http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
So was it merely the threat of WMD’s that he felt a complete reversal was necessary? And why were we so ill prepared after we went in and “won” (he clearly states the potential problems)?
I will check the calendar, but I am pretty sure 9/11/2001 happened after this video.
9/11 changed things, but obviously not for everybody.
That’s classic. Seems like he knew more about Iraq in 1994 than he did in 2003.
But Art, what did 9/11 have to do with Iraq? I see the relevance now because it’s become a terrorist breeding ground but if not for the nonexisting WMD, then what? Why kick Saddam out when you know the complex problems it will create?
9/11 made clear for at least some of us that our country is threatened by radical Islamic fundamentalist inspired terrorism. I have asked in vain on these pages for a superior long term plan to ending that threat other than trying to change the sick culture in the Middle East using Iraq as the starting point. The only alternatives offered are to appease the terrorists in the hopes they won’t hate us anymore like the Belgium bishop who just proposed we refer to God as Allah so as to make the Muslims happy. Maybe we should pray to the East five times a day too. I have asked in vain for examples of terrorists that were made happy and peaceful by appeasement.
The regime in Iraq was not compatible with the moderate Muslim states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and the like as 1991 hopefully taught us. The regime in Iraq was a lot less stable in 2003 than in 1991 if only because Saddam was a lot closer to meeting Allah. The complications of Iraq’s either again turning into a military threat to the moderate regimes or following Iran’s example of turning into an Islamic terrorist state after a revolution were pretty much baked into the cake anyway, and ignoring them and hoping for the best wasn’t much of an option in the wake of 9/11.
For me, the most important reason to go into Iraq was exactly as Bush said many times: to change the world. It made a lot of headway at first, sparking major changes through the region including Libya, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Ukraine. That progress has gotten bogged down in the last two years as we have gotten bogged down in Iraq. Success breeds success and failure breeds failure in the fight against terrorism as we have hopefully learned from our failures in Iran, Lebanon, Vietnam and Somalia among others. Those who come up with all kinds of subtle reasons why it is OK and maybe even advantageous to lose the particular war we happen to be fighting because it will allow us to win some future more important battle are just delusional.
You may make money once in a while by betting against the US, but those who have painted themselves into a corner like the House Majority Whip James Clyburn who acknowledged the other day that a good report of promising progress in Iraq from General Petraeus would “be a big problem for us (the Democratic party)” have completely gone over the cliff. The success of the surge now has them scrabbling to climb back up. Like too many in Iraq, they just want to be on the side of the winner, not giving a damn about anything but their own pathetic butts and their grip on power.
The regime in Iraq was not compatible with the moderate Muslim states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait
Saudi Arabia may be “moderate” but that’s where most of the hijackers came from. The problem (one of them anyway) with the Bush administration is that they associated extreme fundamentalism with a State rather than with an ideology of fanatics.
The regime in Iraq was a lot less stable in 2003 than in 1991 if only because Saddam was a lot closer to meeting Allah.
The regime in Iraq was however, a counter power to Iran. Once we decided to topple the government, we explosed ourselves to a more beligerent Iran. Again, well done Mr. Bush.
For me, the most important reason to go into Iraq was exactly as Bush said many times: to change the world.
That may be the single most naive thought ever spoken.
**You may make money once in a while by betting against the US, but those who have painted themselves into a corner like the House Majority Whip James Clyburn who acknowledged the other day that a good report of promising progress in Iraq from General Petraeus would "be a big problem for us **
If General Petraeus provides a report of promising progress, he is continuing the delusion of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Yesterdays attack in an area just designated as one of the most peaceful areas of Iraq is just another example. The area was one that was going to be one of the first handed over to the Iraq army and paraded as an example for the whole country.
Our political benchmarks are just that, ours. They are not Iraqs and Malaki has completely failed in his efforts to form a united government. The Iraqi government is falling apart and until we start recognizing that our “surge” has to involve a political effort and not just more troops, we will continue to fail. Also, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia have to be included in the peace talks or we are just putting band aids on the problem. There has to be more of them and less of us.
For me, the most important reason to go into Iraq was exactly as Bush said many times: to change the world.
That may be the single most naive thought ever spoken.
Yep. The neocons are the naive ones. They think they are all hardcore “serious” realists because they “see the threat” and “do something” (aggressive) and call non-interventionists “ostrichs” with our heads in the sand … In the end Bush & Co. are the naive ones. Some of our attempts to change the culture of certain different parts of the world (certain places such as the Middle East) to secular “free market democracies” is just as silly as the Soviets’ attempt to spread communism to certain countries, especially if we do it by the barrel of the gun. It is backfiring, just as it did with the Brits, Soviets, etc … In the end we just spread our military (and our $$$) too thin.
… Now if we do it slowly by commerce and diplomacy, that could be a different story. That’s how we won the Cold War. We didn’t win it in S. Vietnam, or by supporting Contras or by building nukes.
“Our political benchmarks are just that, ours. They are not Iraqs and Malaki has completely failed in his efforts to form a united government. The Iraqi government is falling apart and until we start recognizing that our “surge” has to involve a political effort and not just more troops, we will continue to fail. Also, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia have to be included in the peace talks or we are just putting band aids on the problem. There has to be more of them and less of us.”
**
Exactly.
what i don’t get is, why now?
this thing sits somewhere for what over a decade then all of a sudden I get 2 emails with the link, read a column, and then there’s this thread. crazy.
“Now if we do it slowly by commerce and diplomacy, that could be a different story. That’s how we won the Cold War.”
That is only a little piece of how we won the Cold War. I am guessing you weren’t around then to remember back when defense spending was over 50% of the federal budget. The Cold War was won primarily militarily in perfect “Art of War” traditions. The Soviet Union was defeated militarily and economically so overwhelmingly that they folded without firing a shot. This was a bipartisan, herculean achievement of the Greatest Generation. “Let all nation’s know, whether they wish us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the success and survival of liberty.” Kennedy gave us those immortal words back America was too naive to know we couldn’t change the world so we just went about doing it.
We have been doing commerce with the Middle East for decades. Outside of oil, the entire economy of the 23 Arab nations is about the size of Denmark. More and more of the same thing is not going to give a different result. That dog isn’t enough.
The strategy in Iraq, poorly pursued, has always been clear, hold and develop. Now that we finally have a general that is actually executing on that strategy, the situation on the ground is improving and the defeat and retreat politicians are retreating.
You guys who think Iran and Syria are going to help us in Iraq must be living on another planet. Their top foreign policy objective is to inflict a defeat upon us and take credit for it. Casey, while you are over there, maybe you could ask the Iranians to send back the five American hostages as a sign of good will to get things rolling. Let us know how that works out.
Jon Stewart showed this video last night on his show - - Jon’s key criticisms of Cheney (independent of the decision to invade Iraq) were
- knowing the likely outcome of overthrowing Saddam why weren’t they better prepared for the chaos
and - why did they tell everyone we were to be greeted as liberators, that it would pay for itself with oil revenues, and perhaps only take a few weeks - - and at the same time, berate and label those as unpatriotic those who dared remind them of the potential quagmire to follow.
the situation on the ground is improving and the defeat and retreat politicians are retreating.
Improving so much that they just had the worst bombing since the US first arrived in Iraq. Improving so much that a bridge bombing akin in size and scope to that in Minnesota barely got a mention in the news.
We’ve “turned so many corners” in Iraq that it’s like we’re in that never ending stair case drawing college kids put in their dorm rooms. Sorry, just not buying it any more.
Now we sit and wait for the White House to write Petraeus’ speech in which he’ll state that yes we are making progress, but there’s still a lot of hard work to be done, so please, can you fund us a bit longer? Meanwhile, Petraeus has a history of being as wrong about Iraq as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Dick “Last Throes” Cheney. Why are any of these people seen as credible on the progress of Iraq?
You guys who think Iran and Syria are going to help us in Iraq must be living on another planet.
And if you think a political solution can be reached without involving Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia, you are equally out of touch with reality.
The bombing was bad. But I have a question. Why is it when there is progress in Iraq (elections, reductions of US deaths, reduction of violence in Baghdad, the surge) are they isolated islands that don’t count, but when there is one bombing in one location it’s proof the country’s falling apart?
In the aggregate, the bombings, sectarian violence, terrorist activities, shi’a death squads etc. are far more consistent and constant than the alleged progress.
The Soviets screwed themselves over far more than we did … And defense spending still is close to 50 % of our federal budget. And we are facing unknown terrorists who might set off a dirty bomb, maybe, not an empire with 5,000 ICBMs pointed at us.
OK defense is now more like 40 % of the budget … It’s nearly $1 trillion a year in 2006 if you count:
(In billions:)
Department of Defense: $499.4
Department of Energy (atomic weapons): $16.6
Department of State (foreign military aid): $25.3
Department of Veterans Affairs (treatment of wounded soldiers): $69.8
Department of Homeland Security (actual defense): $69.1
Department of Justice (1/3rd for the FBI): $1.9
Department of the Treasury (military retirements): $38.5
NASA (satellite launches): $7.6
Interest on war debts, 1916-present: $206.7
And folks are getting all upset about earmarks for the Teapot Museum …
Where did you get those numbers?
Mclamb, you are really going to have to deal with some reality. Should your favorite Democrat win the big house in 2009, that president is not going to bail out of Iraq either. The NY Times started setting you up for this with a couple articles over the last week or so. “It will take years to get out of Iraq” or whatever it was.
It is going to be the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping all over again.
Hate to break this to you. (OK, not really. It is kind of fun actually.)
Slowguy,
Source is: “Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute”
http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=489
- TB.
**Why is it when there is progress in Iraq (elections, reductions of US deaths, reduction of violence in Baghdad, the surge) are they isolated islands that don’t count, but when there is one bombing in one location it’s proof the country’s falling apart? **
Because the progress of elections (the government is falling apart), reduction of US deaths (only in 1 month but compare 2007 to 2006 and you will see why there is no progress), the reduction of violence in Baghdad is matched by the increase in violence elsewhere.
Also, it is not one bombing in one location, it is 5 years of bombings all over Iraq.
As for the political progress, there appears to be rumors going around that the recent attack outside of Mosul has nothing to do with Al Qaeda despite our attempts to blame them. Apparently, a few years ago a local Yazidi woman married a Muslim and converted to Islam. Other members of the Yazidi tribe stoned her to death and in retaliation, some Muslims murdered 20 Yazidi. This attack is now being linked to a continuance of that feud.
The point being, as Americans we think we can walk into another country rife with ancient tribal feuds, and create a democracy based on our simple repeated mantra that it is all about Al Qaeda. It isn’t, the problems go much deeper and are out of the grasp of our administration. Iraqis don’t care about Bush’s desire to go after Al Qaeda, they see that as our problem, not theirs.
If you don’t think Iraq is falling apart, you are completely ignoring the facts on the ground and in the day to day life of Iraqis. There is limited power, schools/hospitals are barely surviving, divisions between the main sects are deeper than ever and millions of the best educated have left the country, yet we continue to claim progress and that we are close to victory.
We are kidding ourselves. Petraeus is a straight shooter but his report will still be “reviewed” by his superiors trying to paint a rosy picture. Rest assured they will say that we cannot leave now, before the surge has a real chance to work and that we have to wait until next summer or longer. We will hear the same thing next summer, and the one after that, etc., etc.
I am quite certain Reagan and Lincoln had lots of advisors just like you.
“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War,” Reagan declared. “We win, they lose.”
“Seven nays and one aye, the ayes have it” – Lincoln
I would add George Washington, but I don’t have a quote handy. I am sure some poster will oblige.
What part of Kennedy’s quote above do you reject?