Off the topic

[jasonxctf]

a bit off the topic but there are 2 things that are driving me crazy here in the past few days and I feel the need to vent.

 

 

1) People who say that it's ok that Iraq didn't have any WMD's because we were right to invade Iraq anyway and that the world is a safer place without Sadaam?

 

My theory: While Sadaam was no doubt a bad person (as is Castro and numerous other leaders), our containment policies of the 1990's worked just fine and cost 0 American Lives. PLUS this logic in itself is flawed. We were told that Iraq was a danger to the US and thus had to respond by invading the country. We find out that Iraq wasn't a danger and thus shouldn't have invaded.

 

2) People in states like Idaho who say that they are afraid that the terrorists are coming to get them.

 

My theory: WAKE UP PEOPLE. You live in Idaho. Idaho is the least likely target for terrorists. Al Qaeda would attack Guam before they went into Boise. If you live in NY, LA, Chicago, DC, Philly, Miami.. then fine you can be afraid of the terrorists attacking you. If you live in Boise, Cheyenne or Great Falls then forget about it.

[Texsox]

My theory: WAKE UP PEOPLE. You live in Idaho. Idaho is the least likely target for terrorists. Al Qaeda would attack Guam before they went into Boise. If you live in NY, LA, Chicago, DC, Philly, Miami.. then fine you can be afraid of the terrorists attacking you. If you live in Boise, Cheyenne or Great Falls then forget about it.

Oklahoma City isn't exactly a high profile target. I wouldn't be to surprised if terrorists did try and strike in the heart land.

 

Sadaam and his government was evil, but more importantly, we knew we could kick their ass. I am also beginning to wonder if kicking the s*** out of some country wasn't a great way for our country to gain back some self respect and help our collective conciousness. Nice to know if anyone else decides to start something we can destroy them in a few months.

[jasonxctf]

and of course Oklahoma City wasn't attacked by Al Qaeda.

[kapkomet]

Oklahoma City isn't exactly a high profile target. I wouldn't be to surprised if terrorists did try and strike in the heart land.

 

Sadaam and his government was evil, but more importantly, we knew we could kick their ass. I am also beginning to wonder if kicking the s*** out of some country wasn't a great way for our country to gain back some self respect and help our collective conciousness. Nice to know if anyone else decides to start something we can destroy them in a few months.

And, while we are talking conspiracy theory abound,

 

Iraq was the perfect opportunity to start a war to jumpstart the economy. Economies do well in "war mode" by in large because it cycles money through the system.

[Chisoxfn]

a bit off the topic but there are 2 things that are driving me crazy here in the past few days and I feel the need to vent.

 

 

1) People who say that it's ok that Iraq didn't have any WMD's because we were right to invade Iraq anyway and that the world is a safer place without Sadaam?

 

My theory: While Sadaam was no doubt a bad person (as is Castro and numerous other leaders), our containment policies of the 1990's worked just fine and cost 0 American Lives. PLUS this logic in itself is flawed. We were told that Iraq was a danger to the US and thus had to respond by invading the country. We find out that Iraq wasn't a danger and thus shouldn't have invaded.

 

2) People in states like Idaho who say that they are afraid that the terrorists are coming to get them.

 

My theory: WAKE UP PEOPLE. You live in Idaho. Idaho is the least likely target for terrorists. Al Qaeda would attack Guam before they went into Boise. If you live in NY, LA, Chicago, DC, Philly, Miami.. then fine you can be afraid of the terrorists attacking you. If you live in Boise, Cheyenne or Great Falls then forget about it.

Well, couldn't they still be afraid for their families that may live elsewhere or in general for the country. I agree that you have a hell of a lot lesser chance of dying if you live in Wyoming or what not, but that still doesn't mean you won't be effected by a terrorist attack on US soil.

 

Sure, a whole hell of a lot of people live in New York..but New York isn't the only place that was effected by 9/11. The entire US and to a point part of the world was effected by it.

 

As far as Saddam goes and the war in Iraq, you can do a search on any of my posts and I long said I would be for this war regardless of WOMD or not. I also said that I was sure their were other reasons to go into war, hell its politics, their always is. Theirs a reason that coutnries aren't doing all that much in Africa and it downright sucks cause that is the most screwed up continent in the world, imo.

 

However, their is no beating the Bush that Saddam was a murder, he was an evil dictator and he was not afraid to complete all out genocide. He did it in the past and he may of done it in the future. The fact that at least part of that country can be free now is fine with me. I've also said it would be an insanely tough war to win, because people don't like being liberated by someone else, imo. They don't mind the help, but in general the population wants to be liberated and if Iraq is going to end up working out (and its hard to say it will, cause whenever you have the casualties you don't win) but it will take the people buying into the system and starting to see total change and what not.

 

I long believe Bush's greatest mistake was not doing this back in the original Gulf War. However, I still think this war was the right thing to do. As far as weapons, I still think they have some sort of chemical weapons somewhere, but the hell if I know where they are. All that desert, who knows. Maybe intelligence was completely wrong...its been wrong numerous times (Bay of Pigs anyone)

[Texsox]

and of course Oklahoma City wasn't attacked by Al Qaeda.

I thought you said the terrorists.

[jasonxctf]

as a great song says...

 

"we've still got terrorists living here in the USA... the blood's the cryp's and the KKK"

 

I wonder if they are part of the Axis of Evil?

[jasonxctf]

However, their is no beating the Bush that Saddam was a murder, he was an evil dictator and he was not afraid to complete all out genocide.  He did it in the past and he may of done it in the future.

so does this mean we should go arrest everyone who has a previous DUI.. because they did it once and might do it again?

 

my theory is you either go after when they did it (back in the 80's) or you go after them when they do it again (if ever)

 

Should a cop be able to give me a speeding ticket because back in July I was going 15 over the limit? Of course not, you either give me the ticket then or when I do it again.

[jasonxctf]

All that desert, who knows.  Maybe intelligence was completely wrong...its been wrong numerous times (Bay of Pigs anyone)

speaking of the Bay of Pigs.. this is what makes Bush so dangerous. Imagine if he was president during the Cuban Missle Crisis rather than Kennedy.

 

I just don't trust him to do the sensible thing.

[Texsox]

speaking of the Bay of Pigs.. this is what makes Bush so dangerous. Imagine if he was president during the Cuban Missle Crisis rather than Kennedy.

 

I just don't trust him to do the sensible thing.

Then Reagan wouldn't of had to single handedly destroy the Soviet Union, Bush would have done for him.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course we might not have been around either . . .

 

[Chisoxfn]

so does this mean we should go arrest everyone who has a previous DUI.. because they did it once and might do it again?

 

my theory is you either go after when they did it (back in the 80's) or you go after them when they do it again (if ever)

 

Should a cop be able to give me a speeding ticket because back in July I was going 15 over the limit? Of course not, you either give me the ticket then or when I do it again.

So if a murder doesn't get caught for 10 years, that gives him the right to not go to prison?????

 

Come on, were talking mass murder here. And ya, getting a DUI is absolutely stupid.

[jasonxctf]

So if a murder doesn't get caught for 10 years, that gives him the right to not go to prison?????

great point.. but keep in mind the word caught. caught means that someone was out looking for you. not ignoring the crime for 20+ years and then deciding that it was worth prosecuting.

[Texsox]

great point.. but keep in mind the word caught. caught means that someone was out looking for you. not ignoring the crime for 20+ years and then deciding that it was worth prosecuting.

A companion issue is how many Americans should die to solve a problem in another country? Should 1000 Americans die to save one person? How about 100:1? how about 1:100? We could solve all the world's problems with evil dictators, it will just cost us millions of lives when North Korea starts dropping nukes, and we invade 40 or 50 countries. Meanwhile, elderly people in cities all across this nation cannot leave their homes after dark.

[Queen Prawn]

speaking of the Bay of Pigs..

I don't know what this has to do with the price of eggs (lol), but my FFIL was a sharpshooter in the Marines at that time. From what I understand, his unit (or whatever it would be called) would have been the first one in. Had that happened, Brain might never have happened...

[LowerCaseRepublican]

However, their is no beating the Bush that Saddam was a murderer, he was an evil dictator and he was not afraid to complete all out genocide.  He did it in the past and he may of done it in the future.  The fact that at least part of that country can be free now is fine with me.  I've also said it would be an insanely tough war to win, because people don't like being liberated by someone else, imo.  They don't mind the help, but in general the population wants to be liberated and if Iraq is going to end up working out (and its hard to say it will, cause whenever you have the casualties you don't win) but it will take the people buying into the system and starting to see total change and what not.

 

I long believe Bush's greatest mistake was not doing this back in the original Gulf War.  However, I still think this war was the right thing to do.  As far as weapons, I still think they have some sort of chemical weapons somewhere, but the hell if I know where they are.

The reason Bush I didn't go in was:

 

1. He knew it was totally and completely illegal for him to engage the US in doing.

2. In his book, he discusses how there would be endless urban warfare, numerous US soldiers dying trying to do the equivalent of putting a fire out with a water pistol in controlling riots etc. and that deposing Hussein would lead to a military quagmire for years after and it was not in the best interest of the US to put the military and the US through something like that. (And technically, if we were worried about "liberating" Kuwait...why did we give it back to a bloodthirsty dictatorial royal family to rule? )

 

As for the committed mass murder and even if he didn't have WMD he should have been taken out for what he could possibly do. Um, Hussein couldn't have committed the magnitude of mass murder if the US did not sell him the weapons. So, if we're gonna go invade/prosecute Saddam for that -- are you advocating prosecuting the companies that sold this bloodthirsty dictator chemical/biological agents? (And it's not like suing a gun manufacturer -- there's not really many things you can do with chem/bio agents other than murder people)

 

As for "what he might do" in the future...that's pre-emptive war -- a doctrine condemned as a result of the Nuremburg Tribunals. Even in early 2001, Colin Powell and Condie Rice made the TV media rounds saying Saddam was not a threat. I don't see the logic of taking out Saddam when there are more important threats to the nation as a whole (Kim Jong Il having nukes -- I just say we give him laserdiscs and DVDs to increase his expansive movie collection in exchange for ending his nuke program) except that PNAC said in '97/'98 that they wanted control of oil resources and to use it as a tactical pivot to take out Saudi Arabia and Egypt and that it was a cheap ass 3rd world country that Bush could show off his military prowess and defeat the specter of "Vietnam Syndrome" that his daddy was so intent on destroying.

 

And as far as knowing where the WMD are...um, we were told by Powell that we knew where they were and Rummy was on TV saying the US knew where they were right before the war started. Well boys, if you know...where the hell are they?

[Wong & Owens]

By deciding to invade Iraq, the Bush Administration decided not to do many other things: not to reconstruct Afghanistan, not to deal with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, and not to wage an effective war on terror. An inventory of opportunities lost

 

 

by James Fallows

 

 

.....

 

 

 

remember distinctly the way 2002 began in Washington. New Year's Day was below freezing and blustery. The next day was worse. That day, January 2, I trudged several hundred yards across the vast parking lots of the Pentagon. I was being pulled apart by the wind and was ready to feel sorry for myself, until I was shamed by the sight of miserable, frozen Army sentries at the numerous outdoor security posts that had been manned non-stop since the September 11 attacks.

 

 

I was going for an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. At the time, Wolfowitz's name and face were not yet familiar worldwide. He was known in Washington for offering big-picture explanations of the Administration's foreign-policy goals—a task for which the President was unsuited, the Vice President was unavailable, and most other senior Administration officials were, for various reasons, inappropriate. The National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was still playing a background role; the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was mainly dealing with immediate operational questions in his daily briefings about the war in Afghanistan; the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was already known to be on the losing side of most internal policy struggles.

 

 

After the interview I wrote a short article about Wolfowitz and his views for the March 2002 issue of this magazine. In some ways the outlook and choices he described then still fit the world situation two and a half years later. Even at the time, the possibility that the Administration's next move in the war on terror would be against Iraq, whether or not Iraq proved to be involved in the 9/11 hijackings, was under active discussion. When talking with me Wolfowitz touched briefly on the case for removing Saddam Hussein, in the context of the general need to reduce tyranny in the Arab-Islamic world.

 

 

But in most ways the assumptions and tone of the conversation now seem impossibly remote. At the beginning of 2002 the United States still operated in a climate of worldwide sympathy and solidarity. A broad range of allies supported its anti-Taliban efforts in Afghanistan, and virtually no international Muslim leaders had denounced them. President Bush was still being celebrated for his eloquent speech expressing American resolve, before a joint session of Congress on September 20. His deftness in managing domestic and international symbols was typified by his hosting an end-of-Ramadan ceremony at the White House in mid-December, even as battle raged in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan, on the Pakistani border. At the start of 2002 fewer than 10,000 U.S. soldiers were deployed overseas as part of the war on terror, and a dozen Americans had died in combat. The United States had not captured Osama bin Laden, but it had routed the Taliban leadership that sheltered him, and seemed to have put al-Qaeda on the run.

 

 

Because of the quick and, for Americans, nearly bloodless victory over the Taliban, the Administration's national-security team had come to epitomize competence. During our talk Wolfowitz referred to "one reason this group of people work very well together," by which he meant that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and many others, including himself, had collaborated for years, from the Reagan Administration through the 1991 Gulf War and afterward. From this experience they had developed a shared understanding of the nuances of "how to use force effectively," which they were now applying. In retrospect, the remarkable thing about Wolfowitz's comment was the assumption—which I then had no reason to challenge—that Bush's foreign-policy team was like a great business or sporting dynasty, which should be examined for secrets of success.

 

 

As I listen to the tape of that interview now, something else stands out: how expansive and unhurried even Wolfowitz sounded. "Even" Wolfowitz because since then he has become the symbol of an unrelenting drive toward war with Iraq. We now know that within the Administration he was urging the case for "regime change" there immediately after 9/11. But when speaking for the record, more than a year before that war began, he stressed how broad a range of challenges the United States would have to address, and over how many years, if it wanted to contain the sources of terrorism. It would need to find ways to "lance the boil" of growing anti-Americanism, as it had done during the Reagan years by supporting democratic reform in South Korea and the Philippines. It would have to lead the Western world in celebrating and welcoming Turkey as the most successfully modernized Muslim country. It would need to understand that in the long run the most important part of America's policy was its moral example—that America stands for things "the rest of the world wants for itself."

 

 

also remember the way 2002 ended. By late December some 200,000 members of the U.S. armed forces were en route to staging areas surrounding Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people had turned out on the streets of London, Rome, Madrid, and other cities to protest the impending war. That it was impending was obvious, despite ongoing negotiations at the United Nations. Within weeks of the 9/11 attacks President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld had asked to see plans for a possible invasion of Iraq. Congress voted to authorize the war in October. Immediately after the vote, planning bureaus inside the Pentagon were told to be ready for combat at any point between then and the following April. (Operation Iraqi Freedom actually began on March 19.) Declaring that it was impossible to make predictions about a war that might not occur, the Administration refused to discuss plans for the war's aftermath—or its potential cost. In December the President fired Lawrence Lindsey, his chief economic adviser, after Lindsey offered a guess that the total cost might be $100 billion to $200 billion. As it happened, Lindsey's controversial estimate held up very well. By this summer, fifteen months after fighting began in Iraq, appropriations for war and occupation there totaled about $150 billion. With more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers still based in Iraq, the outlays will continue indefinitely at a rate of about $5 billion a month—much of it for fuel, ammunition, spare parts, and other operational needs. All this is at striking variance with the pre-war insistence by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz that Iraq's oil money, plus contributions from allies, would minimize the financial burden on Americans.

 

 

Despite the rout of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, terror attacks, especially against Americans and Europeans, were rising at the end of 2002 and would continue to rise through 2003. Some 400 people worldwide had died in terror attacks in 2000, and some 300 in 2001, apart from the 3,000-plus killed on September 11. In 2002 more than 700 were killed, including 200 when a bomb exploded outside a Bali nightclub in October.

 

 

Whereas at the beginning of the year Paul Wolfowitz had sounded expansive about the many avenues the United States had to pursue in order to meet the terror threat, by the end of the year the focus was solely on Iraq, and the Administration's tone was urgent. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Vice President Cheney said in a major speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars just before Labor Day. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." Two weeks later, as Congress prepared for its vote to authorize the war, Condoleezza Rice said on CNN, "We do know that [saddam Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon … We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

 

 

On the last day of the year President Bush told reporters at his ranch in Texas, "I hope this Iraq situation will be resolved peacefully. One of my New Year's resolutions is to work to deal with these situations in a way so that they're resolved peacefully." As he spoke, every operating branch of the government was preparing for war.

 

 

eptember 11, 2001, has so often been described as a "hinge event" that it is tempting to think no other events could rival its significance. Indeed, as a single shocking moment that changed Americans' previous assumptions, the only modern comparisons are Pearl Harbor and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But as 9/11 enters history, it seems likely that the aftermath, especially the decisions made during 2002, will prove to be as significant as the attack itself. It is obviously too early to know the full historical effect of the Iraq campaign. The biggest question about post-Saddam Iraq—whether it is headed toward stability or toward new tyranny and chaos—may not be answered for years.

 

 

But the biggest question about the United States—whether its response to 9/11 has made it safer or more vulnerable—can begin to be answered. Over the past two years I have been talking with a group of people at the working level of America's anti-terrorism efforts. Most are in the military, the intelligence agencies, and the diplomatic service; some are in think tanks and nongovernmental agencies. I have come to trust them, because most of them have no partisan ax to grind with the Administration (in the nature of things, soldiers and spies are mainly Republicans), and because they have so far been proved right. In the year before combat started in Iraq, they warned that occupying the country would be far harder than conquering it. As the occupation began, they pointed out the existence of plans and warnings the Administration seemed determined to ignore.

 

 

As a political matter, whether the United States is now safer or more vulnerable is of course ferociously controversial. That the war was necessary—and beneficial—is the Bush Administration's central claim. That it was not is the central claim of its critics. But among national-security professionals there is surprisingly little controversy. Except for those in government and in the opinion industries whose job it is to defend the Administration's record, they tend to see America's response to 9/11 as a catastrophe. I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error in American history—or only the worst since Vietnam. Some of these people argue that the United States had no choice but to fight, given a pre-war consensus among its intelligence agencies that Iraq actually had WMD supplies. Many say that things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.

 

 

"Let me tell you my gut feeling," a senior figure at one of America's military-sponsored think tanks told me recently, after we had talked for twenty minutes about details of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. "If I can be blunt, the Administration is full of s***. In my view we are much, much worse off now than when we went into Iraq. That is not a partisan position. I voted for these guys. But I think they are incompetent, and I have had a very close perspective on what is happening. Certainly in the long run we have harmed ourselves. We are playing to the enemy's political advantage. Whatever tactical victories we may gain along the way, this will prove to be a strategic blunder."

 

 

This man will not let me use his name, because he is still involved in military policy. He cited the experiences of Joseph Wilson, Richard Clarke, and Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni to illustrate the personal risks of openly expressing his dissenting view. But I am quoting him anonymously—as I will quote some others—because his words are representative of what one hears at the working level.

 

 

To a surprising extent their indictment doesn't concentrate on the aspect of the problem most often discussed in public: exactly why the United States got the WMD threat so wrong. Nor does it involve a problem I have previously discussed in this magazine (see "Blind Into Baghdad," January/February Atlantic): the Administration's failure, whether deliberate or inadvertent, to make use of the careful and extensive planning for postwar Iraq that had been carried out by the State Department, the CIA, various branches of the military, and many other organizations. Rather, these professionals argue that by the end of 2002 the decisions the Administration had made—and avoided making—through the course of the year had left the nation less safe, with fewer positive options. Step by step through 2002 America's war on terror became little more than its preparation for war in Iraq.

 

 

Because of that shift, the United States succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein, but at this cost: The first front in the war on terror, Afghanistan, was left to fester, as attention and money were drained toward Iraq. This in turn left more havens in Afghanistan in which terrorist groups could reconstitute themselves; a resurgent opium-poppy economy to finance them; and more of the disorder and brutality the United States had hoped to eliminate. Whether or not the strong international alliance that began the assault on the Taliban might have brought real order to Afghanistan is impossible to say. It never had the chance, because America's premature withdrawal soon fractured the alliance and curtailed postwar reconstruction. Indeed, the campaign in Afghanistan was warped and limited from the start, by a pre-existing desire to save troops for Iraq.

 

 

A full inventory of the costs of war in Iraq goes on. President Bush began 2002 with a warning that North Korea and Iran, not just Iraq, threatened the world because of the nuclear weapons they were developing. With the United States preoccupied by Iraq, these other two countries surged ahead. They have been playing a game of chess, or nerves, against America—and if they have not exactly won, they have advanced by several moves. Because it lost time and squandered resources, the United States now has no good options for dealing with either country. It has fewer deployable soldiers and weapons; it has less international leverage through the "soft power" of its alliances and treaties; it even has worse intelligence, because so many resources are directed toward Iraq.