Wither Iraq

[okarol]

 

[BigSky]

Here is a summary of the Iraq war's impact - mostly in their own words http://nsnetwork.org/node/257

Bad form IMO for a site to try to lay claim to as being authority such as the claim of their name:  National Security Network and taking quotes and not putting them into context of the speech they were used with or responses to questions that were posed to them.

It's unknowable but would it have been worse if we had pulled back to northern Iraq and let the Baath Party sort it out once we found Saddam in his spider-hole? I think we would have avoided a lot of heartache and be in a better position today with regard to Iran. I think we still have that option except now we've entrenched the shiites but that really is water under the bridge. We're not getting that one back. Iraq and Iran will be strategic allies in the 21st century.

If we would have pulled to Northern Iraq and just went after Saddam (and his sons) only post Iraq would be very much a mess and millions of Iraqis would have been tortured and or killed by the Baath party. 

While Saddam would have been gone the party would have remained and there were just as many blood thirsty people in the wings that would have made sure their position did not change.

Just as the US and the coalition failed to support the first Iraqi uprising after Desert Storm which caused millions to be tortured and killed, the same more likely than not would have occurred in a post Saddam world without US and Coalition intervention to have a government of the people in Iraq.

Iran and Iraq will be limited allies in any manner. While they may have something in common on religion. There is too much history between the two of them to be true allies.  Not to mention that the people of Iran are not arabs and are viewed differently by the people of the middle east since most of the middle east and northern africa are arabs.

[kitkatz]

Remember we can have a debate and not call each other names in the middle of the argument.

[Bill Peckham]

Here is a summary of the Iraq war's impact - mostly in their own words http://nsnetwork.org/node/257

Bad form IMO for a site to try to lay claim to as being authority such as the claim of their name:  National Security Network and taking quotes and not putting them into context of the speech they were used with or responses to questions that were posed to them.

Each quote comes with a link taking you to the context of the statement. In what case does the context of the quote change the meaning of the statement? Does it matter that President Bush was wearing a flight suit, standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and had a giant banner behind him that said "Mission Accomplished" (as someone who makes banners I find it curious that an aircraft carrier would have the ability to produce an over sized banner) when he said “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

I don't think anyone who is quoted has walked back from those statements? I think Rummy still thinks "stuff happens".

[BigSky]

Each quote comes with a link taking you to the context of the statement. In what case does the context of the quote change the meaning of the statement? Does it matter that President Bush was wearing a flight suit, standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and had a giant banner behind him that said "Mission Accomplished" (as someone who makes banners I find it curious that an aircraft carrier would have the ability to produce an over sized banner) when he said “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

I don't think anyone who is quoted has walked back from those statements? I think Rummy still thinks "stuff happens".

Ohh please.  The reason it was done like that is because you know as well as I know the vast majority of people who read it will never click on each link and thereby will run with their own idea of what was said. 

You brought up the "banner" and that is the perfect example.

That banner signified on thing.  The combat operations with Iraq (Saddam) was over.  It had nothing to do with the eventual fight with terrorists in Iraq but yet liberals point to the banner incident as some premature claim of victory by Bush.   Fact is the fight with terrorists is ENTIRELY separate and different from what our combat operations were against the government that was run by Saddam.

[Bill Peckham]

Each quote comes with a link taking you to the context of the statement. In what case does the context of the quote change the meaning of the statement? Does it matter that President Bush was wearing a flight suit, standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and had a giant banner behind him that said "Mission Accomplished" (as someone who makes banners I find it curious that an aircraft carrier would have the ability to produce an over sized banner) when he said “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

I don't think anyone who is quoted has walked back from those statements? I think Rummy still thinks "stuff happens".

Ohh please.  The reason it was done like that is because you know as well as I know the vast majority of people who read it will never click on each link and thereby will run with their own idea of what was said. 

You brought up the "banner" and that is the perfect example.

That banner signified on thing.  The combat operations with Iraq (Saddam) was over.  It had nothing to do with the eventual fight with terrorists in Iraq but yet liberals point to the banner incident as some premature claim of victory by Bush.   Fact is the fight with terrorists is ENTIRELY separate and different from what our combat operations were against the government that was run by Saddam.

It's great to be back to what the meaning of is, is. Kinda like catching the Frisbee, without considering the alligator.

I'll ask again, in which case does the context of the quote change the meaning of the statement?

[Bill Peckham]

Remember we can have a debate and not call each other names in the middle of the argument.

Where was that done?

[okarol]

Remember we can have a debate and not call each other names in the middle of the argument.

Where was that done?

In civilization! 

Ohh you mean name calling? I didn't see any.

[kitkatz]

Just a little friendly reminder to play nice.

[mysty]

Recent articles of interest...

This one by Leonard Pitts   http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/461978.html

This one by Ana Menendez  http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/ana_menendez/story/461888.html

Just a couple of different views.. and how the younger generation on the second one.. have turned a blind eye to what affects their world.

[Sluff]

I believe the name calling if any was edited already. Play nice and get on with the debate.

[Bill Peckham]

Ilan Goldenberg flags Bush (http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/03/bushs-james-bon.html) talking an unusually strong brand of nonsense:

President Bush: Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened -- with new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America. An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq's oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations.

Ilan focused on the implausibility of al-Qaeda gaining control over Iraq's oil fields (they're not in the Sunni Arab parts of Iraq, among other things). I would also note that were this bizarre scenario to unfold, it would be pretty trivial for the U.S. military to capture or control any AQI-held oil fields -- a poorly equipped guerilla force can't defend a fixed position in the open.

On top of that, though, this business about al-Qaeda securing a recruiting boon from us leaving Iraq is bizarre. According to MNF-Iraq, (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/profile_of_a_suicide_bomber.php)the occupation of Iraq is the main fact driving recruits to join AQI. Absent the occupation, there's no recruiting pitch. Pearl Harbor was a boon to U.S. military recruiting, VJ Day wasn't. And what's this business about them acquiring "an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America." Does Bush really think they lack determination now?

It's striking how much of conservative thinking about national security these days centers around subjective factors -- determination, emboldening, "claiming victory" -- rather than on objective assessments. Objectively speaking, withdrawing from Iraq would cut off a major line of recruiting for al-Qaeda while simultaneously freeing up vast quantities of American manpower and other resources. How "bold" that makes al-Qaeda leaders feel (and you've got to figure these p*ckers were pretty "emboldened' already when they blew up the twin towers, right?) has nothing to do with anything.(http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/president_knownothing.php)

[xtrememoosetrax]

Hi Bill, and anyone else who is interested,

Interesting series in Slate (the online magazine) last week:

To mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Slate asked a number of writers who originally supported the war to answer the question, "Why did we get it wrong?"

Here's the link: http://www.slate.com/id/2186757/

Several of the essays discuss the subject of good intentions gone awry, and I feel that cumulatively, the series does a good job of grappling with the many complexities of the situation.  If only there were simple answers . . . . sigh . . . .

[Bill Peckham]

Hi Bill, and anyone else who is interested,

Interesting series in Slate (the online magazine) last week:

To mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Slate asked a number of writers who originally supported the war to answer the question, "Why did we get it wrong?"

Here's the link: http://www.slate.com/id/2186757/

Several of the essays discuss the subject of good intentions gone awry, and I feel that cumulatively, the series does a good job of grappling with the many complexities of the situation.  If only there were simple answers . . . . sigh . . . .

I saw the series too emt. I think you can not overstate the impact of that moment in time, weeks before an election 14 months after September 2001. The advise often given to people applies to governments too - don't make big decisions when you're mad.

One thing I think about is: if the Iraq policies were doomed to failure, how would the war's advocates ever know? Many seem to imagine that if this or that decision was made differently then things would have unfolded in a way more favorable to our interests. I think once the decision was made to go in, the policy had already failed. Assuming the actual goal was a stable Iraq that would serve as a model to the rest of the Arab middle east: that was never possible via coercion.

[BigSky]

Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein

Seems to be  a different view on the IDA report.

Iraqi Documents Show al Qaeda Ties

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2D96881B-4DEB-4619-A1B1-C68584D5878C


Not to mention these nuggets of the past.

ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.(1999)

From the 1998 Federal Indictment by the Clinton Justice Department against Osama bin Laden

"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.''



It would seem it was the Clinton Administration who made the link long before Bush was in office.

[Bill Peckham]

Sure count the Pentagon report as unreliable and everything published by a neocon think tank as unimpeachable. I don't think very many voters will find reports from the David Horowitz Freedom Center very persuasive.

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and 620,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites. DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so far this year.

Since 2003, the Center has promoted an Academic Bill of Rights to support students’ academic freedom, and free the American university from political indoctrination and renew its commitment to true intellectual diversity. In 2006, the Center established another organization, Students and Parents for Academic Freedom in K-12 schools, modeled on the university campaign and with the same agenda: to take politics out of the public school classroom.

In 2006, the Center’s Board of Directors decided to change the name of the organization to the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

[BigSky]

Sure count the Pentagon report as unreliable and everything published by a neocon think tank as unimpeachable. I don't think very many voters will find reports from the David Horowitz Freedom Center very persuasive.

Horowitz never wrote the article nor employed the person who wrote it.

Before you try telling me about the Pentagon report bill,  Try reading it.  You will see how the headline misconstrued what the report actually talked about.

[boxman55]

I am one who feels we need to let this take its course. We can not allow the terrorist's to regain control of Iraq. There is a lot of positive things happening there and we must continue to help them. For me it is kinda like when you decide you need a new kitchen. When the project starts everyone is OK with it. But then like most projects you run into piping  or electrical problems that weren't anticipated and the job takes longer then you thought and the wife and kids are getting sick of washing and cooking in the basement waiting for it to be done. It will be done but, additional time and patience must be applied....Boxman

[Bill Peckham]

Sure count the Pentagon report as unreliable and everything published by a neocon think tank as unimpeachable. I don't think very many voters will find reports from the David Horowitz Freedom Center very persuasive.

Horowitz never wrote the article nor employed the person who wrote it.

Before you try telling me about the Pentagon report bill,  Try reading it.  You will see how the headline misconstrued what the report actually talked about.

In case anyone is wondering what is this conspiracy between AQ and Saddam,  BigSky is talking about: today, the Wall Street Journal (the once conservative bastion) placed itself firmly among the conspiracy theorists with an editorial claiming that the new report “buttress[es] the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one“:

Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.

Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.

The editorial goes on to claim that the new report is “inconvenient…for those who want to assert that somehow Saddam could have been easily contained and presented no threat to the U.S.” Leaving aside whether anyone has claimed that Saddam presented “no threat,” the point is that we now know that Saddam didn’t represent nearly the threat that the Bush administration claimed, and that Saddam’s “relationship” with Al Qaeda amounted to little more than a shared hatred of the United States.

More to the point: Does anybody seriously believe that if the report had demonstrated a significant Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, as the Wall Street Journal claims, that Bush administration officials would not trumpet that fact from the rooftops? Of course they would. But, as even the Bush administration now knows, there was no significant connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda; those who argued that there was are now exposed as dissemblers and frauds, and they are very upset about it.

Transcript from Thursday, Richard Perle attempted a similar sleight-of-hand on the Charlie Rose program.:

    PERLE: When you look at the actual report, what it concludes is that Saddam’s intelligence had connections with terrorists all over the place.

    ROSE: But that’s not Al Qaeda. I understand the differences but it’s not Al Qaeda. The issue here is Al Qaeda, was it not?

    PERLE: It included relationships with organization affiliated with Al Qaeda. Any number of such organizations.

    ROSE: Affiliated In what way?

    PERLE: In the way that they were supporting individuals who were part of organizations that were linked to Al Qaeda.

from the Wonk Room http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/24/wsj-saddam-al-qaeda/

In the way that they were supporting individuals who were part of organizations that were linked to Al Qaeda. I suppose that is what the Pentagon report meant when it concluded (PDF link) http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf
   

In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and the forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba’ath movement.

    But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

In the way that they were supporting individuals who were part of organizations that were linked to Al Qaeda.

[BigSky]

You might well note bill that Iraq was forbidden from supporting, talking or meeting with ANY terrorist or terrorist group.


Also of note the threat was bigger than a shared hatred of the US.   IE Clinton bombing of Sudan might give you a hint.


Time and time again reports like this state to the effect that no collaborative operational relationship existed between the two on 9/11 ONLY.

Which then somehow gets distorted that there were no links or talks between the two at all.   Asshat Al Gore was a good one at distorting such stuff.


Also as to the federal indictment.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

 "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

You might note shortly after the US embassy bombings Clinton bombed the Sudan factories bin laden was associated with and his camps in Afghanistan

"Bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program." --Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Clinton Administration

U.N. ambassador Bill Richardson appeared on CNN and pointed to "direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden" and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation. "You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case."


Since you hold the New York Times is such high regard bill.

New York Times revealed the contents of an Iraqi Intelligence document that discusses the Iraq-bin Laden "relationship" and plans for bin Laden to work with Iraq against the ruling family in Saudi Arabia. The document states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." The Iraqi document, which refers to the period of the first Clinton term, has been "authenticated by the U.S. government," according to the front-page story.

Even Saddam's son Uday published in his paper "Babel" that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were meeting.

[Bill Peckham]

No one says Iraq in January of 2002 presented no danger. The documents show that he was a typical danger. An average danger, in a dangerous world.

What has happened because we chose to attack Iraq is so extremely bad that Iraq would have had to have been a danger a few magnitudes larger than it was to contemplate our actions. Like a thousand times bigger danger, to even risk what has happened.

To even risk the possibility of being in the situation we find ourselves in, let alone get us here, simply to risk putting the United States in this position Iraq would have had to pose a thousand times greater danger to the US than it did.

[BigSky]

No one says Iraq in January of 2002 presented no danger. The documents show that he was a typical danger. An average danger, in a dangerous world.

What has happened because we chose to attack Iraq is so extremely bad that Iraq would have had to have been a danger a few magnitudes larger than it was to contemplate our actions. Like a thousand times bigger danger, to even risk what has happened.

To even risk the possibility of being in the situation we find ourselves in, let alone get us here, simply to risk putting the United States in this position Iraq would have had to pose a thousand times greater danger to the US than it did.

Hmm so in other words how many more 9/11's would it have taken bill before you deemed fighting terrorists necessary?


Saddam was removed and it went well in terms of war.

As far as what we are doing now in Iraq fighting terrorists was bound to happen somewhere sooner or later.    We couldnt just ignore the problem with them forever as you seem to suggest.

[Bill Peckham]

No one says Iraq in January of 2002 presented no danger. The documents show that he was a typical danger. An average danger, in a dangerous world.

What has happened because we chose to attack Iraq is so extremely bad that Iraq would have had to have been a danger a few magnitudes larger than it was to contemplate our actions. Like a thousand times bigger danger, to even risk what has happened.

To even risk the possibility of being in the situation we find ourselves in, let alone get us here, simply to risk putting the United States in this position Iraq would have had to pose a thousand times greater danger to the US than it did.

Hmm so in other words how many more 9/11's would it have taken bill before you deemed fighting terrorists necessary?


Saddam was removed and it went well in terms of war.

As far as what we are doing now in Iraq fighting terrorists was bound to happen somewhere sooner or later.    We couldnt just ignore the problem with them forever as you seem to suggest.

ah so now it's not just connection to AQ - In the way that they were supporting individuals who were part of organizations that were linked to Al Qaeda. - it is responsibility for 9/11 that you are assigning to Iraq/Saddam. Total BS.

[BigSky]

ah so now it's not just connection to AQ - In the way that they were supporting individuals who were part of organizations that were linked to Al Qaeda. - it is responsibility for 9/11 that you are assigning to Iraq/Saddam. Total BS.

I never assigned any responsibility to Saddam for 9/11 nor did I say he was involved with Al-Qaeda on 9/11.   

The stuff you make up sometimes is frightful.   No wonder you do not understand the issue.


So just how many 9/11 type attacks should occur before we fight terrorists bill?


Should we wait until 10,000 are dead? 20,000 dead?  Maybe a smallpox epidemic?  Maybe a mushroom cloud over a US city?

What is it?


BTW bill.  Just so you know.  All Al-qaeda members are terrorists, not all terrorists are members of al-qaeda,  ohh and saddam was a terrorist.

[Bill Peckham]

ah so now it's not just connection to AQ - In the way that they were supporting individuals who were part of organizations that were linked to Al Qaeda. - it is responsibility for 9/11 that you are assigning to Iraq/Saddam. Total BS.

I never assigned any responsibility to Saddam for 9/11 nor did I say he was involved with Al-Qaeda on 9/11.   

The stuff you make up sometimes is frightful.   No wonder you do not understand the issue.


So just how many 9/11 type attacks should occur before we fight terrorists bill?


Should we wait until 10,000 are dead? 20,000 dead?  Maybe a smallpox epidemic?  Maybe a mushroom cloud over a US city?

What is it?

BTW bill.  Just so you know.  All Al-qaeda members are terrorists, not all terrorists are members of al-qaeda,  ohh and saddam was a terrorist.

Hmm so in other words how many more 9/11's would it have taken bill before you deemed fighting terrorists necessary? They're not all one big group of terrorists. If AQ had, god forbid, continued to attack us - " more 9/11's" in your words - it would have added zero to the reasons for attacking Iraq. You say " nor did I say he was involved with Al-Qaeda on 9/11" then why would additional 9/11s from AQ make attacking him a better idea?

Saddam was a normal threat. A normal danger. 9/11 did not change how dangerous he was. We stopped fighting the terrorists who attacked us when we went into Iraq.

Simply saying he was part of the same enemy or could be the same or I don't even know what you're saying anymore. AQ's actions did not make Saddam more of a danger. Before and after 9/11 Saddam was an normal danger in a dangerous world. Had AQ continued to somehow attack us Saddam would still have been a normal danger.