Daniel in Brookline: Comments
Sir, the rebuttal to your post is simply this quote from Condi Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
I'm not understanding whether you and your cohorts are arguing that President Bush did not actually utter these types of fearful phrases, therefore, he did not lie or that Bush's actions and words somehow are not part of the entire administration.
Your Pro-Israel banner, which I am not against, plainly clouds your view of this unfortunately war.
As for the other post mentioned, you can lay out bullet points all over the place and created some sort of logic for your argument, but the facts are that Bush's first of many shifting reasons for war in the Iraq was WMD. When that failed it was Saddam the Brute, then it was bin Laden and Saddam drinking a beer together hashing over destroying America and then it was for Democracy to bloom in the desert.
The reasons for war were of no importance to this administration. Just get there and transform the country in our image at whatever the cost.
You're backing a losing horse.
Steve:
Consider that Daniel's relationship with Israel -- including his service in the IDF -- has probably SHARPENED his focus regarding what it takes to stop thugs like Saddam, not clouded it. He's been a lot closer to these problems than you and I.
Tell me -- what motive did the President have in doing this, other than the ones stated?
We already know how greedy men would exploit the situation ... and if Bush emulated them, he would have joined Oil-For-Food, removed sanctions, and won a Nobel Peace Prize ... the Iraqi people and American security be damned, as Saddam would have been free and clear to resume his WMD programs under such a scenario.
And also tell me -- why SHOULDN'T we have gone to war against such a tyrant as Saddam?
Show me one instance in history where a meglomaniacal tyrant, empowered by the wealth of a nation, stopped expanding his totalitarian rule ON HIS OWN?
This war was INEVITIBLE ... because men like Saddam and Osama only respond to one thing ... the resolute use of force.
I knew this ... well before this President took office.
Here's my take on this war, from the very first post of my own blog:
Taking Saddam & Sons out, in the context of fighting terrorism, is the exact equivalent to bombing munitions plants in WWII -- instead of just concentrating on capturing Hitler. Because of our success in doing so, the next terrorist attacks (AQ and otherwise) will be far more likely to be fought with boxcutters, AK's, and car bombs -- than be leveraged with the power of such force multipliers as VX.
In this same post, I point out how Saddam was a threat unique enough to be first on the American Hit Parade.
If the "horse" you are talking about loses, it will be due to a relapse into the myopia brought about by intellectual malnutrition -- the result of excessive consumption of the comfort food of Utopian idealism, where no man is beyond reason, and all deal in good faith.
We lived with that kind of mental famine for decades, and our enemies -- men who have no problems twisting our own good faith around and killing us with it -- grew stronger, more entrenched ... and bolder, as they saw us sit around and do nothing to stop them.
If that horse loses, America ... and the world ... loses, and loses big.
I ... and I am sure, Daniel and many others ... will do whatever it takes to not let that happen.
We won't be fooled again ... by those who preach peace through universal impotence. We are tired of the mixture of myopia and arrogance from our intellectual "betters" and chattering classes -- and seek more of the common sense and PRUDENCE we have seen in our foreign policy since 11 September 2001.
Many thanks, Rich! Your arguments are eloquent and compelling, as always.
Steve, let me address the one personal point you chose to make:
Your Pro-Israel banner, which I am not against, plainly clouds your view of this unfortunately war.
I'd be interested in hearing your logic for reaching this conclusion. Yes, I have argued the case of the war in Iraq many times, here and elsewhere; and I have discussed Israeli events from a Zionist perspective many times, here and elsewhere. But so far as I recall, I have never argued in favor of the Iraq war as an Israeli.
The reason for that is simple. Israel is not fighting this war; she was not invited to the party, just as she was not in 1991. America had strong and compelling reasons, post-9/11, to force Iraq to disarm, by diplomacy or by force. Israel, on the other hand, has no greater interest now than she did in 2000.
If you believe that my Israeli citizenship has caused me somehow to support the war in Iraq, I'd be most interested in hearing why.
respectfully,
Great post Dan. Im also agree with Rich, this war was inevitable. Thugs like Hussien and Bin Laden march to their own drum. No WMD found in Iraq is a misnomer, there was WMD in Iraq, and some was discovered after our invasion. The liberals argument is that we didnt find stockpiles of WMD, well that may be true of some of the WMD, but one can hardly argue that finding 500 tons of Yellowcake Uranium in Iraq AFTER the invasion, is not fiding stockpiles of WMD. Don't forget 1.8 tons of it was refined and enough to build one nuke. One nuke to many for Hussien.
I find it irresponsible to say that this war was inevitable. How was our going to war with Iraq inevitable? The war in Afghanistan was inevitable. The body of the beast that attacked our country was housed and supported there. Why Iraq and not Iran, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia? Iran which is in fact developing nuclear weapons (and there is no doubt about it - also they are far more active suppports of Al queda than Iraq ever was). Or North Korea, a country with a dictator who doesn't march to his own drum, rather marches with to no steady beat whatsoever?
A war which was sold to us through falsehoods and whose reconstruction has since been mismanaged, all labeled as "inevitable" sets a dangerous precedent for us to go to war with anyone who looks at us funny without considering reprocussions or any real follow through.
Amichai,
If I accepted the rest of your assertions, then I'd no doubt accept your conclusion as well. But I don't.
I do not accept that the war was sold to us through falsehoods, although it's been packaged that way by an increasingly shrill anti-war crowd. I will accept that the war has been "mismanaged", if we understand that to mean that in wartime there are errors, sometimes huge errors... and if we also accept that, by the standards of other American wars, this one has been relatively clean indeed. (Read up on WWII, and on avoidable battles that cost tens of thousands of lives. The American Civil War was even worse.)
Why attack Iraq, and not other countries? For a variety of reasons, that made a great deal of sense at the time, many of which continue to make sense today. Iran was, and is, a very hard nut to crack, with three times the size of Iraq and heavy mountainous regions (instead of Iraq's plains and deserts). Going after Syria first would have made no sense; they would have been propped up by Iran (and Iraq) anyway. Saudi Arabia is, for better or for worse, a country whose good-will we're still dependent on for running our industries and our economy; I strongly believe that regime change in Saudi Arabia is an eventual necessity, but there are strong reasons for not making it our first target. As for North Korea -- well, given that there are strong indications that they already have a nuke or two; given that the entire country is on the verge of collapse, and may yet implode on its own if we can get China to stop paying NK's bills; and given that NK never had the connections to Terror International that Iraq does, there are good reasons to pick a different first target.
Iraq, though, was a secular country before Saddam ruined it, and thus stood a good chance of forming a stable democracy if given a chance. Iran was not likely to support it overtly, and in fact did not; they still have long memories of Saddam's war against them in 1980-1988. Iraq was a known supporter of terror (albeit not of al-Qaida specifically), known to be seeking WMD, and known to attack without warning. And Iraq was in violation of no less than sixteen UNSC resolutions, making it possible to make a strong international case for regime change. (That reason doesn't look as good today as it did in 2002. Nobody's perfect.)
One more point: going after Afghanistan dealt with the immediate problem. But President Bush sought to drain the swamp... which meant venturing outside Afghanistan, and brought us to the calculus I summarized in the previous paragraph.
Right now, Islamist terrorists worldwide continue to convene on Iraq... and die, facing American troops. (This used to be called "the flypaper strategy"... and it's working. Terrorists are dying by the thousands in Iraq, and not attacking soft targets in the United States.) Terrorists, anxious to wreak havoc where they can, are now attacking
(continued)
Right now, Islamist terrorists worldwide continue to convene on Iraq... and die, facing American troops. (This used to be called "the flypaper strategy"... and it's working. Terrorists are dying by the thousands in Iraq, and not attacking soft targets in the United States.) Terrorists, anxious to wreak havoc where they can, are now attacking Muslim targets... causing Muslims, worldwide, to see just how corrosive their support of terror has been, which by my lights is a very positive development indeed.
I'm glad that we didn't stop after toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan... for the same reason that I'm glad my doctor wouldn't treat an ulcer with painkillers, or a brain tumor with aspirin. When the problem is serious, you don't simply deal with the external symptoms; you try to eliminate the problem at the source, so that it doesn't come back to haunt you later. That's what we're doing, and I remain convinced that it is the correct course.
(And yes, tens millions of Iraqis are now free, which was not the original objective, but which sure feels nice now! This is called "doing well by doing good".)
respectfully,
amichai -- war is inevitible when your enemy is so depraved and corrupt, he will not turn from his wicked ways.
Our refusal to acknowledge this when it appears has cost millions of lives, which I lay at the feet of the so-called "peace-loving" Left. As much as they love peace, the cause of peace has advanced in my generation ONLY WHEN we ignored their approach and let the "cowboys" like Reagan and Bush 43 ride.
(That is, unless you count the peace of the graveyard in the total ... in that case, one could say that the Left has "spent" millions for that kind of peace.)
Why Saddam first?
Here's why.
Here's another way to state it:
TOP TEN REASONS SADDAM WAS FIRST ON THE AMERICAN HIT PARADE ... BEFORE THE MULLAHS/DEAR LEADER/SAUDIS/or even OSAMA:
10> Directly contributed to the corruption of Iraqi society ... and the UN.
9> "American leaders shred paper ... but I shred people!"
8> Raised Uday and Qusay (now DEAD-AY, thanks to President Bush) in his own image.
7> Sending his armed Welcome Wagons to Kuwait ... then the world let him keep his wagons in 1991 so he could do it again.
6> Cannon envy.
5> His own centrifuge garden.
4> Unlike with the Dear Leader, a powerful nation isn't holding his chain ... only a weak Russia and a limp-wristed France, both with Vaseline on the hand holding the leash.
5> "
(oops)
3> Location, Location, Location.
2> A staunch supporter of the Human Grenade movement ... and owned/operated the terrorist farm system -- where up-and-comers like Zarqawi could learn from the old boys like Abu Nidal.
1> Saddam: "Hey, mullahs ... you're wusses. No one tells me what to do ... not Bush, not the UN, not you, not even my own leadership. I TELL THEM WHAT TO DO ... OR I FIRE THEM (with a 9mm slug) AND REPLACE THEM!
CHECKS AND BALANCES? THEY'RE FOR WIMPS ... I DO WHAT I WANT, WHEN I WANT IT, THE WAY I WANT IT!
You're such a gunslinger. A big government, bleeding heart conservative?
Let me give you some perspective on "your war".
Don't you see how foolish your exhuberance for a far-flung, phony war looks to the rest of the country and world?
Why are you so happy to be duped? Here's an apt analogy:
Wouldn't you feel foolish if you were telling everyone how great your wife was when the rest of the neighborhood knew she was having an affair with Mandingo, the three-legged paper boy, who also eats your favorite pork rinds and watches your 60-inch big screen while you're
out saving the Middle East?
...and for Mr. Daniel In Brookline, we're not going to have a meaningful debate if you're already capitulating. I don't care how liberal might be, at times.
You worry about being called un-American, but not a neocon?
Why do I presume that your view of the war is steeped in your ties to Israel? Are you kinding me? You wear it on your sleeve.
It begins with the false premise of "poor Israel" and ends with a venomous desire to rule the Middle East.
The neocons in the Bush administration have strong ties to Israel, everybody knows this and they have the same gung-ho attitude towards the Middle East as your "cabal" of conservative contributors.
It's no coincidence that the seige of Iraq was followed by whispers of attacking Syria. With those countries occupied by the U.S., Israel would have a peaceful eastern border.
The whole self-preservation argument from Israel is bunk. The entire operation to "remake" the Middle East is completely in Israel's best interests.
Why do I suspect your Israeli loyalty clouds your reasoning for war? Because none of your arguments entail anything beneficial to the United States. You're not even offering the compulsory homeland security defense.
I have sympathy for the Israeli society. Because of the brutes in their neighborhood, everyone is too familiar with the inner-workings of gas masks and teenagers are schooled in using a rifle, but the revamping of the entire Muslim and Arab society is none of the business of the United States, especially if you completely reject that the excursion halts terrorism against the U.S. and Saddam was Hitler incarnate.
steve
Steve,
Your paraphrasing of my arguments misses the point completely... which suggests to me that either you aren't listening or you aren't trying.
If you insist that the war in Iraq was launched to benefit Israel, you'll have to come up with better reasoning than that. Your "everyone knows" argument is deep into conspiracy-theory territory. Ditto for your comment about how the war is in Israel's best interest. I agree, it is; so what? This is what statisticians call "correlation without causation" -- or, in the layman's formulation, just because the cat had her kittens in the oven, that don't make them biscuits.
If you want to persuade me that Israel's "self-preservation argument" is "bunk", you'll have to work harder than that. A lot harder. And you'll have to exhibit a lot more knowledge of Zionism, of Israel and her neighbors, and of Israeli politics than you've shown thus far... because adequate knowledge in any of these fields would poke large holes in your thesis.
America is not beholden to Israel and her interests, and I wouldn't want it any other way. America must look out for America's interests, first and foremost, and worry about her allies second. As such, American interests most emphatically are of higher priority to the American government than Israeli interests... and again, that's as it should be.
Yes, Steve, I wear my love for Israel on my sleeve. (I should; I lived there for fourteen years, served for three in the IDF, and still proudly carry my Israeli passport alongside my American one.) And you still haven't demonstrated that this has anything to do with my support for the war. If you're unable to imagine a better reason for me to support the war, then that's a failing of your imagination, not mine.
For the sake of the record, let me state unequivocally: I do not advocate that the United States go to war to protect Israeli interests, now or ever. Protecting Israeli interests is Israel's job, period. Nor would it be necessary; Israel has demonstrated a facility for looking after her own interests reasonably well, thank you very much... except for those occasions when her hands were tied, usually by the United States. (1956, 1973, and 1991 come to mind, but other examples abound.)
One last point: Steve, I have no worries about being called un-American, or neocon, or anything you like. But if you expect to be taken seriously, you should be prepared to back up your name-calling with adequate reasons... which so far you have not done.
Try again, Steve. You can do better than that.
Don't you see how foolish your exhuberance for a far-flung, phony war looks to the rest of the country and world?
Far-flung ... in this interconnected world of today, where the oceans no longer protect us?
Phony ... when in fact, GWB was as good to his word:
> Finally, we can be assured that Saddam Huessein does not have the ability to either directly deploy WMD, or deliver it to terrorist surrogates ... a condition NO ONE, be they President, Senator, Head Spook at any intel agency around the world, UN Secretary General, or weapons inspector was able to achieve prior to this war. Consider this war a comprehensive weapons inspection for any WMD under Saddam's control ... the only comprehensive one, free of the obfuscation, obstruction, and shell-gaming of Saddam & Sons.
> We can also be assured that Saddam no longer has the ability to reconstitute those shelved WMD programs documented in the NON-PARTISAN Duelfer Report. Riddle me this ... just how were we going to stop those programs from restarting, once Saddam squeaked by one (non-comprehensive) weapons inspection and got sanctions lifted? Those were every bit as dangerous in the long term as any "stockpile".
> We are also assured that Saddam no longer has access to that 500 tons of uranium -- and that 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium -- for further processing into radiological, or even nuclear, weapons. Don't give me any BS about IAEA seals ... they are only as good as IAEA access to the sealed areas, which was under the control of who? Saddam. No reasonable person would place their trust in such a situation.
> We are also assured that Saddam can no longer stoke the fires of Palestinian terrorism, one $25,000 log at a time ... and we are assured that he can no longer deliver his usual material/logistical/training/medical services to terrorists, including shelter to all those "retired" terrorists who fled to Iraq, the 1993 WTC bomber, and a certain headchopper by the name of Zarqawi. We are also assured that those documented, casual ties between Saddam & AQ will never be turned into a full operational relationship.
> Of course ... keep in mind, this was always about more than Al Quada ... this is a TOTAL War on Terror, that is being intelligently fought ... with the recognition that not all of the Arab/Muslim world, even in Saudi Arabia, is our enemy.
> The resolve of this Presdient put an end to the filling of mass graves by Saddam & Sons. And look at those MILLIONS of purple fingers who are pointing the way to taking their nation back ... another FACT that gives the LIE to assertions that this was "imperialism" on the part of America.
> Finally, if you had your way, Saddam would still be in power ... instead of being on trial, not for the pleasure of George W. Bush, but for crimes against his own people. ... with his successors, Uday and Qusay ...DEAD-AY
This list shows that the issues this President cited to justify this war ... Saddam's deal
(continued from above):
This list shows that the issues our President cited as justification for this war ... Saddam's dealings with WMD, his terrorist support, and freedom for the Iraqi people ... were REAL ... not "manufactured". And it also shows that George W. Bush ... who this independent is proud to call "my President" ... was good to his word, and addressed them, decisively, by removing Saddam & Sons from control of Iraq.
As for the opinions of others ... consensus that is not based in sound principle is the way of the lemming, and leads to the same end.
Given our recent history, where progress in the areas of world peace and human freedom has been greatest when "cowboys" like Reagan and our current President took the reins of this nation, ignored those who preach peace through impotence, and confronted evil wisely and decisively ... I would say that it is you who has been duped.
Every time we tried it your way, the thugs grew stronger and bolder ... as they saw that they faced no consequences from us for even lethal acts.
It is their opinion I seek to change ... and you don't change it by the do-nothing (or wait-for-the-UN, which is the same thing) Leftist foreign policy you seem to desire.
It is small consolation that you are admired by others ... when the only chance to receive such admiration is at your funeral.
Commenting by HaloScan
