Why did we go into Iraq?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

There has always been an "everyone does it" mentality in the middle east in regards to terrorism, and it's a shaky foundation. If even ONE country takes an official (and unofficial) stand against terrorism as a matter of policy, the rest have to follow suit. Why? For the same reason that the school bully loses his playground mojo after one person stands up to him.

I'm not sure where you get that, but even granting that, it is based on the assumption that the one country is perceived to be doing it on its own. Which is certainly not the case in Iraq.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not sure where you get that, but even granting that, it is based on the assumption that the one country is perceived to be doing it on its own. Which is certainly not the case in Iraq.

It's only based on that perception if you're a coddled introspective Westerner like we are. Someone who has been oppressed for a long time who suddenly has access to basic freedoms and rights isn't going to split hairs over who thought of the idea. Their leadership might, and armchair diplomats might, but not the recipient. Of course, there's a big exception to that rule -- the segment of the population that believes the anti-US propaganda machine. But they think we're there to cook and eat their babies anyway, so no amount of 'splainin is going to convince them -- just results.

As far as the bully metaphor goes, I can't think of an example where that model doesn't work. Is anyone in Europe really concerned about the Nazis gaining a serious foothold again? Once they saw Hitler crushed, they realized they didn't have to put up with his ilk again, and...well, they don't put up with his ilk any more.

[Happy Monkey]

Their leadership might,

Isn't that who you expect to take a stand against terrorism as a matter of policy now that Iraq has fallen? You switched from the leaders of Middle Eastern countries other than Iraq to Iraqi citizens there. The citizens of other countries won't view whatever Iraq's got as freedom as long as the US is calling all the shots. And the US will continue calling all the shots as long as there's a major US military presence in Iraq, which I expect to be for all intents and purposes permanent at this rate.

[mrnoodle]

None of the leaders of any of the middle eastern countries will take a cohesive stand against terrorism until they see that it's not going to fly anymore. Iraq is supposedly going to be the model for the new way of doing things in that region. Other countries' leaders are going to view the new government as a US-controlled puppet (a notion fueled by American and European media -- thanks guys) rather than a healthy change. However, the citizens of those countries (and the citizens of Iraq) are more concerned with their day to day lives. It is those people who will be convinced first, and the change will have to work its way up to the leadership. They have these things called free elections now.

why are we so fucking worried about what a bunch of despots and dictators think? The issue at hand is the Iraqi people, and they are enjoying freedom that they've never had thanks to US intervention. Everyone in the region who sees it is eventually going to want a taste for themselves, thus putting political pressure on their respective goverments. The theory in itself is simple. The execution of it isn't simple at all.

I'm determined to wear you down on this point: A Free Iraq Is A Good Thing, Even If The Hated USA Does The Freeing.

[Undertoad]

Help me out here, I'm trying to think of a specific "shot they called" since the determination of the final go-ahead date of the election.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

A Free Iraq Is A Good Thing, Even If The Hated USA Does The Freeing.

It's not the who. It's the how. It's the ends not justifying the means. And the ends aren't even there (yet, hopefully). The lack of Saddam doesn't make them free. Ballots without candidates listed doesn't make a free election. An occupying force dead set against international standards of prisoner treatment doesn't make a free society. Contractors with legal immunity guarantees don't make for a secure environment. If Iraq turns out hunky dory in the end, I'll be glad, but it won't excuse the way it was done.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Help me out here, I'm trying to think of a specific "shot they called" since the determination of the final go-ahead date of the election.

Please. That election was for a constitutional convention, not a government. There isn't a shot the US hasn't called. We'll see what happens when the actual Iraqi government forms.

[Undertoad]

So it's a US judge presiding over the Saddam trials then? Please, give me an example.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It's not the who. It's the how. It's the ends not justifying the means. And the ends aren't even there (yet, hopefully). The lack of Saddam doesn't make them free. Ballots without candidates listed doesn't make a free election. An occupying force dead set against international standards of prisoner treatment doesn't make a free society. Contractors with legal immunity guarantees don't make for a secure environment. If Iraq turns out hunky dory in the end, I'll be glad, but it won't excuse the way it was done.

The ends certainly do justify the means in this case. The lack of Saddam does free them to find another leader. The last batch of ballots might not resemble ours, but they're a big step forward -- these people weren't worried about their pet political figure being beaten, they were worried about making it home from the polling places with all their limbs (made possible by our presence, I don't need to add). Our occupying force is THE standard as far as standards of POW treatment is concerned, which is why we've stooped to "journalism" like that displayed in the Newsweek farce. Gitmo is Club Med compared to the jails those thugs are used to. They are able to raise such a huge ruckus over supposed mistreatment of the Koran while we gloss over the weekly beheading video and moan "look what you've driven the noble Arab to, GW Bush."

Abu Ghraib would be a Motel 6. But even so, being shown nekkid ladies and posed in offensive ways is juuuuuuuust a tad less jarring to the old psyche than, say, having your head sawn off with a dull knife. Priorities, people.

Contractors with legal immunity guarantees? What's so threatening about that? They sleep in a barracks inside a cordoned-off military area (the ones that are smart -- some have tried for private housing, but they often end up shot or beheaded because they took their hostile environment too lightly. Perhaps a little protection for the good guys isn't really such a BAD thing.

The template for the left's argument is the old Vietnam-era notion that: 1. ALL military action is evil (particularly if the US is involved), 2. ALL conservative presidents must be thwarted at any cost, and 3. the media must be unified in making sure the country believes 1 and 2, with no regard to fact.

It's boring, frankly.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

None of the leaders of any of the middle eastern countries will take a cohesive stand against terrorism until they see that it's not going to fly anymore. Iraq is supposedly going to be the model for the new way of doing things in that region.

Yeah, remember the "Axis of Evil" speech, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, right? Pick one from that list that doesn't have a functioning nuclear program? No, no, don't tell me. Let us all guess. So the model *I* see is get your nuclear sh*t together and you will gain sufficient respect from the US that they'll (we'll) send in the diplomats before we send in the Marines. You're seeing this unfold right now in both N Korea and in Iran. Nice stabilizing precedent Mr President.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Other countries' leaders are going to view the new government as a US-controlled puppet (a notion fueled by American and European media -- thanks guys) rather than a healthy change.

With. Good. Reason. I will concede, no, celebrate the fact that Saddam's reign was as awful, heinous and inhuman as can be imagined and that *ANY* change is a move up, maybe many moves up. That in no way diminishes the truth of the statement that the Iraqi people and indeed most people in the Middle East will "view the new government as a US-controlled puppet". 'Cause it is.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

However, the citizens of those countries (and the citizens of Iraq) are more concerned with their day to day lives. It is those people who will be convinced first,

How?? We're in an impossible position! We get full credit (extra credit) for all the bad stuff that happens, and, if we're smart give all the credit for anything good that happens to the Iraqis.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

and the change will have to work its way up to the leadership. They have these things called free elections now.

Let me tell you something. Democracy, however fine or faulty a system of government it may be, can not be imposed from the outside. It is the flowering of an internal drive. "I command you to be democratic!" is absurd. If obeyed, what does that make us? What does it make the people of Iraq?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

why are we so fucking worried about what a bunch of despots and dictators think?

Listen closely and I'll tell you. Here's a hint: look at the next quote box, your own words.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The issue at hand is the Iraqi people, and they are enjoying freedom that they've never had thanks to US intervention. Everyone in the region who sees it is eventually going to want a taste for themselves, thus putting political pressure on their respective goverments.

What is it that these people are supposed to want? Our conquering might? Cause that's what's making the headlines, top of the pops, number one with a bullet, and likely to stay there for the foreseeable future. Are they supposed to want our, what, our culture, or our system of government? Like they haven't seen that on display now for, hmm, 200 plus years and they're all of a sudden gonna have the atomic munchies for the "American Way"?

We're supposed to worry about what a bunch of despots and dictators think because our actions are seen by the people of those countries and by the bad leaders. How can we be aloof and aggressive to only the leaders and not to the people? Do we want to have the reputation for just being a "government toppler"? "Looky repressed citizens of ______! We'll save you from your government so you can be like us." Which is to say, what? An aggressive pre-emptive war making superpower? Bah.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The theory in itself is simple. The execution of it isn't simple at all.

Under-fucking-statement of the century. And made immeasuably more difficult and unlikely by the actions of this administration. They "say" they're bringing democracy to Iraq (well, they say a lot of shit, don't they?), but what they *do* is different. And when I meet a man that says one thing and does a different thing, what am I to believe? His actions or his words? What do you do, mrnoodle? How do you resolve that cognitive dissonance? Which stake do you uproot and move toward the other? Do you move your memory of the words toward the actions? Or do you edit your understanding of the facts and disregard the data that mismatches the transcripts? Better question--what do you do when this happens a second time, or many times? When do you decide to disregard the words and rely on the actions?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I'm determined to wear you down on this point: A Free Iraq Is A Good Thing, Even If The Hated USA Does The Freeing.

Those are some pretty big concepts--too big for my small smooth brain. Would you help me with some definitions, please? Like what is "Free" and what do you mean by "Iraq"? Here's where I have a problem--how is it a Free Iraq if we're there against the wishes of so many? Who's "free" now? Where's the autonomy, the sovreignity? There's precious little of it in Iraq.

It is in some ways easier to say that Iraq, as a nation, was freer, possesed of more autonomy under Sadaam than it is today. Is "freedom" the same as anarchy? Would you support that? I don't think so. I don't support it. What make a government legitimate and effective and enduring is the consent of the governed. That was conspicuously absent during Saddam's time, although it was effective and enduring from all accounts. That consent is likewise absent in Iraq today. Being wrestled to the mat and made to cry uncle because your boot is on my neck is NOT an expression of my consent.

There will be disagreements in every population, but the oil on those troubled civil waters is a common belief in the rule of law. Law that applies roughly equally to the governors as well as to the governed. This too is absent in Iraq today, just as it was under Saddam.

The most tragic casualty of this misbegotten adventure is our loss of any pretense to the moral high ground. There is MUCH hypocrisy in the difference between what we say is right and what we do. That is sad, and it has reached unprecedented levels of shamefullness.

I hold MY government to a higher standard. Harder, hell yes. But if we're so superior that we're entitled to haze Iraq into our fraternity of democracy, then such standards should apply.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So the model *I* see is get your nuclear sh*t together and you will gain sufficient respect from the US that they'll (we'll) send in the diplomats before we send in the Marines. You're seeing this unfold right now in both N Korea and in Iran. Nice stabilizing precedent Mr President.

I wish I could bank on that.

[tw]

Originally Posted by headsplice

None of which answers my question.
There are serious consequences for what the United States government, as a whole (including the Democrats that voted for war) has done. We have, literally, done exactly what al-Qaeda has told the Islamic world do. That is, invade a sovereign Middle Eastern nation under a pretext (and the Downing Street Memo is just more of a growing body of circumstantial evidence that the reasons given for invading Iraq were all bullshit) to secure a supply of oil.

You have gotten far closer to the truth than some of your replies. They need step back and see the big picture. Point one is a group called Muslim Brotherhood whose existence dates back to the 1400s. Their enemies are secular Arabic governments. They victims include Sadat of Egypt. They tried to take out Hussein of Jordan and nearly took out Assad of Syria. One of their great enemies was Saddam of Iraq.

One branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is Al Qaeda. But to confuse the issues, many (including some here) have even denied the existence of the Muslim Brotherhood - so as to put a single face to the enemy. That propaganda enemy is called Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda did this and that and ... wait? Who attacked the WTC in 1993? Another branch of ... the Muslim Brotherhood. Not Al Qaeda. Why did we suddenly become the enemy of so many branches in the Muslim Brotherhood?

Now we introduce another concept. What is the purpose of war? To return a conflict to the negotiation table. The most stupendous military victory can be lost if the political side does not plan for the peace. It is why war is fought with a strategic objective. It is why plans for the 'peace' settlement are made often before the first major battles are even fought. Informed political leaders are taught the lessons of history - including the most simple of facts from Sze Tsu's 500 BC book "Art of War". An informed neocon administration would have clearly understood that the police and army are never disbanded. But that is the difference between those who learn from history verses extremists who want to fix history with a political agenda.

When FDR and Churchill planned WWII, they established up front the strategic objective: unconditional surrender. If you don't appreciate why that simple phrase was so divisive to what the world would become, then you have not yet learned from history. Many meetings even at the highest levels were conducted to plan for the peace including Yalta, Tehran, etc. Therefore WWII was a victory because political types prepared for and executed an unconditional surrender.

How to not fight a war - no strategic objective - was Vietnam. The war was created on lies - no smoking gun. It had no strategic objective. It had no objectives from which political types could plan for the peace. Same is true in Somalia.

[To be continued in a next post]

[BigV]

Yeah, that left wing media conspiracy... reconcile these results.

BBC News Headline:

Iraq 'no more safe than in 2003'

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that security in Iraq has not improved statistically since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003.

...

In an interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme, Mr Rumsfeld said Iraq had passed several milestones, like holding elections and appointing a government.

But asked if the security situation had improved, he admitted: "Statistically, no."

"But clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along," he added.

"A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened."

That means "no", right?

Here's another gem:

He added that Syria was not doing enough to stop the insurgency and that Iran was meddling in Iraqi politics.

Iran was meddling in Iraqi politics. You say that like it's a bad thing. What do you call what the US has done and is doing? Do you see the value of the higher standard I appealed for earlier? How can I consider seriously Mr Rumsfeld's complaint that another country (Iran) is "meddling" in Iraqi politics? This utterly transparent double standard completely cuts the legs out from your argument that they want what we have. Anybody ever tell you do what I say not what I do? Without some other leverage over you, what credibility does such a command have? Zero. Perhaps slightly greater than zero if it is a negative example you would want to avoid. But that is not the kind of example we're trying to demonstrate, is it?

Back to the media conspiracy. The same day, FOXNews had this Rumsfeld story.

Spoiler Alert: Here is my favorite line in the article:

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," June 13, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

Emphasis mine. Yeah, "clarity". Hehehehehe.

HANNITY: There's still an insurgency, but there's a lot of progress. What do you make of how that war has been politicized? Where would we be today if we didn't go to Iraq?

CHENEY: Well, I think if Saddam Hussein (search) were still in power, if Iraq were still a safe-haven for terrorists, if in fact he'd been able to continue the pattern of activity he'd undertaken in the past — remember, he's the guy who did produce weapons of mass destruction, did use them against his own people and against the Iranians.

The world's much better off and much safer today because Saddam Hussein's in prison, will soon go on trial in Iraq, and the 25 million people in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, have been liberated. Those are all major achievements.

This is closest to the question asked by the BBC interviewer about the relative safety of the people of Iraq. It really isn't the same question at all and this gives Mr Rumsfeld the wiggle room to say basically the opposite, that "our good actions have had these positive effects" (I paraphrase).

But the same Google news search turned up 87 hits on this item, and FOXNews was the only one that was different. Maybe this is an indictment of Google's news search-bot. But I think it's more likely the editing for clarity that represents difference of content.

[tw]

[continued from the previous one post]

Now that we have introduced concepts that history students should well understand, we go to the Kuwait rescue war. The strategic objective was so painfully obvious that only a fool would call for a move onto Baghdad. The liberation of Kuwait was a phenomenal military victory rarely ever seen in history. And then when Schwarzkopf asked the political types for the terms of Iraqi surrender, well, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were all back in Washington drinking champagne. They never bothered to plan for the peace.

Politicians literally threw away one of the world's most amazing military victories. Saddam moved on to massacre thousands - as even the US Army sat five miles away watching. Saddam then attempted to restart his weapons of mass destruction programs knowing full well his borders contained enemies who would hang him if he did not - especially Iran.

Back up a bit. What did we promise the Arab world after the Kuwait rescue? We promised to leave. We did not. The no fly zone and fully staffed US military bases dotted Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries, etc. We even located one full naval fleet headquarters right in Arab countries. And so in 1991, Muslim Brotherhood saw a new threat to the Arab world and Islam. Previously, Americans were not targets. They most definitely were now. We lied. US did not leave the holiest of Islamic countries.

The first attack was in 1993 on WTC 1. Technically, the 1st Tower should have collapsed upon the second tower. Due to construction superior to what was on paper, WTC 1 did not collapse. That faction of the Muslim Brotherhood disintegrated as this nation's #1 anti-terrorist investigator broke open the entire network - that faction of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another faction was attempting to liberate Yemen from communists when they too saw the American's lie. Bin Laden was nothing more than a support operative who promoted himself as a great leader. His successes were mostly fictional. Only a few followed him until America lied about leaving. Suddenly bin Laden had credibility when he focuses on that American lie. And so an obscure radical faction, eventually forced to flee first to Sudan and later to Afghanistan, somehow managed to coordinate two simultaneous attacks on US embassies.

The US knew something was coming. The US just assumed it was coming elsewhere and made preparations elsewhere. As devastating as those attacks were, it harmed few Americans but harmed many native Kenyans and Tanzanians. The blow was that bin Laden, up to this point nothing more than a suspected money man, could be patient enough and sophisticated enough to get low intelligence extremists to be so destructive. Suddenly bin Laden was a new Muslim Brotherhood threat - and was doing something new - targetting America.

There were other Muslim Brotherhood groups. The attack on Kobe Towers. The massive Millennium New Years Day attacks that Clinton stopped by properly warning government officials AND empowered government anti-terrorists to stop those attacks. Clinton took the threat very seriously and promoted Richard Clark's anti-terrorist group to senior White House levels. We found the bomb intended for LAX in WA because the fat, black Custom officer was told to watch for suspicious activity (Clinton would read his PDBs). She called for backup and chased down a suspect who, in turn lead to suspected bombings in Montreal, Times Square New Years Eve, the Radisson Hotel in Amman Jordan, and others. The only attack not discovered (by empowered little government employees permitted to do their job) was the attack on the destroyer USS The Sullivans. That attack failed because terrorists put too much explosives in the boat; the boat sank.

Notice how terrorism fails when a president reads his PDBs and understands them.

Well now we get a president who does not read his memos AND ignored warnings that became known as 11 September. At least five separate FBI teams were on the trail of the 11 September plot. All were forced by senior officials to stop their investigations for various reasons. This administration had other political agendas. Two agents in Chicago who discovered the money trail were literally yelled at, "You will not open a criminal investigation." But the neocons had mistakes in history to fix. Even Richard Clark's anti-terrorist group was demoted from senior level where the bureacracy would first negotiate their recommendations.

Meanwhile, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich and other neocons who drank champaign instead of planning for Saddam's surrender realized how they would go down into history. They returned to office still viewing the world in terms of cold war adversaries. The anti-terrorist committee group was even removed from the White House since terrrorism was not part of that agenda. The nation's #1 anti-terrorist investigator (who broke the 1993 WTC attack and identified the USS Coles attackers) was driven from government service. First agenda was to fix the Saddam problem they had created. The terrorism that the mistake made was not considered strategically important. Even the 11 September Commission report makes it obvious.

When bin Laden created 11 September, these White House neocons needed a way to put their Iraq invasion plans back on track. As the UK memo points out, the US intended to attack Iraq long before - which is why neocons were looking for anything to blame Saddam for 11 September. The found gullible Americans who would even belive lies and myths about WMDs - and still today spin some details to prove they were right.

As a result of neocon political agenda, the US military never made a serious attempt to get bin Laden. Furthermore, any attempt was half baked - ill planned afterthoughts - that in Tora Bora literally violated military principles for such combat. Many good soldiers died there due to no long term planning at the highest levels.

The president's Jan 2002 State of the Union Address was rigged so that we would assume Saddam and bin Laden was a same enemy. Something like 70% of Americans intially fell for that lie. Bin Laden is still free because we never sent even one division to get him. The agenda was Saddam - to fix mistakes that neocons created in 1990. Even the UK memo noted that agenda. The attack on Saddam was a done deal long before we were moving troops. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovich, etc had to fix their reputations - their 1990 mistake. Previously the US was not regarded as an enemy. The neocons mistake even turned Muslim Brotherhood attention against the US.

Now this is long. It cannot be put in to a sound byte. Therefore many readers have long since given up - looking for simpler reasons. There is no simpler answer. The Iraq invasion was planned and intended by the same neocons who also intend to fix the world - part of their larger plan that even includes complete mistrust of the Russians and Chinese (remember the shooting war we almost started with China over a silly spy plane? Thank Colin Powell for finally stifling the American neocons who were openly advocating war with China).

The other two neocon invasion targets are Iran and North Korea. (Why was Syria not put on the list? Syria was a secret ally of the US providing substanical intelligence information about Saddam et al - until we lied about and attacked Sadam.) Only incompetent leaders in both countries would not be building nuclear weapons. America, a country that now condones torture, also intends to unilaterally attack both nations. We said so in the strategic objective defined in January 2002 - the axis of evil. Many did not really believe the US would abandon a well proven doctrine of containment to do what Tojo and Hitler did - unprovoked and unjustified war on another sovereign nation without either a declaration of war or the approval of the UN.

Now that we unilaterally attacked a sovereign nation (Pearl Harbor style), you can damn well bet Iran and N Korea are building numerous defensive WMDs as any responsible nation would do.

There is no mystery to all this - unless you have a political agenda. Extremists will nit pick these lessons of history to no end. Some are still trying to justify their support of a lie about WMDs. But as evidence continues to come forth - from aluminum tubes that were never appropriate for WMD production, to the various factions of Muslim Brotherhood, and latest is a memo written for Tony Blair - this administration intends to fix the world pre-emptively. This administration has decided to force democracy on other nations as part of a larger plan. And yes, even the Caspian Sea Oil pipeline was strategically located based upon a geo-political plan that has been making Russia's Putin very nervous. Don't fool yourself. This administration has a game plan that included fixing their mistakes, getting more oil (instead of innovating), making allies only for our strategic interests, and masking it all with some nonsense about righteousness, Christian values, and democracy.

We know where they intend to go. Troop movements and military base construction has long been in progress for a future Iran invasion. Why do we have so many bases in all those Kha-stan nations in Central Asia? Under George Jr, we intend to fix the world as if it were a white man's burden - and so that we can get more oil - a strategically necessary entity for a country that advocates more consumption, fixing the world by force, less scientific innovation, and more active military-geo-political solutions (pre-emption) in direct opposition to the well proven strategy of containment (prevention).

Believe me. This is the very abridged version.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I'm determined to wear you down on this point: A Free Iraq Is A Good Thing, Even If The Hated USA Does The Freeing.

Learn from the songs of history. It never made sense to me back then. But as I listened all day and night to the BBC's One Day in Iraq, then I began to appreciate what Janis Joplin sang:

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose...

How appropriate for a Mission Accomplished war. We couldn't force democracy on Haiti or upon Somolia. Democracy is only starting to grow in Balkan regions that finally separate from Serbia - and with over a decade of military occupation of people who really want democracy. Somehow we will force democracy upon Iraq - who never asked for democracy - when our leaders have so little intelligence as to even disband the army and police.

If democracy is such a good solution, then why can't we even force down the throats of Haitians - who don't even suffer under daily violence and insurgency.