Iraq: What Might Have Been

 

290165818_4058f117ce_bIn a previous thread, Ricochet member Majestyk expressed a major complaint that he has about libertarians, liberals and even conservatives who gripe about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: What is your alternate scenario?

If we could unwind the clock of history and place you inside George W. Bush’s head (a la Being John Malkovich) what is your preferred policy prescription for U.S. foreign policy in the days following 9/11?

I never hear that question answered and I barely hear it asked.

So, okay, I’ll give you my answer, and then see what you all think:

I am going to assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that we all agree Saddam Hussein was an outstandingly brutal dictator in a region that pretty much specializes in brutal dictators. He was a problem for his people, for his neighbors, and for the United States and our allies that would, eventually, need to be solved.

The key word there is ‘eventually.’ Since Saddam was not, in fact, responsible for 9/11, and did not present an immediate threat to us thanks to containment and sanctions, he need not have been anywhere near the top of the list of the nation’s priorities in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Had I been inside George W. Bush’s head, I would have been chanting “Afghanistan….Afghanistan… Afghanistan…”

Once the echo of my chanting died away (‘…ghanistan….istan….nnn”), I’d have recommended a swift, violent, targeted, and punitive attack on Afghanistan, with the goal of taking out Osama bin Laden and/or as many members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban as possible while making it look easy.

When we were finished, if whomever remained in the way of Afghan leadership expressed a desire for help build a reasonable, decent country, we would join a broad coalition of other nations ready to help them do it. If they preferred to be a crummy, impoverished, savage backwater, so be it. Just don’t screw with us again.

What about Iraq?

For all their undoubted sufferings, there were advantages for the Iraqi people in being oppressed by Saddam Hussein.

First, he wasn’t an Islamist. He was barely a Muslim, one of several reasons why Osama bin Laden loathed him. (After the invasion of Kuwait, Osama proposed having his people push the Iraqis out, and was furious when the Saudis allowed the U.S. to do it instead, especially since this meant placing U.S. bases on sacred Saudi soil).

Saddam was a secular butcher. His heroes were Hitler and Stalin, so women in Iraq not only did not have to wear a hijab or hide in their homes, they were educated and employed. If they were targeted by the regime, it was for their politics, not their gender.

Second, Saddam was big on education. When he came to power, the vast majority of Iraqis were illiterate. When he left office (so to speak) the situation was reversed: the majority could read and write. Saddam wanted his country to be modern the way Hitler wanted Germany to be modern, so he invested in training and technology in a way that an Islamist state never would.

By educating his people and neglecting to oppress women, Saddam was creating the very class of people most likely to identify with Western, secular democracies, to increasingly resent being terrorized and oppressed, and to have the ability to organize his overthrow and manage the aftermath. I think it likely that, within a few years, Iraqis might well have created for themselves the very system that George W. Bush tried to impose by the worst of all possible means: an ineffectual bloodbath.

Tragically (in retrospect), we  invaded. We trashed the infrastructure and sacked the police and army without providing alternative sources of law and order. The chaos inspired a massive, panicked brain-drain of the elites, and created a baleful association between the words “democracy” and “imperialism” in the minds of the Arab masses. Had we postponed dealing aggressively with Saddam, not only might we have spared thousands of American and Iraqi lives, but the Arab Spring might have bloomed a decade earlier in cleaner, richer soil.

The United States would have emerged from the post-9/11 period with undiminished moral capital, as well as the energy and will for further and more crucial armed interventions, both of which would give the president — any president —-a far stronger position from which to negotiate with other potentially problematic or threatening countries.

 

Published in Foreign Policy, General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 143 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Kate,

    Oh—and the place was inadequately defended, too, so that when the scandal broke, and Forward Operating Base Abu Ghraib, or FOBAG, came under daily rocket and mortar fire in 2004, our prisoners had no shelter. At least one child, held in our custody and therefore under our care and protection,  died in one of the mas-cas attacks in April. It was unconscionable—America is better than that.

    Kate this makes me wonder whether you understand the meaning of the words “War Zone”. Who was rocketing the prison. Certainly we weren’t. So a merciless psychotic enemy in a war zone rocketed a prison camp and one child held in our custody died as a result. You blame the American Army for this???!!!

    Apparently somewhere along the way you have imagined the American Military to be both Omniscient and Omnipotent. FYI that isn’t the US Military that’s Gd. I don’t really think it proper to belabor this and thereby blacken the name of every single person who served in Iraq and blacken the name of the American Military. It sounds to me like we were trying very hard maybe too hard. We could have just hit and run. Surge tactics wouldn’t have taken prisoners at all. We would have left that to whatever Iraqi strongman we were supporting. I think the treatment would have been much worse than the American Army but it would most certainly have been better than the treatment ISIS is handing out both to prisoners of war and non-combatants

    It should be obvious by now just how cheap human life is held by Jihadists, either their own or anybody else’s. We didn’t make them that way. They are that way. You can not go on fantasizing about a perfect America. If America isn’t perfect then we must never do anything. That is the underlying premise of all of this kind of thinking. We need to break free of it to remain Free.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #91
  2. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Ed G.:

    AIG, it’s a difference of opinion and not an inability to be honest with ourselves. We can discuss the matter, but let’s at least do each other the honor of assuming intellectual honesty and intellectual maturity. Being wrong doesn’t make you disingenuous.

    I said most conservatives probably don’t have a different opinion…if pushed hard enough to answer. Most, simply can’t get themselves to admit to it.

    You may indeed disagree with my opinion, in which case, you’re not in that “most” category.

    • #92
  3. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I think that the Afghanistan war was handled well by the Bush administration.

    I agree with the decision to go to war in Iraq, but the purpose was not understood by many Americans.  Personally, I thought that Bush did an adequate job with the explanation, but then I’m a political junkie and amateur historian, so I was probably listening far more carefully than most.

    It seems that most Americans only heard: “We have to take out Saddam because he has WMD.”

    This was not the real purpose of the Iraq War.  It is true that there was credible, and probably very solid, evidence that Saddam had WMD and was concealing WMD programs.  He was also a very, very bad man, running a brutal and tyrannical regime, and we had legal justification for the attack because he was violating various UN resolutions and ceasefire conditions.

    The purpose of the Iraq War was to plant a stable representative government in the heart of the Islamic World.  This had never been done before, and we did not know what it would take to succeed.  The 9/11 Commission had correctly identified the problem as a new form of virulent, violent, radical Islam, principally exported by the Saudis.  The long-term solution was to change the nature of the region, and its people, by imposing a decent representative republic, with adequate protection of individual rights and protection of private property.  Such a new Iraqi regime would bring a prosperity not seen in the region, other than in Israel, and would ultimately prompt such favorable change throughout the region.

    Of course, with hindsight, this was a very optimistic plan.  There were many reasons for such optimism in the early 2000s.  We had imposed such government on Germany, Japan and Italy after WWII, and it worked.  We defended South Korea, and it ultimately emerged as a solid, respectable representative republic.  We won the Cold War, and representative republics emerged in many formerly authoritarian countries in Eastern Europe, east Asia, and Latin America.  In 2002 and 2003, even Russia seemed to be on track to become a solid representative republic.

    I think that the Bush administration made two big mistakes in Iraq:

    1. Allowing the WMD justification to dominate the media narrative, which undermined the continued war effort when relatively few WMD were found (and those that were found were apparently significantly degraded).
    2. Celebrating excessively over the initial military victory (the “Mission Accomplished” banner comes to mind).  The administration should have made it clear that there was likely to be a great deal of hard work ahead, after the fall of Saddam.

    Politically, it was the left wing of the Democratic Party that undermined the war effort, led in large part by Obama.  Howard Dean’s initial success in the 2004 primaries caused Kerry, and most other leading Democrats, to turn against the war and buy into the false “Bush Lied” narrative.

    Kerry is particularly reprehensible.  I’ll never forget how he called our allies a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.”  These nations were many of our best friends internationally, many of whom were willing to send their own sons and daughters to fight and die alongside their American allies.  That an American Presidential candidate would so insult them enrages me almost beyond words.  That many of my fellow citizens would vote for such a man is infuriating, and that he is now our Secretary of State is shameful.

    The lesson learned is this:  If a Republican is going to lead us into war, he (or she) should be absolutely brutal to the Democrats.  He should clearly state our reasons for war; explain that intelligence may be incorrect, but we live in the real world and have to make decisions on the best information available; and expressly say that the Democratic party has made a tradition out of supporting our entry into war and then, when the going gets tough, undermining the effort, betraying our troops, and causing the mission to fail.  He should say: “There has never been a war that went completely according to plan.  When some of the Democrats who vote in favor of this war change their minds in a couple of years, when things don’t go as expected, I’m going to remind them that I asked them, today, to commit our nation to this mission.  If they’re not willing to do that, they should vote no.  If they vote yes, they must support the mission through to the end.”

    • #93
  4. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    I was a pretty avid reader back when the first Gulf War ended, more than one of the post mortems of that war emphasized that in future conflicts we would really need to step up the training and capability of military police because our adversaries would use streams of refugees and POWs against us. Did the Pentagon listen? No, they put an affirmative action hack from the Wisconsin National Guard in charge of Abu Graib, someone who never set foot in the facility after hours. I think Kate makes very good points about this.

    • #94
  5. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    James Of England:

    I know you think that the invasion of Kuwait was America’s fault, and I’d like to table our disagreement over that.

    Uff James, I know I lend myself to caricature (it’s the noodles, right?) but really!

    If you asked me today, I would say it would have been better if the Coalition had gone on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait – and thereby missed that awful ten years between Gulf Wars.  Make of that what you will.

    Hindsight is 20:20 – and what was done can’t be undone, but file under stuff to keep in mind next time.

    Wrt democracy in the Middle East – I hope it increases.

    • #95
  6. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Arizona Patriot:It seems that most Americans only heard: “We have to take out Saddam because he has WMD.”

    This was not the real purpose of the Iraq War. It is true that there was credible, and probably very solid, evidence that Saddam had WMD and was concealing WMD programs.

    But there really wasn’t.

    The purpose of the Iraq War was to plant a stable representative government in the heart of the Islamic World.

    Which makes it even an even bigger fool’s errand, not just in hindsight, but ex-ante as well.

    That may have been their intended purpose, but that certainly wasn’t how they sold it.

    And their intended purpose, is even more problematic than their sales pitch.

    Of course, with hindsight, this was a very optimistic plan.  There were many reasons for such optimism in the early 2000s.  We had imposed such government on Germany, Japan and Italy after WWII, and it worked.  We defended South Korea, and it ultimately emerged as a solid, respectable representative republic.  We won the Cold War, and representative republics emerged in many formerly authoritarian countries in Eastern Europe, east Asia, and Latin America.  In 2002 and 2003, even Russia seemed to be on track to become a solid representative republic.

    Which is glossing over the fact that no serious student of history would have bought that argument, ex-ante, in 2003.

    None of these societies are comparable to Arab societies, and we knew this quite well in 2003.

    1. Allowing the WMD justification to dominate the media narrative, which undermined the continued war effort when relatively few WMD were found (and those that were found were apparently significantly degraded).

    You know that that’s not really the case. The WMD issue was made the primary issue by the Bush administration themselves.

    They didn’t come out and say “we want to do this because we want to bring democracy to Iraq”. That’s not why they send Collin Powell to the UN with a vile of …sand.

    Politically, it was the left wing of the Democratic Party that undermined the war effort, led in large part by Obama.  Howard Dean’s initial success in the 2004 primaries caused Kerry, and most other leading Democrats, to turn against the war and buy into the false “Bush Lied” narrative.

    Sorry, but Bush did lie.

    What undermined our war effort, was the failure of the war effort to deliver any of the promised, or un-promised, results.

    Kerry is particularly reprehensible.  I’ll never forget how he called our allies a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.”  These nations were many of our best friends internationally, many of whom were willing to send their own sons and daughters to fight and die alongside their American allies.  That an American Presidential candidate would so insult them enrages me almost beyond words.

    Don’t be so insulted. Those countries sacrificed their men and women, as did we, for a pointless mission, a pointless war, which is the cause for much of the troubles in the world today.

    Those nations didn’t buy the narrative for why we were going into Iraq either. They did it for their own self-interest…regardless of the validity of the argument.

    I would be more worried in the damage done by the fact that this was not only a false premise, but also a failed outcome, on our future relations with these nations.

    The lesson learned is this:  If a Republican is going to lead us into war, he (or she) should be absolutely brutal to the Democrats.

    No. That’s not the lesson here.

    We might want to start with not getting into wars which were crazy to begin with.

    We might want to start with the lesson that…don’t get into crazy wars for made-up reasons in countries you don’t understand, with no clear outcomes, no clear purpose, no clear payoff, and with obvious large negative ramifications.

    Kind of, the basic point of Reagan’s foreign policy. If you don’t understand what’s going on, if you don’t see any good guys, if you don’t see any clear and immediate benefits…then let someone else do the fighting.

    • #96
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Valiuth:

    Encouraging democracy was the Bush strategy, which seems to be now frowned upon. I agree we can try to not repeat our mistakes, but I think the question to be asked what were our mistakes exactly? Was it invading in the first place, or not invading enough? I have heard it argued that Iraq II was really an attempt to correct the mistake of Iraq I which was leaving Saddam in charge after we beat him then.

    Yes.  I think that’s true.  Put me down for NEI + mistakes of the occupation.

    Really I think if one looks back all of history is a mistake, or at least it can be argued so. I think our biggest mistake is ever thinking that there is an end to evil. We deal with the evil we have in front of us and when we do we should be brace ourselves for the evil that will arise to take its place.

    We really need to accept that good and evil are not consistently classified by nationality or citizenship.  And that sometimes we are driven by self interest.  Everything is not a manichean struggle between The Light (aka “us”) and the Forces of the Dark (ie “them”).

    • #97
  8. Dick from Brooklyn Thatcher
    Dick from Brooklyn
    @DickfromBrooklyn

    Interesting that most of the comments focused on Iraq.

    My suggestion after 9/11 was to unchain a large nuclear weapon in the mountains in which OBL was rumored to be hiding. We’d have killed him and impressed upon the world our seriousness. Iraq would have taken care of itself.

    Friends said I was insane and inhuman, but it probably would have killed fewer than 10,000 innocent people and as many goats while ridding the world of OBL and his henchmen. A small price to pay compared to the lives and treasure we spent in Iraq.

    Anyone who has been in one knows the first rule of a fist fight is to hit first and hit hard.

    • #98
  9. Mark Coolidge
    Mark
    @GumbyMark

    Sandy:

    Mark:

    Michael Sanregret:I can’t find who said it, but someone made the point that Saddam Hussein (or one of his sons) in charge of Iraq with Obama as president of the US would have been a catastrophe. That’s an important point I had not thought of. Saddam with Obama would be at least as bad as ISIS with Obama. I think there were clearly great benefits to toppling Saddam, and my gut feeling is it was worth it, but that’s just a guess.

    Since we’re spinning hypotheticals do you think Obama gets elected, or even nominated, if there is not an Iraq war in 2003 and its aftermath?

    Was there a crash in 2008? Was he the man who was going to cleanse us of our racist sins? Was John McCain the GOP candidate?

    The question is does Obama even get the Dem nomination?  It was Hilary’s support for the war that killed her with liberals.

    Btw, I don’t know the answer, the question had not occurred to me until I saw your question.  One way to think about it is, if, in fact, they are linked is was going into Iraq worthwhile even if Barack Obama becoming President was part of the blowback?

    • #99
  10. user_1184 Inactive
    user_1184
    @MarkWilson

    Kate, I think you have two significant and questionable leaps of faith in your scenario.  First,

    I’d have recommended a swift, violent, targeted, and punitive attack on Afghanistan, with the goal of taking out Osama bin Laden and/or as many members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban as possible while making it look easy.

    Simply declaring that it should be easy is wishful thinking.

    Second,

    I think it likely that, within a few years, Iraqis might well have created for themselves the very system that George W. Bush tried to impose…

    Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just more wishful thinking?

    • #100
  11. Mark Coolidge
    Mark
    @GumbyMark

    Arizona Patriot:I think that the Afghanistan war was handled well by the Bush administration.

    The long-term solution was to change the nature of the region, and its people, by imposing a decent representative republic, with adequate protection of individual rights and protection of private property. Such a new Iraqi regime would bring a prosperity not seen in the region, other than in Israel, and would ultimately prompt such favorable change throughout the region.

    I think that the Bush administration made two big mistakes in Iraq:

    1. Allowing the WMD justification to dominate the media narrative, which undermined the continued war effort when relatively few WMD were found (and those that were found were apparently significantly degraded).
    2. Celebrating excessively over the initial military victory (the “Mission Accomplished” banner comes to mind). The administration should have made it clear that there was likely to be a great deal of hard work ahead, after the fall of Saddam.

    I disagree with your analysis of the critical mistakes of the Bush Administration.  The critical mistake is actually what you wrote about in the first paragraph I’ve excerpted above – to believe we had enough control to transform a country in the Arab world and make it a version of a Western democracy.

    I know we are all troubled by the hindsight issue here.  I was on the fence initially about Iraq in 2002-3 but ultimately felt it was worth the large risks in light of the WMD issue (I would not have signed up for a democratization agenda) in light of the post 911 world.  I was wrong.  Now I focus on what lessons did we learn from this that we can use in the future and that’s why I think this discussion is useful as are your comments and those of others.

    • #101
  12. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    I’m sure I’m not the only one out there, but I’ve read Cheney’s book, Rumsfeld’s book, Bush’s book , tons of books written by soldiers and now I’m reading Robert Gate’s book. The thing I keep coming back to, is that it was a room completely divided when it came to the Iraq war. All of these people are great people in my opinion and deserve respect for attempting to govern in one of our nations worst times, but the truth is, if I was to venture an opinion, is that Bush was dead set on Iraq at all costs.

    Cheney expressed a more prescient vision that Iran should be our focus. Rumsfeld was already completely consumed by the Afghanistan war and dutifully complied with the president’s wishes to form a plan for Iraq, even though he thought it would compromise Afghanistan. Gates came in late to the arena, but felt the mission was more of an uphill battle than he believed the president did. I won’t use anything from Bush’s book, because that would be counter to my point.

    AIG, Zafar, there were WMD. It’s true. I know you two seem to think that that is some sort of a fantasy made up by Right Wing conspirators, but it’s not. There’s plenty of information out there to support it. And there are plenty of reasons that could have justified taking out Hussein. That’s not what I’m getting at though.

    From everything I’ve read from people who were in the room and far more intelligent than I am, I’ve come to the conclusion that this was what Bush wanted, no matter what. If I was to venture a motive it would be to settle a score his father failed to do. I take no pleasure in saying this, but I really think it’s the truth.

    • #102
  13. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    It would have been more rational to believe OJ Simpson was actually innocent than to believe Saddam did not have WMDs at the outset of the war. I was mildly against the war, but most arguments presented against it, such as AIG’s, do not stand up.

    The arguments against nation building seem pretty apparent now as well, but at the time we were excoriated by the left for not attempting it. Rent the movie “Three Kings” with George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg for the lefty view of the era. Iraq was the only country in the mideast with the water, oil revenues and secular educated population to make the attempt at combating Islamic radicalism with a western alternative. In the prior ten years we had had some success turning around Eastern Europe, restructuring the Balkans to allow Muslims to govern themselves in Kosovo, and a semi-autonomous Kurdistan under the no fly zone. Out of a population of 25 million, 4 million educated Iraqi’s lived in exile and could be mobilized by Chalibi’s Iraqi National Congress in London to assist in the rebuilding. it wasn’t really seen as a fool’s errand.

    • #103
  14. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Calvin Coolidg:AIG, Zafar, there were WMD. It’s true. I know you two seem to think that that is some sort of a fantasy made up by Right Wing conspirators, but it’s not. There’s plenty of information out there to support it.

    There just isn’t. We’ve had this discussion before.

    Petty Boozswha:It would have been more rational to believe OJ Simpson was actually innocent than to believe Saddam did not have WMDs at the outset of the war. I was mildly against the war, but most arguments presented against it, such as AIG’s, do not stand up.

    With the exception that…the arguments like mine, turned out to be true.

    And they were true in 2003 before the war as well. It was obvious from the fact that the administration could not provide a…single…piece of evidence. Much of what they provided turned out to be false even before the war. The photos of Iraqi “mobile labs” were shown to be…weather balloon vans…even before the war started.

    People believed what they chose to believe. What they had already made up their minds on.

    The arguments against nation building seem pretty apparent now as well, but at the time we were excoriated by the left for not attempting it. Rent the movie “Three Kings” with George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg for the lefty view of the era.

    That’s not much of evidence that the Left wanted that to happen.

    In the prior ten years we had had some success turning around Eastern Europe, restructuring the Balkans to allow Muslims to govern themselves in Kosovo

    What do East Europeans or Albanians have in common with Arabs? We didn’t invade Eastern Europe to liberate them. They did that themselves, and returned to a form of governance they had already experience with, and a tradition with pre-communism.

    In Kosovo we came into a country where there was 99.99% support for the US. The fact that they were “muslim” means very little here.

    That’s very different from going into a country with a very hostile population, much of it loyal to Iranian Ayatollahs.

    Out of a population of 25 million, 4 million educated Iraqi’s lived in exile and could be mobilized by Chalibi’s Iraqi National Congress in London to assist in the rebuilding. it wasn’t really seen as a fool’s errand.

    Of course it wasn’t seen as such by those who decided to go ahead with it. But it was seen as such by almost everyone else.

    Chalabi was a con-man. And he was known as a con-man well before 2003. Did we ask our allies in the ME for their opinions, and they knowledge of Iraq, its internal dynamics, who this Chalabi guy was etc?

    But that’s the bigger issue here. We went in, not knowing anything about what we were doing. We went in to fight someone else’s war.

    • #104
  15. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    AIG:

    Calvin Coolidg:AIG, Zafar, there were WMD. It’s true. I know you two seem to think that that is some sort of a fantasy made up by Right Wing conspirators, but it’s not. There’s plenty of information out there to support it.

    There just isn’t. We’ve had this discussion before.

    Then how do you explain this?
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

    Or this?
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

    http://news.yahoo.com/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq-nyt-report-135347507.html

    Or that?

    • #105
  16. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    AIG:Sorry, but Bush did lie.

    I disagree with your points in post #96, but am only going to respond to this one.  The accusation that President Bush lied is vile slander.  He may have been mistaken about the extent of Iraq’s WMD weapons and program, but he didn’t “lie.”  A lie is a conscious, knowing misstatement, not a mistake.  You know, like what Kerry did when he came home from Vietnam, threw away his medals, and testified about alleged war crimes by Americans that he never witnessed.  Essentially everybody believed that Saddam had WMD.  Even President Clinton said so a few years earlier.

    Moreover, lately even the NY Times has admitted that large quantities of WMD were found in Iraq, though it seems that they were old and somewhat degraded.

    • #106
  17. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Zafar:

    James Of England:

    I know you think that the invasion of Kuwait was America’s fault, and I’d like to table our disagreement over that.

    Uff James, I know I lend myself to caricature (it’s the noodles, right?) but really!

    If you asked me today, I would say it would have been better if the Coalition had gone on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait – and thereby missed that awful ten years between Gulf Wars. Make of that what you will.

    Hindsight is 20:20 – and what was done can’t be undone, but file under stuff to keep in mind next time.

    Wrt democracy in the Middle East – I hope it increases.

    Did we not have a series of discussions about the US-Iraq dialogue before the invasion of Kuwait to the effect that Saddam believed that he had the green light? If I’ve got the wrong guy, I deeply apologize and will go back and edit the comment. 2 terrible misreadings in one thread! (I got Kate’s tone wrong on gender equality).  I think I remember disagreeing with you about the 1990 invasion (I think that Bush needed the coalition, which means he needed the guarantee that he wouldn’t invade, which means that he absolutely had to keep his word, particularly since it seemed like Saddam would fall anyway). .

    • #107
  18. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Saddam certainly may have thought he had a green light, but I don’t see how that’s the U.S.’ fault. ?? Did I say that? If I did: no need to apologize, but I learn things and change my mind. (I sometimes even thank people for correcting me on facts.) I don’t believe exactly what I did two or three years ago. Does anybody?

    • #108
  19. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    A response to comment #104

    I said at the outset that I was against the war, we did not have enough justification, in my opinion, to go in until Saddam had “fired on Fort Sumter” and convinced the remaining 30% of the US population that it was necessary.

    With the exception that…the arguments like mine, turned out to be true.

    OK. you won the lottery. Who knows, maybe OJ will get out of jail and find the real killers too. I just don’t think rational decision making should be made on that kind of conjecture. Bush and Cheney were very open about not having any new evidence other than what Bill and Hillary and Ken Pollack had seen, they just said they were looking at old evidence with new eyes — these nuts really meant it when they said they wanted to kill us.

    What do East Europeans or Albanians have in common with Arabs? 

    I was referring to our track record with nation building, and I notice you edited out my inclusion of Kurdistan, where we really were basically greeted as liberators.

    Chalabi was a con-man. 

    So was Charles de Gaulle, but both had come out on top when organizing exile communities and that should have counted for something.

    I am basically a libertarian as well, so I don’t want to argue this too far. If we had taken a fraction of what we had squandered on military boondoggles and put it towards energy independence we could have told the whole collection of nuts over there to have at it  like the Tutsi and the Hutus in Rwanda.   The so-called “Greatest Generation” put this world policemen obligation on our shoulders – I think that was a mistake – but until we figure out how to delegate it to someone else we will continue to be confronted with challenges like this.

    • #109
  20. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Zafar:Saddam certainly may have thought he had a green light, but I don’t see how that’s the U.S.’ fault.??Did I say that?If I did: no need to apologize, but I learn things and change my mind. (I sometimes even thank people for correcting me on facts.)I don’t believe exactly what I did two or three years ago. Does anybody?

    It may also have been a gadfly moment for you, and you were caught up in an oil as a motivation argument (maybe not on that thread, but that was part of the context), but it was my understanding that you thought that the US intentionally courted conflict. Perhaps I’m wrong, and if not you’re right that we all shift, and we all of us make stronger statements than we intend from time to time, but I’m very happy that my somewhat small list of serious disagreements with you is even smaller than I’d thought it to be (even the Iranian revolution stuff looks less serious in a context of your claiming that the US is often, rather than essentially always, in the wrong on these things).  I’ll go back and edit the comment.

    • #110
  21. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Petty Boozswha:

    Chalabi was a con-man.

    So was Charles de Gaulle, but both had come out on top when organizing exile communities and that should have counted for something.

    I think in both cases the politician was operating behind a veil of ignorance. No one, having left, could know what things were really like under the tyrant. While I’m not a fan of either politician’s political views, I think that both were primarily motivated by a genuine patriotism. In the case of Chalabi, I think that most of the charges of dishonesty are false and the sort of thing that would be said of any political opponent of Powell. Aram Roston, in particular, wrote perhaps the most slanderous biography I’ve ever read of anyone, and somehow manages to be the go to guy for just about every piece on Chalabi, being presented as a neutral expert.

    I do think that Chalabi is deeply opportunistic and that many of his schemes failed, but I don’t believe for a second that he intended them to or that he thought them likely to. Quite a lot of the most informed people in Iraq referred to him as the most informed person in Iraq and even out of power (well, as an MP), he was the go to guy to get things done. Like de Gaulle, he personally risked his life on a regular basis. He did spin stories somewhat, but he seemed pretty open about it; his hyperbole was mild by Arab politician standards, but he’d tell it with a smile.

    He always reminded me of how a more ethical Newt Gingrich would be if there were only a few lobbyists in existence and he had a backbench role in Congress. He’s a politician, somewhat prideful, and totally on the wrong side of a bunch of issues, and he’s somewhat ethnic (which was totally a problem for some people; they don’t mind skin color, but cultural differences bother them), but he’s still an important, impressive, and decent person.

    I am basically a libertarian as well, so I don’t want to argue this too far. If we had taken a fraction of what we had squandered on military boondoggles and put it towards energy independence we could have told the whole collection of nuts over there to have at it like the Tutsi and the Hutus in Rwanda. The so-called “Greatest Generation” put this world policemen obligation on our shoulders – I think that was a mistake – but until we figure out how to delegate it to someone else we will continue to be confronted with challenges like this.

    Do you mean “drill a bunch of wells”, so the federal funds go into oil subsidization, or are you taking a Gary Johnson like view that federally funded scientists should look for futuristic solutions to energy policy?

    • #111
  22. user_1030767 Inactive
    user_1030767
    @TheQuestion

    One other point that occurred to me, it was suggested that ISIS wouldn’t have formed if Saddam hadn’t been toppled.  Maybe.  However, Boko Haram is very similar to ISIS.  It has taken and controls territory, abour 20,000 square miles in the northeast corner of Nigeria.  We never invaded Nigeria, which suggests to me that psycho terrorist mini-states are more a product of Obama’s weakness than Bush’s aggressiveness.

    • #112
  23. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Michael Sanregret:One other point that occurred to me, it was suggested that ISIS wouldn’t have formed if Saddam hadn’t been toppled. Maybe. However, Boko Haram is very similar to ISIS. It has taken and controls territory, abour 20,000 square miles in the northeast corner of Nigeria. We never invaded Nigeria, which suggests to me that psycho terrorist mini-states are more a product of Obama’s weakness than Bush’s aggressiveness.

    It’s worth remembering that Zarqawi, who started the chief predecessor to ISIS, started it in Jordan, but was later in Iraq for a while under Saddam. How things would have fared in the Syrian Civil War, where ISIS took its current form, isn’t clear (would Saddam have helped Assad? Helped a different group? Taken over himself?), so it’s hard to know.

    If ISIS were to be nipped in the bud, it’d have been in Syria, where it wouldn’t have been hard, and most of the actions Saddam might have taken would have done it, but inaction from Saddam would have meant inaction for everyone; by 2012 when ISIS was getting going, Iran and Iraq would both have been nuclear powers, meaning that everyone would be treading on eggshells throughout the region.

    Or maybe Saddam’s decline would have continued after sanctions let up, and Iraq decayed and crumbled further. Perhaps he would have died, and his sons taken over, or one of his henchmen. It’s really very difficult to know, but it’s hard to see a plausible path to a pleasant life for Iraqis or their neighbors (or near neighbors in the case of Israel).

    • #113
  24. FloppyDisk90 Member
    FloppyDisk90
    @FloppyDisk90

    Then, ironically, after we had actually done the hard work of trying to un-break the Pottery Barn… we abandon the place.  That is the most contemptible, evil and stupid thing that we did – and that gets little or no attention, other than the ancillary fact that we get to watch heads get hacked off at the hands of ISIS on the evening news every night.

    I’m waiting for you and James to have a conversation because, by his account, Iraq is a beacon of Western values for the rest of the Islamic world and, according to you, it is an ISIS hell hole.

    Until conservatives can get in line on even the broad state of Iraq today (is it broken, is it fixed?) I take their various pronouncements and lecturing on global responsibility with a grain of salt.

    • #114
  25. MSJL Thatcher
    MSJL
    @MSJL

    The argument in the post was based on the premise that containment and sanctions were working.  No they weren’t.  Since Operation Desert Fox in 1998 there was frequent and accelarating exchanges of fire and combat.  And the  Food For Oil sanctions were being actively undermined.  I also put little faith in the idea that Saddam could be bought off for a billion when he had as much stashed away and could have left on his own.  If the story is true, I would guess that the Bush Administration didn’t take it seriously or considered it a delaying tactic.

    • #115
  26. milkchaser Member
    milkchaser
    @milkchaser

    Jason Rudert:+1. It will be decades before Iraq again has an executive as enlightened and decent as Saddam Hussein.

    I assume you are being sarcastic. Nothing decent about shredding people as if they were castoff plastic.

    • #116
  27. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    FloppyDisk90:

    I’m waiting for you and James to have a conversation because, by his account, Iraq is a beacon of Western values for the rest of the Islamic world and, according to you, it is an ISIS hell hole.

    Until conservatives can get in line on even the broad state of Iraq today (is it broken, is it fixed?) I take their various pronouncements and lecturing on global responsibility with a grain of salt.

    Broken, fixed – the terms have different meanings depending upon what context you’re using them in.

    If you’re looking at Iraq as it is today I definitely think there are areas in which life is better for people than it was under Saddam. There are also areas where it’s worse.  Surely, if your doctor told you that you had an operable malignant tumor you would ask for him to remove it, right?  Even if there were the slight possibility that you might die?  The stakes probably weren’t that high with Iraq, but there was some justification to “remove the tumor” as it were because we knew that the patient would be at least partially under our care in the post op period.

    The trouble is, Dr. Hussein (Obama) had an urgent tee time to meet, and he took his whole staff with him after the patient was mostly recovered!

    I don’t think there’s any doubt that a great deal of the dysfunction that we’re seeing today wouldn’t be occurring if Obama hadn’t yanked out our troops completely and then gone on to do practically the same thing he accused Bush of.  In this case, that means he pointlessly encouraged the overthrow of US-friendly Middle Eastern dictators (not our enemies, mind you!) like Qaddafi and Mubarak while also encouraging the overthrow of Assad.  The ripple effect that these collapses along with the lack of support from us has logically driven the Iraqis into the arms of the various factions now vying for power.

    • #117
  28. FloppyDisk90 Member
    FloppyDisk90
    @FloppyDisk90

    Majestyk:

    FloppyDisk90:

    …..

    Broken, fixed – the terms have different meanings depending upon what context you’re using them in.

    In my observation the context boils down to if you’re justifying the cost/effectiveness of the war then it’s fixed…”Look!  Electricity and voting!”…whereas if the discussion is a critique of leaving then it’s broken…”Look!  Power vacuum, ISIS and be-headings!”  While these two views don’t necessarily exist in opposition to each other, I think there’s more than a little bit of, shall we say “opportunistic”, interpretations of facts on the ground depending what point is trying to be made by conservative hawks.

    If you’re looking at Iraq as it is today I definitely think there are areas in which life is better for people than it was under Saddam. There are also areas where it’s worse. Surely, if your doctor told you that you had an operable malignant tumor you would ask for him to remove it, right? Even if there were the slight possibility that you might die? The stakes probably weren’t that high with Iraq, but there was some justification to “remove the tumor” as it were because we knew that the patient would be at least partially under our care in the post op period.

    The trouble is, Dr. Hussein (Obama) had an urgent tee time to meet, and he took his whole staff with him after the patient was mostly recovered!

    I don’t think there’s any doubt that a great deal of the dysfunction that we’re seeing today wouldn’t be occurring if Obama hadn’t yanked out our troops completely and then gone on to do practically the same thing he accused Bush of. In this case, that means he pointlessly encouraged the overthrow of US-friendly Middle Eastern dictators (not our enemies, mind you!) like Qaddafi and Mubarak while also encouraging the overthrow of Assad. The ripple effect that these collapses along with the lack of support from us has logically driven the Iraqis into the arms of the various factions now vying for power.

    Much of this reads as if you’re OK with murderous thuggery as long as it’s pro-US murderous thuggery.  Remember that Saddam was our friend prior to becoming our enemy.

    • #118
  29. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    FloppyDisk90:

    Much of this reads as if you’re OK with murderous thuggery as long as it’s pro-US murderous thuggery. Remember that Saddam was our friend prior to becoming our enemy.

    So was Josef Stalin.  He was our enemy before he was our ally before he was our enemy again.  Unreal.  How could we do such a thing?

    You misunderstand: Nations have permanent interests, not permanent allies.

    • #119
  30. FloppyDisk90 Member
    FloppyDisk90
    @FloppyDisk90

    Majestyk:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Much of this reads as if you’re OK with murderous thuggery as long as it’s pro-US murderous thuggery. Remember that Saddam was our friend prior to becoming our enemy.

    So was Josef Stalin. He was our enemy before he was our ally before he was our enemy again. Unreal. How could we do such a thing?

    You misunderstand: Nations have permanent interests, not permanent allies.

    So all the shirt rending I read about gassing Kurds and rape rooms is really just a smokescreen for Realpolitik calculus?

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.