _had_ thought of terrorist attacks on the US prior to 9/11. What’s more, the problem’s not just limited to Bin Laden and Iraq: North Korea, Iran, and lord knows who else could also launch terrorist attacks on us, both before and after the Iraq invasion.
The burden of proof is on the pro-war side to show how invading Iraq was the best investment of our military, diplomatic, and economic capital to secure the country – the jury’s still out, but it’s not looking good for your side.
Mark . lets cut the crap , he isnt going anywhere as he was funded by the CIA , not for that event , but he was part of the bay of pigs , he was paid by the CIA for failed attempt on castro
he was a US sponsered terrorist and the CIA protect their own
come on be serious , the white house has said that they will NOT hand him over as he may be tortured , (i assume they mean in one of those non eastern european cia torture camps)
the same links can be made with Zarqawi who came to fame in the afghanistan war against the russians , he recivied CIA training and funding back then , but nobody is screaming that link so its ok
the Luis Posada Carriles link is well known , its just that the US prefers to call him a “freedom fighter”
“Hell, just explain to me how the increasingly strong signals of withdrawal from the Bush administration somehow validate the pro-war position.”
I’m strongly on the record saying Bush should have announced specific victory metrics that would correspond to troop drawdown long ago. Its part in parcel to the Bush political failure and the anti-war and opportunist democrats that withdrawal is now synonymous with defeat.
_Drawdown is one of the victory conditions_. That should blindingly obvious. If in a year the Iraqis field enough quality troops to hold up their elected government allowing us to withdraw a significant number, how does that _not_ validate the pro-war position?
H, you are still _not getting it_. Everything you said is true. But WE ARENT LETTING HIM WALK. Dont you get that distinction?
bq. Drawdown is one of the victory conditions. That should blindingly obvious. If in a year the Iraqis field enough quality troops to hold up their elected government allowing us to withdraw a significant number, how does that not validate the pro-war position?
Well, that would validate the pro-war position, except there’s _very little evidence that those “quality troops” exist_. One would think that reports of Shiite death squads alone would be enough to quash talk of withdrawal, based on the “as the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down” metric.
“Well, that would validate the pro-war position, except there’s very little evidence that those “quality troops” exist.”
There’s a ton of evidence you just dont look for it. Any idea how many Iraqi troops are working the front lines in Anbar that werent there 6 months ago?
“One would think that reports of Shiite death squads alone would be enough to quash talk of withdrawal, based on the “as the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down” metric.”
Wow, total nonsequitar. Maybe you’re right, if there are a few Shiite death squads running around, obviously Iraq is doomed. So obviously, in fact, that you see no need to explain why apparently. I can only imagine what your view of the post-American civil war looked like with all those KKK death squads running around. Union doomed, I suppose.
agreed , but he has been tried in a court of law for his crimes and you have an extradition treaty with the country concerned you have no right to keep him
right now you are harbouring a terrorist ..
anyway
I have made about 40 points and about 2 or 4 have been questioned , but not concluded , the majority have as yet not been adressed at all , many others have also made many many more points
and of course there is the initial points that started the post
so (unless requested) i would like to wait for AL to reply to each argument presented by the many people here and then , question or accept his argument
we can get bogged down in these details for months ,
i feel that the replies to the HUGE number of ‘reasons’ placed here is an emmense challenge and i personnaly have not yet heard a sound argument to proove the case for war (and i have heard a few)
so rather then play ping pong , shall we wait ?
Chris and H
The difference between Saddam Hussein and the Kurds, Iran, North Korea, etc. Is that Iraq was the place we were already at war with.
Tally up the list of act of war committed between the US and Iraq durring the 90’s.
It’s a contradiction to say that Iraq was no different than Iran or wherever, but at the same time acknowledge the embargo, blockade, and military interdiction. They really were very different situations.
bq. Wow, total nonsequitar. Maybe you’re right, if there are a few Shiite death squads running around, obviously Iraq is doomed. So obviously, in fact, that you see no need to explain why apparently. I can only imagine what your view of the post-American civil war looked like with all those KKK death squads running around. Union doomed, I suppose.
Speaking of people not looking for evidence, if you’d have taken five minutes to read the article, rather than just spouting out a knee-jerk response, you’d see that the problem with the death squads is that they’ve _infiltrated the Iraqi army_.
Thus, it doesn’t really matter how many more troops you’ve got in Anbar, if they’re all profoundly suspect at some level.
Oh please dont go there seth , THe US built saddam up to be the threat he was
the US blaimed IRAN not IRAQ for the gassing of the kurds , donald rumsfield was in there quick as a flash shortly after and it wasnt to tell him how angry he was
the US company betchtel buil the dual use factories that saddam made his mustard gas in and saddam was our hero as he was fighting the evil iran
its the old joke
Iraq .. fantastic weapons ..
how do you know ?
we checked the reciept
you want the list of all the US companies that with the support of the US government built saddam up to what he became
here let me sing you a song LOL
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
bq. The difference between Saddam Hussein and the Kurds, Iran, North Korea, etc. Is that Iraq was the place we were already at war with.
We were already at war with North Korea – have been since the 1950’s. And one other thing 9/11 proved is that no formal declaration or state of war is needed before a terror attack gets launched on the US.
bq. It’s a contradiction to say that Iraq was no different than Iran or wherever, but at the same time acknowledge the embargo, blockade, and military interdiction. They really were very different situations.
On the contrary, the fact of the matter is that all the stuff you’ve described w/r/t Iraq fits neatly under the heading of conventional warfare – and while 9/11 proved that distance was no deterrent to a terrorist attack, certainly there’s no reason to assume the US was at a greater risk, post-9/11, from Saddam’s deteriorating military.
Or, to put it another way: the contradiction is to play up the increased awareness of terrorism post-9/11, and combine that with the conventional military threat of Iraq, while ignoring other very real non-conventional threats, such as North Korea’s penchant for selling nuke-know-how to just about anyone with hard currency (e.g. Libya and Iran.)
Oh god I really don’t want back on the merry-go-round..
The only reason we know about this is because of intelligence gained in Iraq AFTER the invasion.
And while you’re talking about the Norks, what is the deployment plan for all the troops, apparently wasting their time in Iraq, to solve this 50 year old issue? Try to remember that we’d like Seoul to come through pretty much intact.
I’m going to attempt to enter the fray. This is going to be long. I will address post 12 and then, at the end, I’ll sumarize a key point or two. You might not want to read all of my counter arguments, but do read my summary.
Going back to post #12:
1) You argue that the US does not think of themselves as a country that goes to war without good reason. This answer will always be an opinion. Those in favor of the war will think that we had reason; those who oppose the war will think that we did not have reason. Each side will have facts to back these up and arguments against the facts of the other side.
2) You argue that the administration exaggerated info and only heard what they wanted to hear. Serious charge indeed. First off, I believe that when presenting to a large group, you can not spend a large amount of time presenting counter-arguments. You should hear the counter-arguments, but once you have a plan of action, you present the plan of action and the reasons for it. I do not think it was Bush’s job to say, “We are going to invade Iraq and these are the arguments you will hear why we should not invade”. Also, if you want to see exaggeration, read quotes from the late 1990’s. Iraq was seen as a threat then and we bombed Iraq. We did not put boots on the ground so we were able to avoid the loss of life we are now seeing. If they were enough of a threat to warrant being bombed and contained then, why did that change after giving him years without inspections? Bush also did not primarily say that Iraq was threat, he said that Iraq must be stopped before they become a threat. That, in my opinion, is what the major difference is (not how much he exaggerated the threat): is it right to go to war to stop a percieved major threat from forming?
3) You dismiss this argument as one not heard so I will as well.
4) That was a mistake that, in my opinion, Bush made early after 9/11. He kept calling it the fight against Al Qeada. I think that as he learned more about terrorism and how it operates, he realized that Al Qaeda was just a name. He realized that terrorism is the root cause and that stopping Al Qaeda would not solve anything in the long run. Therefore, to say that Iraq took the focus off Al Qaeda, I would agree. But I will say that I think we are fighting terrorism, not Al Qaeda. Whether we are fighting that the correct way or not can be debated later; however, arguing against the Iraq war as a distraction against Al Qaeda is not understanding the world.
5) I take it from your reply to #5 that the argument should not be taken as an anti-war argument, just an anti-Iraq argument? In which case, I refer back to #4. Is this a war against Al Qaeda, or a war against terrorism?
6) Personally, I strongly dislike 6. I understand why we need good standing in the world, but I don’t like using that argument. It makes it too easy for a “talking point” of saying that we do not need “global support” to act in the US. That leads to the argument becoming based on “talking points” and avoids discussing the issue. So to avoid going that direction, personally I think many countries, especially those in the Middle East, resent the US for many reasons, all of which were in place pre-Iraq war. We were disliked for our economy and how our way of life affects every country in some way. Countries with a closed media directly have a huge impact on how we are perceived as well. That has nothing to do with the Iraq War, the war just brought it all to the surface. If people don’t like us leading, then the next time the UN does a major operation, let them do it with equal representation among members. No more US and England comprising 70+% of the total troops.
7) Arguing about pre-war planning is not arguing against the war. I support the Iraq war (in case you are completely blind and have not caught onto the fact that I support the war). Even though I support the war, that does not mean that I do not question or dislike some of the ways the war has been fault. I’ll quickly question some of the decisions that Bush has made since we have gone to war. But I support his decision to go to war. You say he should have done more planning and you might be right (I’ll not discuss that); however, that does not say anything about whether we should have gone to war in Iraq or not.
8) Again, it is the same as #3. You don’t think it is a valid argument by the anti-war people, so I won’t address how it is false.
9) You say that the plan is not working and that without changes we are going to lose. That again does not address whether we were right to go to war or not. That only discusses how we are administering the war. I feel that the distinction is an important one. People can agree with the decision to go to war but feel that we need to change our plan. I personally feel that in the beginning, we absolutely had no clue what we were doing. Never before, with the technology that was used, have we liberated a country in such a manner similar to Iraq. We did not know what we were doing and I will say that I think we made many mistakes. I think we have begun to correct those mistakes. I think in 12 months, we will see many positive changes. But this is what should be the main topic of discussion: how do we win the war? Whether you agree with us going into Iraq or not, I would think that you agree we need to win the war; but the questioin remains in how to do it. Is it to leave? If so, that argument has to avoid using any points saying why we should not be in Iraq. If it is not to leave (which I think we should not leave), then what can we do? What do we need to do differently?
10) Again, read number 9. Difference between how we are conducting the operations versus the difference in whether we should be there in the first place.
Summary:
I feel that often, we confuse two questions: “should we be in Iraq?” and “how do we win Iraq?”. Points 7-10 discuss how we are doing things wrong in Iraq (and thus not winning) but those points do NOT matter when it comes to whether we should be in Iraq. Points 1-5 actually addressed reasons for not going to war in Iraq in the first place. Point 6 could be put in either question, but I feel that it is more of an argument based on how we’ve messed up in Iraq, which is again, NOT an argument that states why we should not have gone to war. This is an important distinction in my opinion and one that must be corrected for a valid argument that exchanges ideas. I don’t actually think I changed anyone’s mind with my points, but I’m hoping for a rebuttal to them as that will help me understand my own position better (as I counter the counter to my counter to someone elses counter). Sorry for the length.
The “Real” objection to the War by H and others is mindset.
H and the vast majority of War Opponents (excepting perhaps Brent Scowcroft, Pitchfork Pat Buchanon etc who form the “realpolitik” folks who wished to play off Saddam against Iran or the anti-Semitic Catholic haters respectively) have the opinion that NATIONS ARE AS A FAMILY.
In other words, nations act as members of a family. And when you have a disagreement you use the usual family conflict resolution methods. If you believe this, with the corollary that America is safest being “loved” then EVERY ONE OF H’s arguments makes sense. We aren’t “loved” or “respected” and nations don’t follow our lead because of the loss of “love” and “respect.”
IMHO this belief is the mark of a fool. Throughout history, from ancient times to modern, nations have not acted like families but like groups of people in a soccer riot. There is no evidence to suggest that nations achieve security by being “loved” or “respected.” H merely projects how he’d like to live his life (admirably I suspect) with other people; onto an international level. Personal conduct does not SCALE to that of international relations.
This is why you have fools like Cindy Sheehan, Murtha, Kerry, Howard Dean, ANSWER, Moveon, etc and all the rest. Fools in opposing Afghanistan as a “war crime” as Joe Biden called it. Fools in thinking that Saddam would remain neatly in his “box” while Al Qaeda ran around the globe attacking us. Fools in thinking that pursuing Bill Clinton’s policies (running away in Somalia, Haiti, refusing to intervene in Rwanda, bombing Serbia to save Muslims in Bosnia or leaning on the Israelis in a futile attempt to achieve peace with the Palestinians).
No man in recent history wanted to be loved more than Bill Clinton, and everything he did he did so that other countries would love him and us. No man was a bigger fool either than Bill Clinton, who practically put a “bomb me” sign on his behind for Osama bin Laden.
It’s interesting that Scowcroft and other realpolitik folks wanted Saddam as a “controllable” counter to Iran. IMHO this overestimated the US ability to “control” Saddam and was a hang-over from the Cold War habits of old, looking for satellites. Buchanon and David Duke have a thing against the “Jews” and Israel, so of course they hate the War and GWB (and find common cause with Cindy Sheehan and ANSWER). But no war opponent has said that the problem was with not resolving the root issues of the conflict: Iran and it’s Nukes; Saudi Arabia and it’s financial support for bin Laden; Pakistan and it’s Nukes and bin Laden support; and the general feeling that the US was a big fat target that could be attacked with impunity.
THAT’s an argument I could respect. It has some resemblance with reality instead of an incoherent desire to be “loved” which is great among people but stupid for Nations.
In post #35, celebrim said: ” … AND THIS IS VAN CREVALD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! ONE OF THE GREATEST MILITARY HISTORIANS OF THE 20th CENTURY!!!”
Doesn’t that imply another argument, the argument from authority? It’s not just a fallacy, in many cases it’s perfectly legitimate.
In post #35, celebrim said: ” … I’m really tempted to call foul on this one. I’ve read alot of Van Crevald, and that just doesn’t sound like Van Crevald. He doesn’t use hyberbole. He doesn’t make unmeasured judgements. He backs his positions with clear facts. He doesn’t make use of bad logic. Either the man has completely taken leave of his senses, or else he didn’t write that and the attribution is faked.”
You could be right and the attribution could be faked. Before we go on, – are you saying these other articles in “Forward”:http://www.forward.com/main/our-history.php are also faked?
“List of articles”:http://www.forward.com/main/author.php?author=Martin%20van%20Creveld
“Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War”:http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=creveld200511231015
“Overcoming Israel’s Separation Anxiety”:http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=creveld20040923103
Dangers of a Drawn-out War was not available when I clicked on it.
Are the U.S. and Israel Fighting the Same War Against Terrorism? was not available when I clicked on it.
I don’t know how to investigate whether this is all a hoax, as celebrim suggests. Could anyone say how something like this would normally be checked, or is that off-topic?
Good post, Southerner.
I would say I can’t wait to read Chris’ response, but Chris is a smart guy and I’m sure there will be an intelligent response. One which I probably will disagree!
Not joining the merry-go-round, here is my reason why war with Iraq was a bad idea: we should have had a draft and went into Iran first. We were already in Afghanistan, all we needed to do is pivot our forces and push away.
That comment was only slighlty tongue-in-cheek. Iran is another oil government, bent on nuking the Jews, it seems. When anti-war people say “No blood for oil” they’re half right — it’s not our dependence on oil, nor our desire to control oil that is the problem. The problem is that when stuff comes out of the ground for free and your country gets money for nothing, it becomes a powerful world player, whether you-all are crazy or not. We could eliminate completely our use of oil and we’d still be over in the middle east.
Van Crevald is brilliant and could have (actually almost certainly did) anticipate many of the current trends in this war. But he is not omniscient. Van Crevald himself laid out strategies for winning against insurgencies, most of which we have ignored but the bottom line strategy we have embraced. At this point Van Crevald is defending his reputation as much as anything. He disagreed with the motives and goals of Iraq and he was wrong about them. He is invested in defeat for the same reason many of the anti-war voices are so invested. And here is why:
If you truly believe that Iraq was an imperial war of conquest then _of course_ you believe that an American withdrawal must be a defeat of that plan. If you have been arguing that we went to Iraq to take over oil wells for Unical, _of course_ handing the wells to a democratic Iraq and removing our troops is a failure of that objective. So when the anti-war types say that we have lost, in their minds they are right. What can never enter their darkest thought (to paraphrase Tolkien) is that we would throw down the tyrant and have _no-one_ take his place. They never believed thats what we actually went to do, so they can never believe that having done that we can draw down our troops and still have achieved our victory.
And if the information I linked to in post #60 is fake, is this also fake?
“Why Iraq Will End as Vietnam Did”:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crevald1.html
It’s quite a serious article, is it not? The style is classic Van Creveld, is it not? And the argument – parallels between Vietnam and Iraq are valid – is the same one, is that not so?
It seems to me that Martin Van Creveld’s style is different in the Forward articles was different only because he was writing shorter, more popular pieces. That was Van Creveld unbuttoned, saying forthrightly what was on his mind, and not a different man.
I don’t intend to pursue this any further. Unless there is serious evidence that Martin Van Creveld, and other top authorities on war (I am thinking of Sir Michael Howard’s condemnation of President George W. Bush’s military adventure in Afghanistan, and indeed his condemnation of President George W. Bush’s calling the situation after 11 September, 2001 a “war” at all) did not say what proponents of the war on terror wished at the time that they would not say, then an argument from authority citing top military historians has a basis.
You may think (and I do think) that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were reasonably decided on and are being won, merely because grunts who are actually there say so, but some of the greatest names in the academic study of war say the opposite. History, according to the historians, is not on our side.
To follow up on that for a second: those who argued we went into this war for imperial conquest, oil, etc simply have no place at the table when discussing victory metrics. If you dont agree on what the true goals were in the first place, you certainly cant be trusted to say whether we have met them or not.
I’m not saying your voices arent welcome, and i dont doubt we shall discuss how and why the war started forever, but the point is you have made it abundantly clear that this is ‘our war’. You therefore have no standing in whether we achieved our objectives or not.
“You may think (and I do think) that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were reasonably decided on and are being won, merely because grunts who are actually there say so, but some of the greatest names in the academic study of war say the opposite. History, according to the historians, is not on our side.”
Historians are notoriously bad at predicting history. If you study the history of war, the grunts on the ground almost invariably have a far better grasp of the overall picture than the wagging tongues back home. Case in point: Lincoln was reelected based largely on the margin of the Army’s support. Every ‘genius’ from McClellan on down felt the war was unwinable or not worth it if you somehow could win. The men in the tents in Northern Virginia and Tennessee decided differently and went on to finish the war.
Jim
Thanks for you kind physcoanalysis of my persona , sadly its not very accurate but i apreciate you were trying to be kind to the me that you percieve
I am infact no part of what you may describe as the “american” anti war movemement , I do NOT believe for example that the troops should come home
for example I couldnt care less for the cindy sheehans of the world . I merely point out that the war was a huge mistake , a war crime and has created a less safe world for us all to live in
I have spent over 25 years working for government(s) in the middle east , and have much on the ground knowledge of the culture and of the reality of life in the middle east
I have worked with US and UK military units during this war with Iraq and I have come into direct contact with many that we call “terrorists”
Please dont press me on what i did (i now longer work in that field) for it is of no point to the debate and i only mention it for some kind of clarity on where i come from
it has no bearing on any of my points
I am left wing in my views but please dont pigeon hole me in with your american democrats or sheehans or michael moores , I am not american , i dont vote in america and have no reason to make political points towards an election that is no concern of mine
I thank you again for being kind in your assesment (all be it wrong) but would respectfully request you treat my comments as they are and not place any kind of political connotations that you atribute to typical US politics on me
Can the long, improperly formatted links in posts #22 and #32 be removed? They are screwing up the width of the page. It’s annoying.
Obligatory on-topic: I should probably rename the argument from authority (a label that most people will not use because it sounds like admitting a fallacy) the argument that history is not on our side, with great names of military history supplying the authority for that, and Vietnam parallels supplying the details (and the emotional resonance).
David
those link were both placed by me , sorry if i screwed up this page for you
I can’t spell , i am useless as all this formating stuff , and i failed to follow the instructions for placing a link here
if anyone on the site can adjust the links so they appear correctly then hopefully they will
until then , please take my apologies
_We were already at war with North Korea_
Chris, I’m not talking technicalities. With NK we aren’t shooting at each other, we aren’t blockading NK’s harbors. With Hussein’s Iraq, we were flying fighterjets over Iraqi airspace trading fire on a regular basis. Tell me the last time in 50 years we shot a missile at North Korea or Iran? What’s the last time they fired on us? With Iraq it happend so often it stopped being news.
We were blockading their harbors and border crossing restricting not just our goods, but everyones’, and we did it with the ultimate goal of making their government collapse. We called it containment, but when you do that to a castle or a city, it’s called siege.
Hussein broke the 1991 ceasfire and we were using siege warfare on him ever since in response. Just because we didn’t want to acknowledged it doesn’t change what it was. That’s a totally different situation than the continuing _mutually observed_ ceasefire we have with North Korea. Ditto the state of uneasy peace we have with Iran, etc. That’s why comparisons to Iran and such are misplaced.
Also because of that, the choice with Iraq was never between peace or war, it was always over which method of war to use; siege or ground assault.
And that’s why it’s likwise moot to complain now of ‘insufficient justification for war’. Any complaints along those lines should have been registered over a decade ago with the first Bush administration, or latest Clinton’s: The guys who waged the war on Iraq and left it unresolved, not the guy who was stuck with the question of how to end it.
Hi, _H_.
Apology accepted, and good for you for your courteous and friendly attitude.
Now we just need someone to fix the links.
I think your basic point was valid: it does no good to say no-one is making this argument (that the war in Iraq is illegal) if the Secretary-General of the United Nations has made it.
bq. Chris, I’m not talking technicalities. With NK we aren’t shooting at each other, we aren’t blockading NK’s harbors. With Hussein’s Iraq, we were flying fighterjets over Iraqi airspace trading fire on a regular basis. Tell me the last time in 50 years we shot a missile at North Korea or Iran? What’s the last time they fired on us? With Iraq it happend so often it stopped being news.
I’m not talking technicalities either. You seem to be confusing police actions with hostilities – just because bullets aren’t being fired doesn’t mean there’s not a very serious threat. Case in point, we were never in direct combat with the USSR, but that certainly doesn’t mean they weren’t our biggest enemy for decades.
And when’s the last time NK fired on us? How about this short range missile test in May? How about the UN monitor cameras recording the North Koreans breaking open the reactor seals and restarting production of nuclear material? Do you honestly believe that these actions aren’t at least as threatening as anything Saddam did, if not far more so, just because there weren’t bullets involved? There’s a _reason_ the North Korea stuff was newsworthy, and the Iraqi anti-aircraft fire generally wasn’t, and it has a great deal to do with the level of the threat involved.
bq. Also because of that, the choice with Iraq was never between peace or war, it was always over which method of war to use; siege or ground assault.
Let’s get something clear: there’s a large practical and logistical difference between keeping Saddam “under seige” and invading Iraq. It’s a neat rhetorical trick to suggest that “well, we were technically at war with him anyway, so what’s the big deal?” But it doesn’t begin to address the orders-of-magnitude difference between deterence and invasion, nor does it address the opportunity costs of attacking Iraq.
Moreover, I note again that this recent post still doesn’t address my point that the vast majority of things you’re talking about Saddam doing were conventional military threats that really didn’t have much to do with our “increased awareness” after 9/11. It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest we had an obligation to push back against unconventional threats post-9/11, but thus far you’re doing a lousy job of demonstrating that Saddam fit that description moreso than NK.
bq. The only reason we know about this is because of intelligence gained in Iraq AFTER the invasion.
I don’t think this is correct: while we did arguably learn about NK’s Libyan connection because of our invasion of Iraq, I believe the NK/Iran connection was found through other means.
Moreover, there was intelligence stretching back decades suggesting that North Korea sold drugs, counterfit currency, and weapons on the black market – the idea that they’d sell WMDs was not too much of a stretch, even without specific proof that they dealt with Libya and Iran.
bq. And while you’re talking about the Norks, what is the deployment plan for all the troops, apparently wasting their time in Iraq, to solve this 50 year old issue? Try to remember that we’d like Seoul to come through pretty much intact.
I’m perfectly aware of how screwed Seoul would be in the event of a war between the US and North Korea. However, let’s keep in mind that war _is justified_ when all other means of protecting the country from a clear and present danger (i.e. North Korean nukes) have been exhausted. The choice between a devastated Seoul and Los Angeles leveled by a long-range Korean nuke is a terrible one to make, but I know which one I’d choose, were I president.
That said, I do believe there are non-violent ways of dealing with North Korea… but I also believe that those non-violent ways are heavily reliant on having the muscle to back up an ultimatum, which we currently don’t have because we’re almost entirely invested in Iraq, military-wise.
Let’s bottom-line this: Saddam was a bad guy, but the threat he posed vis-a-vis WMDs was greatly exaggerated. Kim Jong Il is an equally bad guy, and the WMD threat he represents has been both underplayed and damn near completely ignored by the Bush administration. It sure is fun to give Saddam payback for all the crap he’s pulled over the years, but taking a cold hard look at the facts, it’s hard to conclude other than that we are _less safe_ from WMDs in 2005 than in 2001. And I hold the Bush admin responsible for that.
A challenge/suggestion to “Armed Liberal”:
I’d like to hear you articulate what YOU (and other “pro-war” people here) think are the BEST arguments against the war in Iraq.
Then, perhaps you might invite the “anti-war” side to write about what they think are the BEST arguments FOR the war.
Just a suggestion to try to stir things up more the usual, which is what this thread represents, unfortunately, as many commenters have pointed out.
Just for completeness in presenting the argument that history is not on our side (or in another common formulation that we are on the wrong side of history), here is Sir Michael Howard’s article:
“War against Terrorism”:http://www.preparingforpeace.org/howard.htm
“To declare that one is ‘at war’ is immediately to create a war psychosis that may be totally counter-productive for the objective that we seek. It will arouse an immediate expectation, and demand, for spectacular military action against some easily identifiable adversary, preferably a hostile state; action leading to decisive results.”
“Figures on the Right, seeing themselves cheated of what the Germans used to call a frisch, frohliche Krieg, a short, jolly war in Afghanistan, demand one against a more satisfying adversary, Iraq; which is rather like the drunk who lost his watch in a dark alley but looked for it under a lamp post because there was more light there. As for their counterparts on the Left, the very word ‘war’ brings them out on the streets to protest as a matter of principle. The qualities needed in a serious campaign against terrorists – secrecy, intelligence, political sagacity, quiet ruthlessness, covert actions that remain covert, above all infinite patience – all these are forgotten or overridden in a media-stoked frenzy for immediate results, and nagging complaints if they do not get them.”
Sir Michael Howard, like Martin Van Creveld, is an incarnation of “received opinion” on war. Many (most?) of us must have some of their books on our shelves, and for those of you with military educations studying these authorities may have been a professional obligation. Their emphatic words cannot be lightly dismissed, as comparatively uncredentialed nonentities (armchair generals in blogger pyjamas or at best “grunts” loyally parroting a Pentagon line) can be lightly dismissed.
_Let’s get something clear: there’s a large practical and logistical difference between keeping Saddam “under seige” and invading Iraq. It’s a neat rhetorical trick to suggest that “well, we were technically at war with him anyway, so what’s the big deal?”_
There was nothing technical about it. It wasn’t a ‘police action’. Check google about the effects the blockade had. Find Madaline Albright’s responce to the question of whether the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children was worth continuing the embargo. And I’m sorry, test firing a missile into the ocean, and AAA shooting at F-15’s patroling another country’s skys are not comperable. Restarting a reactor might be threatening, but it’s not an act of war. Shooting and blockade are.
We were at war with Iraq in a very practical and real sense. It was easy for Americans to dismiss that as somthing less because _Americans_ weren’t the ones getting killed. But that’s the whole point of a siege, to harm the enemy without exposing yourself to harm.
You are right, though, that whether it was better to continue the siege or invade was the issue. Matt in #7 stated a serious anti-war position which speaks to that.
As far as weighing the costs, I suggest you take a survey of the historic costs of a ground war on this scale. Examine the costs of allowing Hussein to stay in power and ‘contained’ for a decade, both to the Iraqis, and to Jordan, Iraq’s other regional trading partners, who were defacto blockaded as much as Iraq. Match up when Al Quida first took an interest in attacking us with our ‘containment’ activities on the timeline, and answer the question of why his training camps suddenly became so popular in the 90’s with so many arabs in and around Iraq.
Add all that up and then project those costs forward another decade, or two, or into the next generation should Hussein’s sons folow him like Kim Jung Il followed his father. _Then_ asstert that some money and a fraction of the American lives it took to liberate an airfield on the Island of Iwo Jima so clearly outweigh the benefit of _not_ having to ‘contain’ Saddam forever.
Andy:
I’d like to hear you articulate what YOU (and other “pro-war” people here) think are the BEST arguments against the war in Iraq.
Then, perhaps you might invite the “anti-war” side to write about what they think are the BEST arguments FOR the war.
I think that’s a splendid idea. Arguing from a different tack might produce illuminating results.
As for whether this is a “merry-go-round”: I was against the invasion from the beginning, and after several months of reading WoC I still believe that the effort was poorly conceived by our civilian leadership, has a terrible cost / benefit ratio, and should have had a lower priority than other potential military operations.
However, the thoughtful and reasoned discussion on WoC has helped me to better understand and sympathize with the pro-war position, and has substantially modified and reoriented my own views of the justification and conduct of the war.
The goal of such discussion is not always to “win hearts and minds”; instead, it provides a means by which we refine our ideas, improve our character, and discover the common ground that we share as engaged citizens.
Okay, I’ll take a stab at it.
All of the things mentioned as reasons to go to war can only be held if we have the tenacity to maintain a substantial military presence for as long as it takes to secure the country. That won’t be in 2006, or 2007, or 2010, or even 2020 unless we’re very, very lucky. It will take a generation or more. Probably until the old Ba’athists have all died and an entire generation has grown up who have known nothing but representative government. That kind of commitment takes a national consensus. There is no such national consensus and the Bush Administration has not done enough to build such a consensus.
It doesn’t matter how many constitutions are written or elections held or Iraqi soldiers or police officers trained. It doesn’t matter how many schools and hospitals are built. There are still too many Iraqis who are willing to fight to pursue the parochial interests of their ethnic or sectarian group.
That’s the dynamics that has to change in Iraq and, unless some magic solution is found, our 150,000 troops will be needed as referee in Iraq for a long, long time. I did not believe and continue not to believe that we have the national will to do this. I hope I’m wrong.
That’s why I opposed the invasion but support the war.
Folks, first a compliment on an engaged, civil, and generally just smart set of comments.
Sorry to be so late, but work, soccer practice, cooking dinner, getting kid into bed took priority.
I’ll sit with these comments and try to digest them down into one list for review and comment tonight and tomorrow.
A.L.
Southerner-
bq. You argue that the US does not think of themselves as a country that goes to war without good reason. This answer will always be an opinion. Those in favor of the war will think that we had reason; those who oppose the war will think that we did not have reason. Each side will have facts to back these up and arguments against the facts of the other side.
This is true, but generally irrelevant to my point. If half the US thinks the war was fought under bad premises, as has been the case for nearly two years at this point, then pro-war people have to fight to muster support at home at the same time they’re trying to fight overseas. That’s an extra burden on those fighting the war right from the start. Administration hawks can and have argued non-stop that the war _was_ the right thing to do, but I’d argue that the effort spent doing so would have been far better spent making a much more airtight case at the very beginning.
bq. You argue that the administration exaggerated info and only heard what they wanted to hear. Serious charge indeed.
Yep, and Kevin Drum does a pretty good job of making the case for those charges here. Beyond that I’ll note that your counter-argument here wanders away from my point a bit: no, it’s not Bush’s job to make arguments against his own policy, but it is his job to take all the facts into consideration while making his decision, and to present all the facts to the rest of the country (or at least Congress) so they can do the same. That doesn’t appear to have happened here. And a lot of the rest of the stuff you discuss isn’t germane to the question of the administration’s honesty.
bq. He kept calling it the fight against Al Qeada. I think that as he learned more about terrorism and how it operates, he realized that Al Qaeda was just a name. He realized that terrorism is the root cause and that stopping Al Qaeda would not solve anything in the long run. Therefore, to say that Iraq took the focus off Al Qaeda, I would agree. But I will say that I think we are fighting terrorism, not Al Qaeda. Whether we are fighting that the correct way or not can be debated later; however, arguing against the Iraq war as a distraction against Al Qaeda is not understanding the world.
As has been said many times by now, calling the fight against Al Qaeda the fight against terrorism is like calling WW2 the fight against submarines. There _are_ root causes that we have to consider with regard to the Middle East, but terrorism is a _tactic_, not a foreign enemy that’s vulnerable to military attack. And I rather suspect that shutting down Al Qaeda in a public and definite way would have done more to deter future terrorism than anything we’ve done in Iraq.
bq. I take it from your reply to #5 that the argument should not be taken as an anti-war argument, just an anti-Iraq argument? In which case, I refer back to #4. Is this a war against Al Qaeda, or a war against terrorism?
Whether it’s Al Qeada agents or generic terrorists, either way improving security is a worthy activity that hasn’t been followed up on.
bq. I understand why we need good standing in the world, but I don’t like using that argument. It makes it too easy for a “talking point” of saying that we do not need “global support” to act in the US. That leads to the argument becoming based on “talking points” and avoids discussing the issue. So to avoid going that direction, personally I think many countries, especially those in the Middle East, resent the US for many reasons, all of which were in place pre-Iraq war. We were disliked for our economy and how our way of life affects every country in some way. Countries with a closed media directly have a huge impact on how we are perceived as well. That has nothing to do with the Iraq War, the war just brought it all to the surface. If people don’t like us leading, then the next time the UN does a major operation, let them do it with equal representation among members. No more US and England comprising 70+% of the total troops.
I think you’ve somewhat gone off on a “those darned ungrateful foreigners” rant here. Dismiss this as a “talking point” if you want, but I simply believe that our day-to-day dealings with other countries have been damaged because of our behavior in Iraq… and the US does much, much more stuff abroad than just the war in Iraq. Furthermore, I’ll note that many of the things we’ve needed help on in Iraq: basic training, security, and infrastructure, are all things other countries could have helped out with, had we not given them all the finger relatively early on. It’s true that France and Russia might never have helped, but merely getting guys like Canada on our side could have made a big difference on the ground, where it counts.
As it is, because of (among other things) Bush’s torture policy, people the world over, and even at home, are ready to believe the worst about us. And that’s a burden almost as hard to deal with as the fighting in Iraq itself.
bq. You say that the plan is not working and that without changes we are going to lose. That again does not address whether we were right to go to war or not. That only discusses how we are administering the war. I feel that the distinction is an important one. People can agree with the decision to go to war but feel that we need to change our plan. I personally feel that in the beginning, we absolutely had no clue what we were doing. Never before, with the technology that was used, have we liberated a country in such a manner similar to Iraq. We did not know what we were doing and I will say that I think we made many mistakes. I think we have begun to correct those mistakes. I think in 12 months, we will see many positive changes.
Some problems here: you think in 12 months, we will see many positive changes. That’s what was said 12 months ago, and 24 months ago, and if we stick around, I rather suspect that’s what’ll be said 12 months from now. The American people have simply lost patience with repeated assurances that things will get better.
bq. But this is what should be the main topic of discussion: how do we win the war? Whether you agree with us going into Iraq or not, I would think that you agree we need to win the war; but the questioin remains in how to do it. Is it to leave? If so, that argument has to avoid using any points saying why we should not be in Iraq. If it is not to leave (which I think we should not leave), then what can we do? What do we need to do differently?
I agree that it would be good for us to win the war: I simply question whether victory is _possible_ at this point. Unless I see some solid arguments that certain changes can really make a difference, and, more importantly, *proof that Bush will make those changes in a competent manner*, I suspect things are about as good as we can make them, and a gradual but definite withdrawal (combined with continuing economic support) is in everybody’s best interests.
bq. I feel that often, we confuse two questions: “should we be in Iraq?” and “how do we win Iraq?”. Points 7-10 discuss how we are doing things wrong in Iraq (and thus not winning) but those points do NOT matter when it comes to whether we should be in Iraq. Points 1-5 actually addressed reasons for not going to war in Iraq in the first place. Point 6 could be put in either question, but I feel that it is more of an argument based on how we’ve messed up in Iraq, which is again, NOT an argument that states why we should not have gone to war. This is an important distinction in my opinion and one that must be corrected for a valid argument that exchanges ideas.
This is a good point, and one that AL should probably reconsider when revising his list of arguments above. I suspect that _why_ we’re in Iraq does have some bearing on the current fight, both in demonstrating Bush’s general untrustworthiness to continue the fight, and in demonstrating that there are still important things we have to do in the world completely outside of Iraq.
But I do agree that arguments about if winning Iraq is possible, and if so, how, are more important for the moment. Unfortunately, I also think it’s the case that there are very few good ideas about what’s to be done, and moreover, there’s little evidence that Bush is capable of pulling those changes off.
However, I’d love to be proved wrong.
Andy (#18) I’m planning on doing just that, but since WoC is pretty characteristically pro-war, thought it’s be more interetsing to take a first shot at the negative argument.
I can’t make myself completely fair (I’ve acknowledged my biases) but this crowd is unlikely ot let me get away with any sleight of hand.
A.L.
David,
Your defense of Martin Van Creveld’s opinion pieces as arguing from authority suffers from two problems:
1) Argument from authority is always the weakest argument in debate.
2) The examples and arguments Van Creveld actually uses to support his opinion in the Forward piece you cite in post #20 are made without relevant context or are pure hyperbole.
Celebrim hinted at this in his responses but didn’t take the time to spell out the details for you. Here are a few of Van Creveld’s howlers:
1) The contention that the current military situation in Iraq is comparable to the annihilation of four (4) Roman legions under the command of General Varus by a coalition of Germanic tribes in 9 B.C.
The loss of four legions translates to the loss of forty to fifty thousand (40-50K) Roman soldiers and auxiliary troops. Numerically, that is comparable to the complete destruction of a US Army light corps (2 divisions, plus support units) or a USMC Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). In terms of its impact on Rome’s military forces, it was comparable to the complete destruction of a current US Army heavy corps (4-5 divisions, plus support units) or two USMC MEFs. (Note to the purists; “light” and “heavy” refers to the number of divisions assigned to the corps, not their equipment).
By the way, all of those Roman soldiers were killed in less than a month of fighting.
Now that’s a serious military defeat! If the US and its allies were losing 100-120K men per month or even 40-50K men per month AND were being driven out of Iraq the way that the Romans were driven out of Central Germany, I would agree with Van Creveld.
Fortunately, the facts about the military situation in Iraq are at complete variance with Van Creveld’s Roman-defeat-in-Germania analogy. During two and one-half years (plus) of fighting, the US has lost a little over 2K dead and has defeated Saddam’s army and the Iraqi insurgents/Islamic militants whenever they have stood and fought. No US unit larger than a platoon has been destroyed, although some company-teams have been mauled. Coalition control over Iraq’s territory is expanding, not contracting.
2) The contention that the weapons and equipment used by US forces in Iraq are so expensive that the US can only deploy a relative handful of weapons/units. “What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world’s largest and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.”
That statement would make sense if we were primarily fighting the war with B-2 bombers at $200 million (plus) a copy. It does not make sense for a war that is primarily fought with infantry and armor units, and supported by Special Ops forces, artillery, combat engineers, and conventional fixed-wing and rotary-wing aviation. American ground forces are not cheap to equip and maintain, but the gating factor on the size of the US Army and USMC force in Iraq is political will, not expensive weapons.
Van Creveld knows full well that a nation of approximately 300 million people with a GDP over 11 trillion dollars has the human and material resources to field conventional military forces many times the size of those we are currently fielding. Our current active-duty force of 1.4 million men and women represents less than one-half of one percent of our population. Adding the Guard and Reserve personnel on active duty pushes the figure over one-half of one percent, but that is still a tiny percentage during an active war. The current force costs between 3.5 and 4 percent of GDP. Additional appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan push total military expenditures to between 4 and 4.5 percent of GDP.
The equivalent figures for World War II are 10 percent of a population of 140-145 million and over 40 percent of GDP. The United States is figuratively fighting this war with both legs shackled and one hand tied behind its back.
BTW, Van Creveld also knows that per unit costs drop dramatically as weapon systems are produced in volume. Why he thinks modern weapon systems are any different is difficult to understand. We have all observed the incredible reductions in price versus performance in the computer industry. I’m sure he has visited highly automated modern manufacturing facilities in Israel, Europe, or the US.
3) Then there is the whole paragraph on how we must conduct a fighting withdrawal back to Kuwait. First we must carefully withdraw to Baghdad under hostile pressure, while we turn over our bases to the Iraqi government or destroy them. (Why doesn’t Van Creveld just call for a scorched earth devastation of the Iraqi provinces as we pull back?) Next, we must conduct another desperate retreat to Basra as the massive forces of the Fedayeen’s Army Group Nord assault our rear while Zarqawi’s equally massive Army Group West roars out of Anbar Province to sever the thin Coalition corridor to Kuwait. Finally, our beaten forces stumble across the border into the dubious safety of Kuwait, abandon their heavy equipment, and clamber aboard an evacuation fleet of hastily assembled freighters, cabin cruisers, and fishing trawlers. It will be the most heroic withdrawal and evacuation since Dunkirk! (Sarcasm and irony alert)
4) Last, but not least, there is the contention that President Bush should be impeached and then tried for high crimes and misdemeanors along with his Cabinet members and staff. The only explanation that makes sense here is that Van Creveld has slipped into a bad case of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Hyperbole can be used to make a case but it needs to have a fairly strong relation to reality. Van Creveld knows that American Presidents can only wage war for more than ninety days with the support of majorities in both the House and the Senate. The idea that Bush and his Cabinet/staff would be criminally tried for the war in Iraq by the same Representatives and Senators that voted for the war and its annual funding is ludicrous. (Not impossible, but highly unlikely).
Van Creveld is indeed an authority on military history and modern military affairs. Like Michael Howard, he is someone that should be given more than just casual attention. However, that status does not obviate his responsibility to ensure that his opinions are solidly grounded in the current world and that he uses contextually relevant analogies/examples to make his case.
Regards,
Jim
Chris:
I read your comments to my posting (I was post #58 and you replied in post #79).
I’m a college student, so I hope to get some time to reply back to your counters. But I’m getting ready to hit exams, so we’ll see. I don’t want to not think through your post when I reply, so I want to have more time than I do now (it’s past 2 AM and I’ve got a full day coming up). I’ll get to it this weekend, unless I feel like the discussion has changed with AL’s new postings and that bringing up an old post would be a mute point.
HOWEVER, I did want to comment on one thing.
I attend what is a well-known liberal American University. As you can probably guess, I tend to have conservative tendencies. This means I normally have viewpoints different from most. I struggle to find people on this campus who are informed and willing to discuss issues calmly and focusing on the points. I appreciate your ability to do that. I don’t have a clue your political leanings (and frankly that is not important); all I know is that you have a different opinion than me on this issue. Yet you took my comments one by one and disected them. You agreed with parts and you disagreed with parts. You did not personally attack me or call my opinions stupid, even if to you they might seem so. The postings on this site for the most part seem to have mainly been that way, but I wanted to personally thank you for it. So thank you for actually discussing the issue. Wish more people with differing opinions could do that at my university.
I’ve come in a bit late for the round of anti war arguments, but I have been for deposing Saddam since 91 so I’m definitely pro war and my main worry going into the war in March 03 was that deposing Saddam might lead to civil war. Well, something like that has happened, but I think that it isn’t clear whether we have a fullblown civil war or not. It could certainly be argued both ways and it still could go both ways on the ground. Beyond that my concern was that we were going into a country where 60% of the population was Shia like Iran and did we think through the consequences of empowering a persecuted majority through introducing democracy which had strong ties with neighbouring Iran? The final outcome of this situation is still up in the air too.
James Jones,
I thought post #81 was really outstanding. Lucid stuff, well done!
Seth-
bq. There was nothing technical about it. It wasn’t a ‘police action’. Check google about the effects the blockade had. Find Madaline Albright’s responce to the question of whether the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children was worth continuing the embargo.
I repeat: there’s a huge difference between maintaining an embargo (which, yes, had some terrible side effects) and putting hundreds of thousands of troops in harm’s way. Embargos are generally considered something that’s justification for a war, and can be used as part of a strategy inside a war, but an embargo itself is very different from what we did in Iraq in 1991 and 2003-present (i.e., an _actual_ war).
bq. And I’m sorry, test firing a missile into the ocean, and AAA shooting at F-15’s patroling another country’s skys are not comperable. Restarting a reactor might be threatening, but it’s not an act of war. Shooting and blockade are.
Funny, I’d think in light of your earlier post:
bq. Before 9/11, Iraq was a problem that was 6 thousand miles away. After 9/11, Iraq was right outside our window. That is the relevance of Saddam’s terrorist ties, and why the level of threat he posed needed to be re-evaluated.
…you’d think that restarting a reactor and testing a long-range missile would be “acts of war” too. After all, “shooting and blocades” _are_ 6000 miles away, and no matter what 9/11 demonstrated, were likely to _stay_ 6000 miles away for the forseeable future. Furthermore, Saddam’s “terrorist ties” were primarily with Palestinian terrorists, who weren’t exactly likely to show up as nuclear bombers in New York City.
Meanwhile, nuclear materials _are_ something that could foreseeably come and bite us in the ass no matter where they originate. Google all that stuff Cheney said about not wanting “the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”, and ask yourself why all that stuff doesn’t apply to North Korea.
bq. As far as weighing the costs, I suggest you take a survey of the historic costs of a ground war on this scale. Examine the costs of allowing Hussein to stay in power and ‘contained’ for a decade, both to the Iraqis, and to Jordan, Iraq’s other regional trading partners, who were defacto blockaded as much as Iraq. Match up when Al Quida first took an interest in attacking us with our ‘containment’ activities on the timeline, and answer the question of why his training camps suddenly became so popular in the 90’s with so many arabs in and around Iraq.
bq. Add all that up and then project those costs forward another decade, or two, or into the next generation should Hussein’s sons folow him like Kim Jung Il followed his father. Then asstert that some money and a fraction of the American lives it took to liberate an airfield on the Island of Iwo Jima so clearly outweigh the benefit of not having to ‘contain’ Saddam forever.
You’re stacking the deck here, and introducing some highly questionable suppositions. Were Jordan et al bearing some costs because of the Iraqi embargo? Sure, but it’s yet to be proven that those costs outweighed the costs of an Iraq that’s presently become a terrorist battlefront, and could become a failed state in the future. Your assertion that Al Qeada was fueled by the Iraq embargo strains the bounds of credulity: got any links to reuputable sources to back that up?
And for good or ill, most people agree that containment wouldn’t have lasted forever. That might well have led Saddam to a point where his WMDs were legitimately a threat to us, which might have led to a new Iraq war at a later point in time… but as I’ve indicated upthread, I think the entire war effort would have been far easier to sell and to prosecute as a war against a guy who _provably had_ WMDs, as opposed to a guy who _wanted_ WMDs.
As for the way you blithely minimize the costs of the Iraq war, it’s pretty pathetic. Nearly half a trillion dollars borrowed from the Chinese is _not_ just “some money”. And Iwo Jima, and WW2 in general, were a much different type of war than the one we face today – the casualty figures aren’t remotely comparable.
I assert yet again that your position is incoherent: you stated above that we couldn’t tolerate Saddam because of the threat he posed in combination with terrorists, but then you go on to emphasize all the conventional military problems we had with the guy, none of which were likely to harm the US mainland, a la 9/11. On the other hand, you blithely ignore the real and serious danger of North Korean nukes because they don’t meet your classical definition of an “act of war”… but you yourself earlier admitted that 9/11 _changed_ our defnition of what is and isn’t a threat to us.
I think you really need to step back and reexamine your assumptions.
Southerner-
bq. I attend what is a well-known liberal American University. As you can probably guess, I tend to have conservative tendencies. This means I normally have viewpoints different from most. I struggle to find people on this campus who are informed and willing to discuss issues calmly and focusing on the points. […] Wish more people with differing opinions could do that at my university.
Ironically, I’m a grad student at a well-known liberal American University, and I run into people with conservative viewpoints (and liberal viewpoints) all the time. I humbly submit that a lot of it depends on who you talk to – the people who maintain anti-war tables (or pro-war tables) on the campus mall aren’t real likely to be into calm, rational debate, nor are a lot of the more outrageous columnists and letter-writers at the campus paper.
A lot of the people who will give you reasoned debate are generally people who generally don’t talk about their political opinions much at all – you really have to work to seek them out. But despite all the stuff that’s been said about how universities are becoming elitist monoliths of liberal opinion, it’s been my experience that you’re still likely to find more people with the ability to give you calm, rational debate from many different perspectives there than in your average office break room.
If it weren’t for the 10,000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul, the Norks might have taken priority over Iraq, except that they have Chinese patrons that Iraq lacks. Our allies, the South Korean’s have a large capable army, to the degree that the only reason US troops are present at all is to act as a “trip wire”.
Chris, you’ve allowed yourself to be maneuvered into a weak position if you are claiming that the strategic and tactical situations WRT to Iraq and North Korea are analogous. You should drop this portion of your argument.
Jim: Thank you for the well laid out argument. Those are just a few of the howlers I was thinking of. I think you are actually far to generous with Van Crevald.
For example, for the sake of argument, lets imagine that the Vietnam War is an example of American military defeat, and if things only get as bad as the Vietnam War then we can expect that indeed the conflict has become unsustainable and we will have lost the war.
Well, at the current rate of casualties, the US will have lost in Iraq as many troops as it did in Vietnam sometime around the year 2060. Considering that Al Queda’s current strategy documents call for a world Caliphate sometime around 2025, if at the worst we are driven out of Iraq sometime around 2060 we will have succeeded in tieing up Al Queda and delaying there current plans by some 35 odd years. My question for Van Crevald is that if it is his contention that the US is losing because of the perception that it is not accomplishing its aims (spreading Democracy, improving the Iraqi economy, etc.), how will Al Queda’s efforts in Iraq be percieved if after 50 odd years they still haven’t managed to chase America out of the heart of their future caliphate. If the conflict continues, who perception of defeat becomes the more critical?
Besides which, I’m more than convinced that with even the current creeping rate of progress it will not take 40 or 50 years to achieve our aims in Iraq.
I would be at a loss to find a historical conflict by any nation of this duration involving as many soldiers as the US has put in the field which has as few casualties as the Iraqi conflict has, and as far as I can tell, the number of casualties is the only bit of evidence Van Crevald is offering that the US has been defeated. Van Crevald’s hyperbole is a classic in the history of hyperbole.
But just for the momment, let’s imagine that this continuing relatively low loss of life does indeed constitute inevitable defeat for the U.S at some undefined point in the future. Even if this is so, under the terms laid out by Van Crevald what advantage is there in withdraw or retreat? Mr. Van Crevald argues that the predictable result of withdraw from Iraq is:
“Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable…a divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets’ nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah’s name.”
Now, that this is a likely outcome, I would agree. But how in God’s name is this to be considered a superior outcome to continuing to stick it out in Iraq? Mr. Van Crevald freely admits that the US must maintain a presence in the region, but equally implies that once Iraq has fallen no US presence in the region will have any gaurantee of safety. What safety or refuge would he have us retreat to which is superior to those entrenchments, fortifications we already have in place? Why in the world would we give up the initiative in this conflict, grant space to our enemies to plan and manuever and provide for them a morale boosting perception of victory? What tactical or operational advantage could possibly be gained by fleeing to Quwait, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere in the Gulf and leaving Al Zarqawi and his followers free reign in Iraq? If you want to talk about Vietnam parallels, how much more like Veitnam would this conflict become if we fled from Iraq, thereby providing the enemy with a base of operations, and thereafter tried to fight a defensive war in which the enemy was to be contained in a geographic region which we had abandoned attempts to control?
What in the hell is a withdraw supposed to accomplish, and what in the hell does Martin Van Crevald think the enemy can do to force us from Iraq?
And then there is this:
“Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was.”
Even if we were to grant that this debateable statement is true, it would only matter if the enemy of the Iraqi army was a skilled, as well trained, as well equipped, as numerous, and as cohesive as the NVA or even the VC. In fact of course, this is ridiculous on the face of it. The NVA fielded armored divisions. It had an air force. It numbered 100,000’s of regular troops. It launched conventional offensives. US soldiers died at a rate of 2000 per month, not 2000 per three years. The notion of Al Zarqawi pulling an air force out of his back pocket, or even a tank battalion is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is the notion that the AIF could launch a conventional offensive. In military terms, the operational capacity of the AIF (Al Queda, the Baathists, their sympathizers, and the various criminal gangs) has degenerated to below the level where it could even meet the definition of a guerrilla war. They don’t even have what could ammount to an irregular army. The operational capacity of the AIF is no down to the level and intensity of ‘mere’ terrorism.
And as for the abandoning of equipment, Van Crevald makes a big deal about how expensive US equipment is and how much training is required to us it. You do mention how ridiculous this is in the context of what is primarily a war involving light infantry, but you don’t go nearly far enough. Van Crevald knows full well that we aren’t equipping the Iraqi army with the latest US hardware quite simply because we know that it will be sometime before they can afford to maintain it. The Iraqi army is being equipped with surplus soviet hardware, and to the extent that we plan to leave behind US hardware it mostly will involve things like body armor, trucks, and night vision – equipment which the Iraqi army already has a demonstratable ability to use.
But lets go further. Imagine Van Crevald then wishes to argue that the Iraqi army could with this equipment by no means defeat the ‘powerful’ AIF enemy without US help (which he wishes to withdraw). Well, the problem with that is that Saddam Hussein proved himself more than capable of putting down even stronger uprising using the very equipment we plan on leaving with the Iraqi army – which is already by many accounts more capable on the battlefield than Saddam’s thugs (not that that matters much in putting down uprising). It’s ludicrous to argue that once so armed the new Iraqi army – with the full support of 80% of the Iraqi population and control of all the oil producing regions of Iraq – could not put down (brutally if necessary) an uprising of 20% of the population (even if that were to occur) when that same 20% previously has when so armed successful put down the uprising of the other 80%. Even if it were to come to civil war, there is no reason to suppose that Al Zarqawi’s forces would have much look in such a situation.
It never ceases to amaze me the ammount if irrational hysteria GWB manages to engender in otherwise rational and intelligent people.
_There’s a huge difference between maintaining an embargo (which, yes, had some terrible side effects) and putting hundreds of thousands of troops in harm’s way._
Again, that’s the difference between siege warfare and ground warfare, not the difference between peace and war. My dispute is with people casting the argument in terms of ‘going to war’, as though we were starting from a state of peace. We weren’t.
_Funny, I’d think in light of your earlier post_
That’s confusing a couple different things there, Chris. One point is we were in a state of war with Iraq prior to 2003, another is how threatening that war was to us in light of 9/11. Before 9/11 the belief was we could beseige Hussein until the cows come home and the chance of his doing anything significant to the US was very remote. 9/11 proved that false, because if Bin Laden could hit us like that, so could Hussein. You’re right, though, that it also made us have to re-evaluate North Korea, Iran, and other potential threats, but we weren’t at war with them.
If we were besieging Iran and NK like we were Iraq, then they’d be in the same category, be we weren’t. So, with Iran and NK it’s new rounds of multi-lateral talks and diplomacy, with Iraq it’s one last chance to admit defeat then boots on the ground.
I agree there’s serious debates about the wisdom of all those response, but that’s why new action was needed and why they were different.
_You’re stacking the deck here, and introducing some highly questionable suppositions. Were Jordan et al bearing some costs because of the Iraqi embargo? Sure, but it’s yet to be proven that those costs outweighed the costs of an Iraq that’s presently become a terrorist battlefront, and could become a failed state in the future._
Well, those are judgement calls, but it seems to me many meny people aren’t even considering those factors. They’re treating Iraq like it sprung up out of the void in 2002, without honestly looking at the history which lead up to it.
For example, the possibility of Iraq becomeing a failed state. Practically everyone forgets that causing the Iraqi government to collapse from within was a stated goal of the first Bush administration and again the Clinton administration in the late 90’s. It’s what we called then the policy of ‘regiem change’.
It’s a crowning irony of this debate that the civil war between Shia, Kurds, and Suuni we were activly trying to instigate in the 90’s, is now considered the worst possible outcome.
I agree _it is_ the worst possible outcome, but all the more reason to have the US army in there trying to direct transition in a positive way, than just letting the place fester, or squeezing the country until it impodes, letting the chips fall where they may.
Here’s my post listing 13 points of opposition to the war as I understand them (me being pro war and subject to bias)
“Two Views of the War”:http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2005/10/two-views-of-war-on-terror-part-i.html
Heck…let me post the reduced version (don’t laugh)
1) Terrorims does exist around the globe
2) Not all terrorist organizations, even if they are Islamist in nature, are direct threats to the United States
3) Osama bin Laden and his direct cohorts and minions attacked us on 9/11 and these are the people and the one organization that poses either the greatest threat or only threat to the United States
4) Even if many terrorist organizations have some sort of relationship or affiliation with “Al Qaida” this does not create one large army with a single ideology and plan that we can or should confront (ie, this is not the Communist Russian army (or any state army) with a direct line of command, a nation state with assetts that can be deployed or destroyed in direct combat that can be used to effect a war or as mutual points of destruction that can pre-empt a war from occuring). Further, most organizations were regional or specific to a state and largely concerned with their own efforts to change their area as opposed to presenting a direct threat to the United States as part of a large organization with over all goals or strategies for effecting the world at large. It may also have been more politically and financially viable to allow the regional or state authorities to handle these organizations with minimal financial and material support or personnel allowing the greater burden to be spread out among multiple states.
5) Because al Qaida and it’s affiliates are not a nation state with a direct line of leadership and command and because they cannot be linked directly to any specific state as having direction or command coming from the leadership of that state, state on state war is not necessary and may be “unhelpful”.
6) If the leadership of al Qaida could be taken out, it would end or severely damage the ability of the organization or any other affiliate organization being a direct and immediate danger to the United States. The Iraq war was a distraction from this endeavor.
7) An al Qaida goal was to provoke an over reaction by the United States and other western countries, expand the war and thus bring to fruition their desire to expand the war into an Islam vs. the West war, causing Muslims from across the globe to make a decision to support “Islam” or support the West. Because this was an Al Qaida goal, we should not have played into this goal in any way. Instead, we should have done the opposite and maintained the war as “small operations” against small specific groups that could still be viewed as “terrorists”, limiting the possibility of inflaming other groups that might otherwise stay out of the “war” and pose little or no danger to the US. The Iraq war played into this goal and now has extended the war into areas and peoples that we might not have had to deal with or be as concerned about in the past.
8) We are using assetts, money and soldiers that put us in a vulnerable position in other parts of the world and may keep us from meeting other obligations or worse yet may engender an economic debt which we cannot recover from.
9) It would be less expensive, less intrusive and easier to prosecute actions against individuals and work within the international community to interdict, arrest or kill these individuals than to committ war. Since nation states do not have a direct command structure over these organizations, even if they are funding them or supplying other material assistance, using them as proxies to committ wars the states themselves may not be able to do so or in order to serve their interests developing influence within other states, because the states themselves are not or cannot be linked to acts of war, legitimate cases for war against those states are difficult if not impossible to make. Also, these wars would, again, contribute to the over all instability of the area and provide the possiblity of these terrorist organizations to obtain certain objectives such as providing on the job training to commit other wars or terrorist actions, provide them territory where in they may create training camps or bases from which to commit other terrorist activities, provide them with propaganda or other resources which they may use to finance additional activities.
10) Declaring war or prosecuting a greater, more intense war against these organizations, instead of diminishing them, actually provides recognition and possible legitimization of their claims, making the organization(s) appear larger and more organized which, in terms of guerilla wars can lead to increased financial and material aid from the general population as well as increased recruits.
11) The “War on Terror” did not have to include Iraq, was a strategic mistake since Iraq would have maintained it’s security and, while possibly providing some assistance at the state level to terrorist organizations, was not doing any more or less than certain nations that we may currently call an ally. Further, the police state of Iraq was less dangerous to the United States because the state would have acted in it’s own interest to protect itself and would have controlled the ability of terrorists to work within the state, set up bases or recruit from inside. Also, the amount of weapons and financial aid from the state might have been far less in quantity as well as less direct. The cost of controlling these actors in state, in money, resources and blood would have fallen on Iraq itself. Without the control of these police and the brutal leadership of Saddam, the terrorists are now able to move freely in and out of the state, moves money, men and resources freely within that state and neighboring states and greatly destabilizes the area. While the leadership of Iraq was egregious, it mostly posed a threat to it’s own citizens having little if any capability of prosecuting a war directly against the United States. The military and economic quarantine of Iraq was less costly and was generally effective.
12) Promoting “democracy” in the region may serve to destabilize more regimes at the same time during a time when the United States and most of the world is dependent on oil from this region. This may lead to civil wars or even peaceful changes in government that legitamize or bring to power the very Islamist terrorist organizations that we are combatting.
And, last but not least (possibly not last if others have additional comments), something I’ve heard from both the left and the right, is the idea that we should make all attempts to quickly disengage physically, financially and politically from the Middle East, allowing the course to run and leaving ourselves in a stronger position. This would include developing some sort of energy replacement for oil and natural gas either through new technologies or from development of energy sources closer to home or in other regions that are less volatile. We would, in effect, leave this region to develop as it would or, at worst or best, become the province of other nations to attempt to influence as many would still need the resources from this region regardless of any advancement in new energy technology that the United States developed. Further, if the development of the region included Islamist organizations coming to power that decided to act against the United States or other allied powers, then we would have actual states with which to interact and conduct state on state war which the United States excels at (as opposed to long term guerilla wars that are less successful based on the Vietnam model).
Lurker-
bq. If it weren’t for the 10,000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul, the Norks might have taken priority over Iraq, except that they have Chinese patrons that Iraq lacks. Our allies, the South Korean’s have a large capable army, to the degree that the only reason US troops are present at all is to act as a “trip wire”.
10,000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul? Hell, I’ll go you one better: how about secret tunnels dug into South Korea, capable of completely bypassing the US “trip wire” in the event of hostilities, and pumping out tens of thousands of DPRK soldiers to go completely nuts in the heart of Seoul?
You’re assuming I have no idea what the difficulties are in a fight with North Korea – this is incorrect. That said, I will note that at this point, the trading relationship between China, South Korea and the US is probably far more important to the Chinese than the antiquated ideological ties between China and NK, and that the strength of the South Korean army is largely irrelevant to the nuclear threat posed to the US by the North.
bq. Chris, you’ve allowed yourself to be maneuvered into a weak position if you are claiming that the strategic and tactical situations WRT to Iraq and North Korea are analogous. You should drop this portion of your argument.
Nope, I’m not claiming that the strategic and tactical situations w/r/t Iraq and North Korea are analogous: I’m claiming that both the tactical and strategic situation w/r/t North Korea is _much, much worse_ than w/r/t/ Iraq.
But here’s the thing: once upon a time, the US government understood something about war. It understood that war was a bloody, terrible business, that should only be entered into as a last resort. But it also understood that we had to stand up for our interests, even under the threat of a terrible war, when US interests faced a clear and immediate threat from abroad. Time and time again during the Cold War we can face to face with the possibility of nuclear annihilation (thinking specifically of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Berlin Airlift) and didn’t back down, because we knew we had no choice.
Likewise, allowing North Korea to build up to ten nuclear warheads in an age of international terrorism is completely unacceptable… but the Bush administration has done almost *nothing* with regards to the situation, preferring instead to concentrate on Iraq, a regime that was both less of a threat and (all things considered) easier to knock over than North Korea.
And heck, here’s another problem with the Iraq war to add to Armed Liberal’s list: far from deterring other countries in their quest for nuclear arms, invading Iraq seems to have galvanized Iran and North Korea into _accelerating_ their programs, apparently based on the belief that the US won’t attack a nuclear power.
So yeah, bottom line, Iraq seems to have provided the illusion of security for some folks, allowing them to talk a tough game about the importance of protecting the country and the greatness of the military virtues, all while a growing and real threat gets ignored because, as Lurker seems to imply, North Korea’s just too gosh darn hard to deal with.
Drop this portion of my argument, Lurker? I’m just getting started.
Seth-
bq. Again, that’s the difference between siege warfare and ground warfare, not the difference between peace and war. My dispute is with people casting the argument in terms of ‘going to war’, as though we were starting from a state of peace. We weren’t.
You’re ignoring most of my points with regard to North Korea, but I think the key point of disagreement is this: that by virtue of maintaining an embargo on Iraq, we were somehow closer to a state of full-blown war with them than we were with North Korea or Iran.
This is simply not the case, from a practical standpoint. There is a huge logistical, psychological, moral, diplomatic and economic difference between what we were doing, and what we are doing.
To put things on a scale, with total peace being 0, and total war being a 10, we were at perhaps a 2 or a 3 prior to the invasion, and we’re currently at a 7 or 8. But we’re perhaps at a 1 or a 2 with regard to North Korea, and at least a 1 with regard to Iran, so it’s simply false to continue arguing, as you keep doing, that it wasn’t that big a deal to go to war with Iraq because an invasion was not that big a change to our current policy. The situation w/r/t Iraq was much closer to the current situation w/r/t Iran and North Korea before the invasion than afterwards.
bq. One point is we were in a state of war with Iraq prior to 2003, another is how threatening that war was to us in light of 9/11. Before 9/11 the belief was we could beseige Hussein until the cows come home and the chance of his doing anything significant to the US was very remote. 9/11 proved that false, because if Bin Laden could hit us like that, so could Hussein. You’re right, though, that it also made us have to re-evaluate North Korea, Iran, and other potential threats, but we weren’t at war with them.
But we only have the ability to invade one country at a time, with a “reload” period of several years, and we chose Iraq. The fact that we had an embargo on them at the time doesn’t outweigh the fact that other countries were more immediate threats. *That’s the thing your “9/11 changed our understanding of the threat from Iraq” argument keeps failing to take into account.*
My Pro-war argument as an “Anti-War” person: Number 1 (ranking not necessarily finalized in order of importance, although are presented provisionally in that manner).
Briefly:
1) Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, was an immediate and significant threat to the United States, or close Allies to the United States (e.g., Israel), or to the sovereignty of peace-loving and innocent neighboring states with strategic importance (e.g., Kuwait).
And the best way to attenuate this threat below an acceptable level was to invade Iraq, forceably depose Saddam Hussein, and occupy the country until a stable government could be installed or created in its place that would prevent a Saddam-like situation from arising again in the near future.
Chris, what you seem unable to admit, even though it is obvious that you actually comprehend it, is that given all of the various factors, invading Iraq in 2003 was a rational choice.
That you might disagree with the priority does not make the decision objectively wrong, or irrational. That’s the bottom line.
Chris,
So what? NK is always brought up in an attempt to show 2 things, 1) that Iraq has prevented us from paying sufficient attention to the NK situation, and 2) to show how Bush is hypocritical
since he hasn’t invaded NK too.
#1 is false because we have more than enough air and naval resources to support the South Korean army in any imaginable scenario. Any US troops based there are only a token, militarily insignificant force.
#2 is false since the strategic and tactical situation vis-a-vis NK is completely different from Iraq, therefore the same response is NOT appropriate.
I have assumed nothing. I’m only going by what you have posted.
You have asserted this without evidence. I don’t know what the Chinese leaders are thinking, but they still subsidize NK and have not asked them publicly to repudiate nuclear arms. And they seem to have no problems threatening to invade Taiwan, no matter how THAT would hurt trade relations.
I’m sure they’ll trying to have their cake and eat it. NK is one of the many pieces they use in what they see as a competition with the US. It may be driven as much by “face” as for ideological or practical reasons, one of which is forestalling a huge refugee and humanitarian crisis right next door. Still not much in common with Iraq.
Yes, a large well trained army right next door is never relevant. {/sarcasm}
So? Why bring this up in a discussion about Iraq? Is it reason #1? Or reason #2?
Irrelevant and unfalsifiable statement. I can agree with the whole thing and still support the invasion of Iraq.
How were we supposed to stop them? Invade? Nuke them? What? Are you ready to sacrifice Seoul? Let’s not forget the support of their Chinese patrons either. The least, worst choice seems to be doing what we are doing. Nothing will happen without Chinese buy-in anyway.
What is your amazing NK disarmament plan? And while you are thinking about it, let’s hear what you’ve got for Iran too? It would be completely unacceptable for them to be nuclear armed as well, right?
This is provably wrong. Bush is insisting on 6-way talks that get all the players involved, especially China. Which is about the best that can be done given the results of the Clinton policy, which allowed the Norks to cook up all the fissionables that they needed before Bush even took office.
Ah, so it is reason #1. News flash. It’s not either/or. This position has always presented a false dichotomy. BTW, have you stopped beating your girlfriend?
Hmmm. One nation has accelerated their program (Iran), another has completely stopped theirs (Libya), another has continued on as usual (North Korea), and an entire clandistine nuclear development network has been exposed (Pakistan). That sure looks like a net positive result.
Begging the question, of our entire disagreement.
Illusion huh? It’s not any more of an illusion then crossing ones fingers and hoping that Iraq was no threat if we’d only left Saddam alone. I suspect the jury would still be out no matter what policy option was selected, e.g. it’s too soon to tell either way.
Man, talk about putting words in someone’s mouth and thoughts in their heads. If you have an argument, then make it. Please don’t presume to tell me what I’m thinking.
Who’s ignoring the North Korean threat?Just because Bush isn’t doing what you’d do, oh… wait a minute… What is it that you’d do WRT North Korea again? And can you please expand on exactly how Iraq is harming our North Korean policy?
Cute. But yes it is a difficult situation. We’re all still waiting for your solution.
Drop this portion of my argument, Lurker? I’m just getting started.This is cute too. Show it to your girlfriend. Maybe she will grin and scrunch up her cute little nose.
Andy:
I’d like to hear you articulate what YOU (and other “pro-war” people here) think are the BEST arguments against the war in Iraq.
Okeydoke. Well, as a supporter of organized violence for the purpose of liberating an oppressed population when it is necessary, here are some anti-war arguments that I haven’t seen listed here (they’re primarily from the LewRockwell.com style conservative libertarian bloggers and private discussions with some of my more University-Far Left aquaintances, and as such are unlikely to show up in most debates, where individuals are attempting to appear morally superior to their opponent). I disagree with them all (at least, I find them ultimately unconvincing), but they’re out there, so I thought this might be helpful.
1) Nationalist Isolationism – American Blood and Treasure should never be squandered for “global” concerns, like freeing an oppressed people Anywhere Else. Another variant of this is economically conservative/pragmatic in nature – essentially, if the real concern is US national security, the money could have been better spent (border control, better internal security, buying up Russian loose nukes, etc.).
2) The Price of Failure was too steep/the middle east too unstable. By this essentially catastrophist argument, the long term
consequences of destabilizing the already brittle/fragile middle east might result in disruption of oil distribution, resulting in a global economic depression the likes of which would make the economic consequences of another 9/11 trivial. By this argument, the neocon strategy of democratization at gunpoint to protect American interests is simply too risky to support (in realpolitik cost-benefit risk assessment terms). A common variant of this is that the War would inflame Islam and produce more enemies than the liberation of Iraq (and eventually, the entire Arab world?) through democratization would prevent.
3) The Racist argument – that Arab’s are somehow (culturally, economically, etc.) incapable of self-government except by totalitarian strongmen, making the liberation of Iraq an act of folly, in the long term. An astonishingly cynical argument made to me by a few limousine liberals one evening (I seem to recall that parapundit may also have made a similar argument).
4) Intelligence Community/Bureaucratic Incompetence – the argument here (a standard libertarian argument applied to the Iraq war) is that (as 9/11 verified) the government was so ineffectual/incompetent regarding our national internal and external threats that granting the government additional power was foolhardy at best – bad money/power chasing bad. War is the health of the State and all that. A standard example is the billions in aid we send to Egypt annually as a cold war holdover, although several of the 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt.
Again, I don’t think these arguments are ultimately convincing (I find #3 particularly odious, and #4 to me seems like a request for perfection that is unrealistic), but some have enough merit that they are worth addressing. I hope this is helpful.
_1) Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, was an immediate and significant threat to the United States, or close Allies to the United States (e.g., Israel), or to the sovereignty of peace-loving and innocent neighboring states with strategic importance (e.g., Kuwait)._
WHAT ? do people really believe that !
Saddam had NO active air force , his military was nothing compared to what he had in 1991 (count the divisions) sanctions had prevented him from re arming in any effective way
he was no threat to his neighbours , he was no threat to kuwait and he was absolutely no threat to the United states
saddam was into survival and self preservation , not conquest
the saddam that declared war on Iran and Kuiwat didnt exist in 2003
he wasnt the Nazi army , he was a feeble dictator
i accept he wasnt feeble to those INSIDE the country , but if he was so nasty dont you think his natural enemy (Iran) would have supported his removal
i love that line “saddam was a danger” for what we mean is saddam *WAS* a danger
Kuwait were not worried about any pending invasion , Iran was not running to the border to prorect their country
thats just silly
as for Israel , lets not forget Israel is still oficially at war with Iraq
Israel is condemmed within the VERY constitution they have jut written
the real power brokers in Iraq such as Moqtada Sadr tell people exactly who to vote for and hold more contempt for Israel then saddam did
the Iraqi government that emerges from this months elections will be a greater threat to Israel then saddam ever could be
Andy , sorry i notice you dont actually believe that , its just a pro war argument ,
i was just so shocked to read it , i really didnt think anyone was saying that stuff anymore
_that by virtue of maintaining an embargo on Iraq, we were somehow closer to a state of full-blown war with them than we were with North Korea or Iran.
This is simply not the case, from a practical standpoint. There is a huge logistical, psychological, moral, diplomatic and economic difference between what we were doing, and what we are doing._
I think it would be helpful to reverse the situation and look at it from the other side of the conflict. Imagine the US and Hussein’s Iraq switched places:
Imagine if Iraq was blockading our seaports and border crossings. Iraqi aircraft carriers parked off the port of Manhattan, stopping imports, restricting the exports that are our GDP. The damage to our economy makes child mortality rates skyrocket and our life expecancy plummet as poverty increases and the infrastructure crumbles.
Iraqi combat aircraft patrol our skys, preventing even passenger planes from flying. Our air defenses would fire on the Iraqis, and the Iraqis would blow up ground tagets in response. Ever so often Iraq would send a few cruise missile over and destroy some government buildings, and even civilian buildings, saying they were weapons sites.
The Iraqis also instigate civil war within our borders thought overt and covert operations. Iraqi supported assassination attempts are made, whole states seceed forming a defacto separate government, as Iraq publically declares their policy is to bring down the United States government.
The Iraqis back in Iraq, far from the impact of any of this, might think otherwise, many might find it justified, but I doubt anyone involved could mistake this for peace.
Try the same thought experiement with Iran or North Korea, you can swap places all you like and nowhere do you find acts of war like those above.
You’re right there are a couple of major differences between then and now, though: One is that previously we took no casualties nor incurred substantial cost, and now we are. The other is that previously there was no chance of a positive outcome, but now there is.
As far as Iran and North Korea being bigger threats, that’s been disproved by history. Here we are, all tied up dealing with Iraq, for years now offering both those places a prime opportunity to strike at us, and they don’t. Negotiations go forward, and our uneasy peace remains intact. I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that Hussein would have stayed his hand given a simmilar opportunity. His army was shooting at ours even without such encouragement.
Lurker-
bq. So what? NK is always brought up in an attempt to show 2 things, 1) that Iraq has prevented us from paying sufficient attention to the NK situation, and 2) to show how Bush is hypocritical since he hasn’t invaded NK too.
bq. #1 is false because we have more than enough air and naval resources to support the South Korean army in any imaginable scenario. Any US troops based there are only a token, militarily insignificant force.
bq. #2 is false since the strategic and tactical situation vis-a-vis NK is completely different from Iraq, therefore the same response is NOT appropriate.
So… you’re basically trying to issue a blanket condemnation that North Korea is completely irrelevant to any discussion on Iraq? No, that won’t fly.
Iraq _has_ diverted us from North Korea – while South Korea can probably defend itself, the issue here is not defending South Korea but rather prohibiting North Korea from building and distributing nuclear weapons. It would be extremely useful to have at least the threat of invasion on the table while negotiating with the North, but we no longer have that option, thanks to Iraq.
And I never said Bush was hypocritical, I said he was ignoring a larger danger in favor of a smaller, more easily managed one. That’s simply bad judgment in my book. And _of course_ the exact same response is not appropriate, but it’s hard to imagine that we could mount any kind of deterrence towards the North without substantive use of the military forces now in Iraq. After all, wasn’t a substantive part of the war in Iraq justified on the basis that “containment” strategies were not sufficient to deter the production of WMDs?
bq. You have asserted this without evidence. I don’t know what the Chinese leaders are thinking, but they still subsidize NK and have not asked them publicly to repudiate nuclear arms. And they seem to have no problems threatening to invade Taiwan, no matter how THAT would hurt trade relations.
bq. I’m sure they’ll trying to have their cake and eat it. NK is one of the many pieces they use in what they see as a competition with the US. It may be driven as much by “face” as for ideological or practical reasons, one of which is forestalling a huge refugee and humanitarian crisis right next door. Still not much in common with Iraq.
You start off by saying that I’m making assertions without evidence, but you provide no evidence of your own. And you keep harping on the fact that North Korea is not the same as Iraq – an argument that I’ve never made. The _only_ way they’re similar, as far as I’m concerned, is that they both have the potential to produce and distribute WMDs. However, as I’ve said more than once, I believe the North was (and is!) far more dangerous in that respect than Iraq ever was.
bq. and that the strength of the South Korean army is largely irrelevant to the nuclear threat posed to the US by the North.
bq. Yes, a large well trained army right next door is never relevant. {/sarcasm}
What part of *”nuclear threat”* did you fail to understand? What possible deterrence does the South Korean army have when it comes to using unconventional means to place a nuke in Seoul, Tokyo, or Los Angeles?
bq. How were we supposed to stop them? Invade? Nuke them? What? Are you ready to sacrifice Seoul? Let’s not forget the support of their Chinese patrons either. The least, worst choice seems to be doing what we are doing. Nothing will happen without Chinese buy-in anyway.
bq. What is your amazing NK disarmament plan? And while you are thinking about it, let’s hear what you’ve got for Iran too? It would be completely unacceptable for them to be nuclear armed as well, right?
This is nonsense: as a private citizen, I don’t have to have a complete and perfect plan available before I critique the Bush admin’s actions.
That said, I think Bush should have moved towards negotiations with North Korea. Upon finding out about North Korea’s enriched uranium program (which was a _separate_ thing from the plutonium program that the Clinton negotiations had dealt with) I believe he should have pressured the North to give up their uranium program and all existing warheads as well, in exchange for increased food aid and energy assistance. I think he could have also used a combination of military threat, multi-lateral assistance from China, Japan, and South Korea, and economic incentives to push both weapons inspections and social/economic reforms on North Korea… because in the long run, I think free markets and open communication between countries will topple more dictatorships than invasions ever will.
And yes, had the North refused to deal, I believe restarting their plutonium reactors (or continuing with the enriched uranium program) represented a bright red line which would have legitimized our use of force, regardless of the consequences.
Iran is a problem, but what I’ve seen suggests that they’re well behind North Korea, nuke-wise. I suspect being able to broker a peaceful deal with North Korea would have given us leverage to deal with Iran further down the line.
And yeah, there’s a hell of a lot of supposition in my plan, and no proof it would work. Doubtless WoC readers can tear it apart until the cows come home. But I feel quite confident that at least trying something along those lines would be a be a heck of a lot better than the uncontrolled proliferation we’re currently seeing.
bq. This is provably wrong. Bush is insisting on 6-way talks that get all the players involved, especially China. Which is about the best that can be done given the results of the Clinton policy, which allowed the Norks to cook up all the fissionables that they needed before Bush even took office.
You might want to read up on the history involved here. In hindsight, yes, it was a mistake not to have insisted on blanket language covering _all_ fissionable materials in the Clinton agreements. But at the same time, look at the statements that both Koreas, Japan, China, and Russia are making in the six-party talks: namely that multi-lateral talks are well and good, but that the US needs to engage in direct negotiations with North Korea to move forward. Until then, the talks will be at a stand still, as they have been for the past three years.
bq. Ah, so it is reason #1. News flash. It’s not either/or. This position has always presented a false dichotomy.
No, it’s not. We can only topple one regime at once, and that’s been the case since the end of the cold war. And I’ll note that I addressed more stuff about military deterrence and WMDs up top.
bq. Hmmm. One nation has accelerated their program (Iran), another has completely stopped theirs (Libya), another has continued on as usual (North Korea), and an entire clandistine nuclear development network has been exposed (Pakistan). That sure looks like a net positive result.
Libya was moving towards normalizing relations with the US well before 9/11, let alone Iraq, and it’s doubtful Pakistan could have kept up their nuclear program, given the increased cooperation with the US that sprang up from the war in Afghanistan. You have to work a lot harder to prove that the Iraq war itself has been a net positive.
bq. Illusion huh? It’s not any more of an illusion then crossing ones fingers and hoping that Iraq was no threat if we’d only left Saddam alone. I suspect the jury would still be out no matter what policy option was selected, e.g. it’s too soon to tell either way.
I never said Iraq was not a threat, just that it wasn’t as bad as North Korea. And the jury’s still out on Iraq, true, but based on the response from the US public, and the rest of the world, it’s not looking good so far.
bq. Man, talk about putting words in someone’s mouth and thoughts in their heads. If you have an argument, then make it. Please don’t presume to tell me what I’m thinking.
I honestly wasn’t thinking of you per se, but fair enough. I withdraw that passage – it was an emotional argument, not a rational one.
bq. Who’s ignoring the North Korean threat?Just because Bush isn’t doing what you’d do, oh… wait a minute… What is it that you’d do WRT North Korea again? And can you please expand on exactly how Iraq is harming our North Korean policy?
I’ve done so above. And for the record, it’s not terribly classy to ask for a certain piece of evidence at the top of a post, and then criticize me for not providing that evidence later _in the same post_.
bq. This is cute too. Show it to your girlfriend. Maybe she will grin and scrunch up her cute little nose.
Personal attacks should be beneath you. If you respond to this post, I guess we’ll see if you keep taking the argument in this direction.
Seth-
bq. I think it would be helpful to reverse the situation and look at it from the other side of the conflict. Imagine the US and Hussein’s Iraq switched places:
[cut long thought experiment]
bq. The Iraqis back in Iraq, far from the impact of any of this, might think otherwise, many might find it justified, but I doubt anyone involved could mistake this for peace.
And by the same token, the “captive Americans” surely wouldn’t have confused the Iraqi embargo with the war of 1991. For all the difficulties Iraq faced during the embargo, I suspect many there would have also felt that the embargo was closer to a state of peace than to the outright war of 1991 or 2003.
bq. You’re right there are a couple of major differences between then and now, though: One is that previously we took no casualties nor incurred substantial cost, and now we are. The other is that previously there was no chance of a positive outcome, but now there is.
Likewise, there’s a chance for a complete disaster… and as time goes on, disaster looks more likely than a positive outcome.
bq. As far as Iran and North Korea being bigger threats, that’s been disproved by history. Here we are, all tied up dealing with Iraq, for years now offering both those places a prime opportunity to strike at us, and they don’t. Negotiations go forward, and our uneasy peace remains intact. I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that Hussein would have stayed his hand given a simmilar opportunity. His army was shooting at ours even without such encouragement.
There’s a world of difference between shooting at our planes and building nukes, as the North is doing. Moreover, one would think that the 12 years between the first and second Gulf wars would be just as much (or as little) “proof” that Iraq wasn’t a threat as the past three years have been “proof” that Iran and North Korea aren’t threatening.
bq. Chris, what you seem unable to admit, even though it is obvious that you actually comprehend it, is that given all of the various factors, invading Iraq in 2003 was a rational choice.
What’s a “rational choice”? I’ll freely admit that pro-war people can and did string together a whole bunch of reasons why we should invade Iraq – nobody could read Steven Den Beste’s outline and think otherwise. The question is, how well did that argument stand up to analysis, and how well did subsequent events prove the correctness of the action. The evidence is not encouraging on either front.
bq. That you might disagree with the priority does not make the decision objectively wrong, or irrational. That’s the bottom line.
No, my priorities don’t enter into it. The fact that Iraq is not particularly stable, and yet even the Bush administration is sending signals they’re ready to pull out, does enter in to it, and does arguably suggest the decision _was_ objectively wrong. _That’s_ the bottom line.
_For all the difficulties Iraq faced during the embargo, I suspect many there would have also felt that the embargo was closer to a state of peace than to the outright war of 1991 or 2003._
That’s certainly true, but by the same token, many people in Iraqi even right at this moment feel Iraq is even closer to peace than either the embargo or 1991/03. The benefit of outright war is that it offers the chance at a positive conculsion, the embargo didn’t. You counter that by saying:
_Likewise, there’s a chance for a complete disaster… and as time goes on, disaster looks more likely than a positive outcome._
I’d compare November-December 2004 with the present before sticking to war critics’ conventional wisdom on that.
Likewise, it doesn’t address the point that embargo was directed at the result that’s now called a bad possible outcome.
_There’s a world of difference between shooting at our planes and building nukes, as the North is doing._
One is that shooting at plains is an act of war, and building nukes isn’t. Plenty of places have nukes, the question is intent. Like I said, if they were going to use their nukes and start a war with us, they’ve had plenty of opportunity and haven’t. Hussein, conversly, was given every opportunity to end a war with us, but didn’t.
Chris,
=====SHORT VERSION=====
Your claim that Iraq is a distraction from North Korea is based on losing the threat of invading and toppling Kim Jomg-il. I’ve refuted this by pointing out that we never had a credible threat of invasion, due to Chinese support of the Nork regime and the tactical situation of Seoul.
You have yet to address these points, and I no longer care. I’m getting back off the merry-go-round again. Chris has made me sorry that I got back on.
=====LONG VERSION=====
It’s not for me to show that’s it’s irrelevant. You are the one that’s bringing it up, so it’s up to you to show how it is relevant.
Well at least you’ve finally made your position clear. You are the first one that’s ever suggested that Iraq has been a diversion from a threatened or actual invasion of North Korea. And I’ll concede that it is a diversion, from that. The thing is, we would never present a credible threat to invade North Korea, Iraq or not. Are you saying invading North Korea is an option, but invading Iraq is irresponsible? My goodness!
Iraq is like a piñata compared to a North Korean steel reinforced concrete bunker. There’s no way that we would or could threaten an invasion of North Korea, and that’s before considering the Chinese. Any invasion would have to be cleared through them, just like any solution to the North Korean problem has to come from, or at least go through, Beijing.
The Bush policy has always recognized the supremacy of Beijing WRT this issue.
He is not ignoring North Korea. How is pushing for the six party talks ignoring anything? It’s recognition that China is the key to this problem, and always has been.
In your opinion.
North Korea is deterable in a much more conventional sense than Saddam. North Korea has a patron in it’s powerful neighbor China. China likes having the Nork card to play, but it won’t go as far as allowing a nuclear war to break out on it’s border. There would be no North Korea without China.
North Korea holds ALL the cards in any conventional threat that we could mount. They could basically destroy Seoul in a day using completely conventional means. Either you are incredible naïve, or you are not arguing honestly if you think a North Korean invasion was ever an option.
Besides, for all intents and purposes North Korea had nuclear weapons before Bush entered office. The deal that Clinton made with them was a huge joke that was ignored from the beginning.
The problem with a nuclear armed Saddam, and with Iran for that matter, isn’t just the direct risk of a nuclear device in the US, though that risk substantial. Another problem is that a terrorist supporting state could increase the amount of terrorism to a whole new level and then hold the US at bay with nuclear weapons.
Would it have been possible to liberate Kuwait if Saddam had nuclear weapons at the time?
It is a well known fact that China subsidizes the North Korean regime. And, do you remember China publicly asking Kim to give up nuclear arms. Those are the only facts that I asserted. You asserted that China values their trade relations with the west more than their relationship with the Norks. Now, unless you can read their minds, I’m not sure whether I can accept that statement without some evidence. In fact I provide another verifiable (not mind reading) example WRT to their threats towards Taiwan. That’s a total of three real word, verifiable assertions for me, and zero for you.
Well, I’d say it would distract they substantially more than our invasion of Iraq has distracted us.
Nonsense? You’re asking us to judge Bush’s approach against what? You are saving that Iraq has distracted us from, what exactly? If you wish to say that there is a better use for those troops, then you better be able to tell us what that other use is
This is basically doubling down on the Clinton plan, that didn’t work before. Iraq certainly isn’t a distraction from that!
Threats will never work until it’s China that’s making them. China must be involved. That’s the key to the Bush strategy. Any Bush is seeking multilateral assistance. What do you think the six way talks are all about? China is the one that is enabling North Korean stubbornness. They’ll probably keep doing it up to the point where Japan and South Korea are forced to go nuclear in response.
This is a plan? How is Iraq a distraction from “free margets” and “open communications”?
What force? A preemptive nuclear strike? A cruise missile here or there? An invasion? A blockade? What? Don’t forget China? Any use of force, without their buy in (and thus Bush’s six way talks) could escalate to a war with them. And they would easily circumvent any blockade. Do you want to blockade China too?
North Korea was already nuclear before Bush came into office. It was to late to stop them, and China would never stand for it anyway. The beginning of your plan sounds a lot like what Bush is already doing, except for the treat part. Learn this well, we are not a credible threat to North Korea, not until they cross some unimaginably horrible line that makes Seoul expendable. China is the key. Your plan is only wishful thinking.
The demand for bilateral talks is a red herring. Everyone knows that nothing will change until China wants it too. The six way talks bring all the nuclear powers, both de jure and de facto, in to the conversation. China has to understand that a crazy, nuclear North Korea, will eventually force South Korea and Japan to go nuclear. What good does it do to talk to the Norks until the Chinese are serious?
We have ZERO chance of “toppling the North Korean regime as long as they enjoy the support of China and can hold Seoul hostage with conventional artillery, and everybody knows it, except you apparently.
Just as you’d have to work a lot harder to prove a net negative.
In the context of discussion about Iraq, but whateva.
Let’s leave the opinion polls to the politicians.
Classy? It’s all criticism!
It’s not a personal attack exactly. I was mocking you, like you were mocking me.
bq. Your claim that Iraq is a distraction from North Korea is based on losing the threat of invading and toppling Kim Jomg-il. I’ve refuted this by pointing out that we never had a credible threat of invasion, due to Chinese support of the Nork regime and the tactical situation of Seoul.
bq. You have yet to address these points, and I no longer care. I’m getting back off the merry-go-round again. Chris has made me sorry that I got back on.
Gosh, I’m so terribly sorry that I haven’t buckled under to your insistance that I should just drop my argument about North Korea and toe the conventional conservative wisdom.
I have addressed your points about Seoul and China many times, but for the record – the loss of Seoul would be a terrible thing, but we cannot and should not let a single city be an excuse for the development of a nuclear program that can hold our entire country for blackmail. I do not think the Chinese would keep supporting North Korea in the face of a credible ultimatum from us, but nor can we let the Chinese force an unacceptable nuclear situation on us. (Any more than a nuclear-armed Soviet Union could force nukes in Cuba on us.)
And your “long version” strongly suggests you’re not _reading_ what I’m posting, just spewing out knee-jerk reactions. Thant being the case, it probably is best if we just end this.
OK, folks, let’s tone down the debate…I think it’s getting a bit tetchy.
Plus I’m entering (almost) all the points into a big Excel Spreadsheet so I can categorize them, and it’s already getting pretty darn unweildy. Once they’re categorized, I’ll take my best shot at restating them, and will repost them, and I’ll try and make the spreadsheet available for download as well.
A.L.
bq. I’d compare November-December 2004 with the present before sticking to war critics’ conventional wisdom on that.
You’re right, the chances for absolute chaos look somewhat lower now, but low-level civil war and Iranian hegemony are – _from the security standpoint of the US_ – perhaps not preferable to the existing embargo.
bq. Likewise, it doesn’t address the point that embargo was directed at the result that’s now called a bad possible outcome.
True. My response to that would be that Iraq almost certainly would have fractured into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish zones without US influence… but I also suspect the amount of random violence we’ve been seeing wouldn’t have been nearly as great. (And no, that can’t be proved one way or another.)
bq. One is that shooting at plains is an act of war, and building nukes isn’t. Plenty of places have nukes, the question is intent. Like I said, if they were going to use their nukes and start a war with us, they’ve had plenty of opportunity and haven’t. Hussein, conversly, was given every opportunity to end a war with us, but didn’t.
It doesn’t look like we’re going to settle this one way or another: you argue that shooting at patrol jets is more of a cause for war than building nukes, I disagree, especially in light of 9/11. Intent is a factor, but any strategy of defense that relies on North Korea’s good intensions towards the US seems somewhat lacking to me.
But I think we’ve said everything we can. Thanks for a reasonable and polite argument.
Chris, drop me a note, if you would…
A.L.
bq. Chris, drop me a note, if you would…
I’d rather not, unless there’s some truly urgent reason to do so. If you’re concerned that I’ll keep spewing forth on this thread, no worries: this is my last post here, promise.
You’ve probably got it backwards, bub. Otherwise you’d be recieving a note, in the thread, in no uncertain terms. I expect AL wants to clarify something you said for his spreadsheet.
David — re your post #84 — Thanks for your kind comments. Your posts on the opposition of Jerry Pournelle, Martin Van Creveld, and Michael Howard to the War on Terror / the war in Irag made me remember that there are opponents of the war with serious military/security intellectual credentials. And then I followed Celebrim’s lead and started digging into Van Creveld’s opinions and … really lost a lot of respect for Van Creveld.
Dr. Pournelle is a defense intellectual who focuses oh high technology solutions to military/strategic problems and the development of space. He also writes good science fiction on his own and with various collaborators, especially Larry Niven. His contention that winning the War on Terror will result in a form of global empire is probably valid, assuming we win it. His contention that this will also require conversion from a representative democracy to an imperial form of government with an all-powerful authoritarian head of state is more questionable. There is a lot of historical precedent for Pournelle’s position. The problem is that all of the examples that support him are from the ancient world or the Middle Ages.
Great Britain became more representative in its political system, not less, as its empire expanded in the 1700s and 1800s. So did the US and so did France.
Pournelle also opposes the war because he thinks we should focus most of those resources on the development of technologies that will end our dependence on oil from the Middle East (and other volatile areas such as Venezuela). That’s a credible position. I disagree with it because I think he assumes that militant Islam will leave us alone if we withdraw from the Mid-East. Pournelle also assumes that technical solutions for oil and gas replacement can be found and deployed quickly and on a huge scale. We don’t have decades to develop/deploy replacements for oil.
For some unknown reason I can’t help myself…
Chris,
I understand that you’d trade Seoul to prevent the Norks from assembling (they already had the fissionables) nukes. You haven’t shown that anyone else in the whole world agrees, especially our allies the South Koreans.
Oh yeah, you’re probably right. The Chinese aren’t tough enough and they don’t care anything about keeping face. Not.
The only credible threat we have against North Korea is nuclear, any conventional threat is not credible and we’d look silly making one.
And you continue to argue against yourself. You claim that South Korea’s well trained and equipped conventional forces are no deterrant to North Korea. And then you turn right around and say that the US cannot make a credible threat since much of our conventional forces are tied up in Iraq.
So, which is it? Can conventional forces supply a credible threat toward your master North Korean plan or not?
Due to the persistent failures of previous administrations, this was a fait accompli by the time Bush came into office.
Care to dicuss how we could blockade North Korea from access to China?
Is it now considered rude to address your arguments point-by-point? If my responses seem incoherent, then perhaps it’s a reflection of your incoherent arguments. I did realize this problem though. That’s why I tried to summarize things in the short version to save the other readers from the pain that I have endured.
Agreed. The record can stand for itself.
_H_
No problems, mate. My apologies to you and the threadmaster for veering off the central topic of this thread, i.e., a solicitation of the best Anti-war arguments, so inelegantly.
I truly hope Mr. A.L. will take my suggestions to organize further forums that allow this interesting and important issue to be considered from at least 3 other perspectives (Iraq war supporters listing their best arguments for the war, what they think are the best againt it, and anti-war people arguing for the best pro-war positions), because otherwise I feel the full potential of what he is trying to achieve will not be realized.
But for now, if it is not too late, I’d like to add a simple objection to the war that I’m not sure has been addressed adequately, above:
I am against the war because I was skeptical, from the outset, that the reasons* given by the Administration to justify their plan of immediate military action were factually accurate, honestly presented, or well considered.
That subsequent events have provided further support for this view rather than the opposing one, on balance, my opposition has only deepened.
When I say “not addressed adequately”, I mean not fully and satisfactorily refuted by the Pro-war side. See below.
—
*This statement will, naturally, provoke inquiries into what I perceive to have been the Bush administration’s stated, primary reasons and justifications for engaging Iraq with full military force in mid-2003, and not later. I will summarize this by referring to my post #94 above which states what I think the administration was attempting to argue were the reasons, linked to UN resolutions that provided legal justification.
I really don’t think this issue needs to get as complicated as it has, reading through the above comments. The Bush administration has laid out an official set of reasons for the war, and someone here better than me at web research should be able to find this. I’m willing, for the moment, to ignore other public comments by Administration officials (e.g., Cheney on Press the Meat) because in the end the official policy, written out in some official form, is what matters the most from a legal perspective.
Once we arrive at an agreement of the “official Administration positions”, we only then need to decide whether this was arrived at in good faith and using good judgment, etc., or not.
Secondly, we need to consider whether the reasons conform to the UN resolutions and other international treaties that the US has signed and in doing so agreed to abide by.
Andy:
I am against the war because I was skeptical, from the outset, that the reasons* given by the Administration to justify their plan of immediate military action were factually accurate, honestly presented, or well considered.
Andy – the Administration like every administration in any country in anytime is a political animal. As a political animal they and the parties that oppose them rarely present the story with
Full and totally truthful facts
With pure honesty
Nor have the time to be well considiered in an intellectual sense.
The only pol who pretended to do in recent memory was Carter and I never want to see his sorry Rose Garden ploy again. Never!
Of course the MSM is gulity of the same distortion of the unknown absolute TRUTH.
James Jones — re your post #113 — Thanks again for your helpful remarks.
Regarding Jerry Pournelle, I agree.
You say: “We don’t have decades to develop/deploy replacements for oil.”
He thinks we do, because Al Qaeda cannot beat America in naval battles, and he thinks that the capacity for technology only comes with mental modernity. An enemy that could make a navy and threaten fortress America would already have turned into slackers. “Tell the Arabs to drink their oil, and keep them out of the US. Let them reconquista Spain and France. By the time they succeed the Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction will have made slackers of their children.”
I’m glad George W. Bush didn’t try that theory, which sounds to me something like saying “let’s leave the initiative to the enemy till he gets tired of winning.” Wars are generally won by the side that seizes and maintains the initiative. (Important exception: the seige of Vienna.) I do not want our side in this war to hope that we will be a rare and lucky exception to how war usually has worked.
But Jerry Pournelle’s views are still the views of a sensible man.
Regarding Martin Van Creveld, again my opinion is the same as yours.
This short interview with Martin van Creveld by Sonshi.com does a good job of linking Martin Van Creveld’s view of war to his view of the war in Iraq.
Sonshi.com: … what doctrines or sets of principles do you see the US military leadership following?
van Creveld: I doubt whether the U.S military leadership has followed either Clausewitz or Sun Tzu, or else it would hardly have gotten itself involved in an unwinnable war in Iraq.
In the future as in the past, both Clausewitz and Sun Tzu will undoubtedly have a lot to offer. As to the U.S, I do not see that it follows any particular set of principles except hypocrisy: meaning, the heart-felt need to dress up its extraordinary hunger for power with fine-sounding phrases about freedom, democracy, women’s rights, etc.
Sonshi.com: You believe the current US involvement in Iraq will end up like the Vietnam War. What are the major parallels? In a more philosophical sense, why do we as human beings do not tend to learn from our history and past mistakes, especially in a serious matter as warfare?
van Creveld: Both Iraq and Vietnam are, to use the terminology I developed in The Transformation of War, non-trinitarian conflicts. Experience shows that almost all countries that tried to fight such wars from, let us say, 1941 on, have lost, as did the U.S itself in both Vietnam and Somalia. Why should the war in Iraq end up differently?
–
With the links I gave before, I think this means that you can’t reasonably say Martin Van Creveld’s theory of war is good but he is applying it wrongly in this case. Either his views on Iraq are correct (and I think they are very far from being correct) or his theory of war, which has become part of our intellectual foundations is cracked, and in need not only of critical remarks but replacement.
This sort of stuff has been fundamental to Martin Van Creveld’s thinking on war since – well, always. It’s not something he’s now added to the view of war he presented in his well-recieved books, this is his view:
“In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old – even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife – will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces – whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on – things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.
In other words, he who fights against the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat…”
There is no room for evasion: according to Martin Van Creveld, he who does not agree with Martin Van Creveld understands nothing of war or human nature.
America has violated basic principles of war as laid down by Martin Van Creveld. This is wrong, and it’s evil. By the inexorable laws of war revealed by Martin Van Creveld, those who have gone so far wrong must pay, and not must defeat and humiliation follow, but prosecution should follow.
I think Martin Van Creveld is talking dogmatic nonsense, and he always has been. But he’s the one with the credentials.
You seem much more willing to let the Administration “off the hook” than I do, clearly, based on an implied suggestion that ALL administrations or polticians frequently take liberties with “honesty” and “facts”, and that establishing what is “fact” or “truth” is complicated by the idea that the MSM is the only source of information regarding same.
I won’t accept this in the case of War, and I hope you are not trying to argue that the decision to engage in such should be held to the same admittedly low standard that we have come to judge our politicians by.
This type of argument is why I’m calling for a return to first principles, as it were. Read my post again and tell me specifically why you would oppose beginning with a cold, hard look at the administrations officlal, on-the-record documented case for invasion.
As interesting, and important, as all the reasons given above are, I feel that this must serve as a starting point for any discussions. After all, we are a nation of laws, are we not?
In other words, if the war is judged illegal or illegitimate, what other reason need anyone have to oppose it?
Sorry, my comments were directed at post #116.
After all, we are a nation of laws, are we not?
1) Why do you need to judge everything… Lots of things just are. And who writes these laws? Are they JUST laws or tools of some interest group?
The polticians and judges created them from the bench not you or I. We have far too many rules and laws created in the main by crooks and interest groups. Law is just one part of society. Society is PEOPLE. We are a nation of people. Laws and everything come after.
Andy:
In other words, if the war is judged illegal or illegitimate, what other reason need anyone have to oppose it?
2) For the survial of the people like you and I and our children? For our survival with a system we decide on not one that islamo-facism would want to force on us? If you talk survival of a people and a nation morality and justice are a guidance but not above survival.
3) I was against the way Bush did this war because I saw liberals and enemies overseas would head in this direction. I would have not engaged in Nation Building rather the opposite.
After all – there is no such thing as Black-White its all shades of gray.
Darn. I appear to have missed a senior Moonbat standing in the opening to his cave. Chris, where are you? You were the only Moonbat here worthy of the withering assault from above that is about to rain down.
First of all, I am disappointed in where WOC is headed, pandering to the left and attracting all sorts of soft thinkers by not recognizing, as even Instapundit and AndrewSullivan do, that the War on Terror is running concurrently with a War on Leftism that will hopefully move the world’s media way over to the right and overturn the 68er mentality that got 2.5 million Asians killed by an irresponsibly weak US Congress and an electorate that had allowed itself to be bludgeoned with defeatist lies from the “press”.
I believe that Congress should pass a law requiring high school diplomas and entry visas only to those who can successfully answer two simple questions:
1) Was the Comintern Pact of China and the Soviet Union the main strategic enemy of the SEATO Allies in Southeast Asia during the Indochina Conflict?
2) Did China abandon its murderous view of communist repression and aggression and make a far-reaching economic and peace agreement with Nixon and Kissinger in 1972, shortly before the US troops were pulled by Nixon out of Vietnam?
If you can answer those questions honestly, you would become a member of the bulwark against the 68er style left…and, along with the abandonment of the words “imperialism” and “socialism”, you as a liberal could finally present a credible alternative to conservative politics worldwide.
A 68er leftist will not, under any circumstances answer either of the above questions. And this problem of leftists being religious cult followers, is directly related to most of their current “anti-war” nonsense (which is really pro-war in terms of the direct motivation they give to those who kill American soldiers).
You want a “pro-war” person to come up with great “anti-war” arguments? Great idea! Because, in the case of Iraq, only the “pro-war” people have a clue what is going on…so only they can come up with the required conceptual framework to debate against the war.
I will start with the obvious reasons for the Iraq War. Armed Liberal can enter some of these into the spreadsheet because they shockingly haven’t even been discussed up to this point:
(before I start, however, I must reiterate that you cannot have a decent discussion about Iraq without going first into the history of the right wing vs left wing, the history of a particular “anti-war” person’s relationship with his or her father or other authority figure, as well as a general discussion of the past 6000 years of warfare coupled with a detailed analysis of the strategic victory the USA achieved over the Comintern Pact in the Indochina War despite a treasonous civil war at home)…
The reasons for the 3 week long Iraq War:
1) PERMANENTLY alter the BALANCE OF POWER in the Middle East to favor the SHIITE MUSLIMS over the SUNNI MUSLIMS…in the same manner that we helped the Soviet Communists in WW2 in order to collapse the Nazi Third Reich as a superpower. This was done because the Sunni Wahhabists were behind 9-11 and the Iranian hardliners are *supposedly* the arch enemies of Sunni Wahhabists (herein lies the one and only chance for you to argue against the entire war).
Unexpected consequence of Bush just blindly attacking? Hardly. As Stephen Den Beste pointed out BEFORE the 3 week war, a genius like Donald Rumsfeld would have seen that the Sunni Muslim “empire” (that caused the modern Pearl Harbor) needed to be kicked in geographically to the point where imperialist political Sunni Islam would be as discredited to its own people as the Nazis and Bushidos were when their fascist empires were geographically shrunk down.
A well-armed SHIITE IRAQI ARMY could, sometime around 2007, assemble on the Saudi border and easily take Mekkah PERMANENTLY away from the Sunnis if even one more childishly insane Sunni suicide bomber ever explodes in an American (or for that matter European) city.
Arguments about whether Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together or not are, in these calculations, irrelevant (although they surely were working together) in the same way that nobody ever bothered to try to make an irrelevant connection between Hitler with Pearl Harbor. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim. That he represented the viciously anti-American Middle Eastern Left Wing and Osama supposedly represented the viciously anti-American Middle Eastern Right Wing…was not a hindrance to his power among anti-American arabs especially in light of the fact that Saddam and his Baathists openly rejoiced over 9-11 and were the only government that did so…while more Arabs (and European and Latin American leftists) than the press was admitting to…also rejoiced over 9-11 and looked up to Saddam’s “defiance of US imperialism” as the new focal point for their irrational “anti-imperialist” hatred of the USA.
When Osama was clearly defeated in Afghanistan (defeat being measured by Pakistan deciding to cooperate with Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld), the fascist people in the arab world who had openly cheered against the Americans in Afghanistan…turned to Saddam as their new leader. He had been the only arab leader to vociferously condemn the US-led destruction of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan…and the morons of the arab world loved him for it.
Gentle reader: Don’t EVER insult yourself or anyone again by raising the irrelevant and leftist-religion-based argument that Saddam supposedly did not have diplomatic relations with Al Qaeda or that Saddam never would have given a nuke to a pan-arabist, anti-American terror group bound for the Mexican border.
I am saying that Saddam was a speed-bump in the way of converting Mesopotamia into a Shiite-run geographical area. Even if we were best friends with Saddam in 2003, we still would have stabbed him in the back and removed the Sunnis from the Oil Ministry and military. Saddam was in the way. Who cares if he was a threat or not. The Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia WERE a threat and the best way to either destroy them or convince them to be our friends again…was to present them with an enemy more formidable and dire than a temporary US occupation could ever present.
And that enemy would be the Shiites.
What do I foresee of this? Well, if you read StrategyPage.com every day like you should be reading…you would see that the Sunni Iraqis are facing a bleak future if they don’t ALL start collectively acting like adults. About the time when the Sunnis realize that ONLY AMERICANS CAN SAVE THEM…Al Jazeera will become pro-American and Sunni arabs everywhere will do what the German Nazis did: suddenly start loving Americans because they were the only hope in protecting them from a more vicious enemy (in the Nazis case, the Soviet commies).
That is the plan. And it has historial precedent. George Orwell’s “Brave New World” details how enemies switch places all the time in Realpolitik and there is no reason to believe that we cannot “flip” the Sunnis onto our side by empowering their worst enemies to help make the Sunnis “an offer they cannot refuse.”
2) By launching the liberation of Iraq, Bush deliberately picked a fight with international leftism. Every good leftist knew that the Baath Party was “socialist” and such governments are loved by leftists instinctively…especially when they are brutal and repressive and allow no conservative concepts to be spoken (leftists would love to muzzle Rush Limbaugh Saddam style).
By going to war with the internationalist left, Bush has exposed the fault lines, revealed which “allies” were not really “allies” and allowed Manhattan Liberals like myself (or London or Paris liberals with brains) to finally see that the left-right debate is really the difference between the immature, illogical and irresponsible vs the mature, logical and responsible. Without the Blogosphere, especially sites like Instapundit.com and StrategyPage.com, Bush may have lost this gambit.
But here is the interesting point: Bush didn’t just pick a good opportunity to reverse the forward movement that the left had been making since 1968 (a movement that had shockingly NOT been discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union)…he decided to pick a fight with the internationalist left because he knew that conservative Muslims would find themselves allied with the very people who were culturally a lot more DANGEROUS to religious Islam than western conservatives were!! Do the Islamists really want Al Jazeera advocating gay marriage next year, which is the trend if they don’t turn against the western left soon.
At the current time, it seems that Islamists are still locked in battle with Bush’s army and are using the western left to weaken Bush’s army…but when they realize that they have not only permanently lost Iraq as a Sunni nation, but might soon lose Saudi Arabia as a Sunni nation…they will be able to save face in becoming friends with America by saying it had been the “weak” American liberals all along whom they had wanted to attack on 9-11. It is part of Arab tradition to respect those who fight well against you and dishonor those who have shown cowardice against you.
Bush’s strategy is to either make the western left the big loser in the Middle East (by causing Islamic conservatives to wince one too many times at the incredible levels of cowardice that they are showin gin this war) or to make the western left the instrument that destroys fascist Islam from within via the injection of nihilism and by making the Islamicists complain one too many times about things like American “fascists” “torturing” prisoners (which would have the, to them, unfortunate consequence of convincing their arab base that they should all become pacifist liberals because “torturing is wrong and should not be practiced by anyone” including Islamicists).
It may or may not be germaine to note that a lot of the hostages taken in Iraq were and are anti-war leftist fruit cakes. Don’t for a second believe that the terrorist organizations don’t have a finely honed knowledge of just how weak and spineless American and European leftists can be…and how they can be played like puppets in this war…until the time comes to ally with the American conservatives or face the loss of Mekkah to the Shiites…or the Sunni political base becomes just as pacifist as western liberals.
3) Flypaper Strategy: A major American reason for what became the UN sanctioned Occupation of Iraq (as opposed to the 3 week war)…was to let the western and Mideastern left wing motivated the criminal elements of mideast society into going to Iraq to die like flies on flypaper. This strategy has been working wonders. Estimates are that anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 enemy fighters (of all kinds) have been killed or captured so far(and many prisoners will be hopefully executed by the Shiites soon).
The whole point of the Flypaper Strategy was to get a lot of people (who already hated the USA or Bush anyway) “angry” at the USA or Bush. The concept is called “controlled burn”. The American left wing would burn up its fuel in its anti-Bush hatred (which would blow up in their faces if even one car bomb ever exploded in the USA)…while tons of the stupidest young arabs from across Europe and the Middle East would commit Darwinian suicide and remove their “genes” and vicious attitudes from the remaining societies.
I live in Germany and I have clearly seen the cities empty of the criminal arab types…the ones I didn’t trust to be on the same sidewalk with me before the war. I assume that many of these low-life arabs had their faces shot off in Iraq.
Now you can say that there is an evergrowing and everlasting supply of young Sunni arabs who now hate the USA for what happened in Iraq but wouldn’t have hated the USA otherwise…but you could say the same thing about the Battle of Stalingrad causing a massive surge in Nazi Party membership and enlistment of teenage boys in the German military…a lot of people who agree with fascist leaders but don’t think they have to become soldiers…will join your army if it suddenly seems like their entire fascist civilization is threatened.
So, bottom line, when you show that you are “horrified” that so many Sunni arabs and left wingers in “other countries” don’t like us…you are forgetting that the whole point of the war was to expose the leftist westerners and anti-American arabs so they could be done battle with (literally or figuratively).
You can argue that Bush has been miserable at battling the leftist press. But you cannot argue that the kill ratios in Iraq have been excellent and there may have been a lot more “insurgents” killed and incinerated than the US Army is admitting to.
I will continue…
OK, folks, I think we’re starting to drift a bit.
Monday morning, I’ll post the summary of arguments against the war, and open that up to editing and improvement.
Tuesday we’ll start talkiing about them, and next week, we’ll start with the other side. I’m going to invite Chris to do the summation on that side, if I can get in touch with him…
A.L.