Three reasons for invading Iraq, still entirely valid:
- violation of the 17 security council edicts _related to_ WMDs
- violation of the cease fire of 1991 (basically the same same as above)
- the belief - supported by Iraqs - actions that they had WMDs and were willing to use them. You can only act on what you think you know.

It's rewriting history to say the _only_ reason they went in was because of the possibility of mass WMD deployment.

Iraq was in status from 1991, kept their by the US/UK boot on their neck _because they refused to comply with the WMD protocols_. This is not in dispute, I should hope [or feel free to make this claim: Iraq was in compliance with the UN resolutions]. Here's the choices: let the boot off, or take him out.

And the war on terror hasn't slipped through the cracks: it looks like it's going quite well, actually.

It is not really rewriting history, though I take you point. We can go through the transcript of Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council to confirm it was the #1 reason offered to act upon the UN resolution violations. UN Resolution violation is not much of a trigger for US invasion as we all know. It was selective use based on misapprehended intellegence at best.<p>I wish there was a separate way to keep track on the war on terror, some headline service that focused on those events only. What I am mostly saying is that it has slipped from the attention of the media as much as from the attention of the decision makers. For example are the 1000 Canadian, NZ and Aussie secret commandos still crawling over the mountains of the Afgan-Pakistan border? Or was that given up secretly mid-2003 at some point. Locally I can follow events related to US Fort Drum soldiers in Afghanistan but only as casualties.

This one is pretty good:
http://www.command-post.org/

Also: http://www.janes.com
Alas, not my site.

Janes is too broad - although anyone can buy me a subscription to Janes Merchant Ship Digest anytime. The Command Post sub-site on The War on Terror is largely about homeland security fear news. I want mountain troop movements. In the Gulf War and in Bosnia you could listen to shortwave radio from both sides and get a real sense of what was happening. I used to tune in for ten minutes of English from Croatia every day at 7 pm and follow events on a huge map I have of the eastern part of the former Yugoslavia.

My take is it is about the region, not the country. In order to bring stability to the Middle East(I know, oxymoron) Saddam had to be removed, as he was involved in state-sponsored terrorism in Israel by rewarding suicide idiots that blew up pizza parlors full of kids. Add to this his history of unpredictability in the region, suspected weapons of mass destruction(which are probably now in Syria)his posing a serious threat to his neighbours, having committed horrendous crimes against his own people, having France and Germany benefiting from the Smart Sanctions program, it seemed the right thing to do. Could it be Iraq should not have been invaded? Absolutely not.

Fair enough but just advise what might make you change your mind. I suspect nothing. It is undoubted that Saddam was a murderous bastard who sent cheques to the parents of the dead. But that has never been cause to move on Syria or a re-entry into Lebanon, the real sources of the Palestinian suicide bomber support.<p>I saw that Rumsfeld posed this hypothetical that the goods were moved. This is utter crap. If there was a mass movement of munitions - including delivery systems which could have landed material in the west in 45 minutes - it would have been picked up by surveillance unless that too now turns out to be crap as well.<p>I think Rummy's phone is going to go quiet for the balance of his term. Powell's stock is going up.

If I was wrong, I would change my mind.

If Saddam had not invaded Kuwait, I would be wrong. If Saddam had never been posession of WMD, I would be wrong. If he never used gas in Northern Iraq on his own people, I would be wrong. If he never paid greiving mothers for their sacrifice, I would be wrong.If French and German officals( and maybe a Canuck)had not benefited from the illegal sale on Iraqi Oil, I would be wrong. Diplomacy may work in Syria, if not, they could be next. They are on watch and they know it.

The Pentagon has been a bit boisterous, but it is his (Rummyland)style, and one well known by the Admin from the start. Cut to the chase, skip the bullshit, lets get it done. That is why Powell was brought on board, to provide the impression of balance. I do not believe that Intelligence surveillance is the crystal ball you portray.

Keeping in mind you only access the media as I do you cannot be wrong or right in the matter. It is only a question of what facts support your agreement with the decision of certain US officials.<p>All of the factors you list existed throughout the 90s and were not the basis for the invasion. So, agreed, the intellegence is not a crystal ball and we all have known the other stuff for 13 years or so...but what was the rush a year ago? I am sure it has far more to do with what has been revealed in the former Treasury Secretary's book - it was the plan from as soon as the Florida thing was cleared up. I don't really care as I would like to see the west clearing out a lot of dictatorships. But are any of the compelling factors requiring action in spring 2003 left? Who will take the word of the US in the future on a similar matter?

Again, we return to 9-11 and a resulting fundamental change in strategic thinking in American foreign policy as the benchmark. No longer would - or could - an American administration be seen by its people or those of threatening countries or regimes, as unwilling to act, or been seen as a country that simply reacts. The errors of the Reagan and Clinton Administrations which were marked by their willingness to "tuck their tails between their leg and run" to cut losses (see Lebanon, Africa and Somalia) emboldened terrorists to act. And realizing that this unseen enemy would seek to hide behind the veil of countries that supported these terrorist acts "behind the scenes", it was realized that no longer could these complying countries be allowed to continue the support of terrorists - hence the implication of countries "harboring" terrorists as well. A white paper became available thru the White House website outlining this fundamental change in foreign policy long before the invasion of Iraq.

We will see (and hope that other rogue states have seen the Iraq example) if diplomacy makes a difference. In the attempt to discredit an American administration for having the guts to act to protect its people from present and future threats, lets not lose focus on the fact that a dangerous, ruthless killer has been removed from power - and we all know the U.S. is a target. As infidels, you and I might fall next on the list. Would we be able to count on our 2 rusty canoes and a few Sea Kings for protection if the Peace Tower is next on the list? Better to take the word of the U.S. then some of our "own", who hide behind the guise of Canadian citizenship while involved in terrorist activity here and abroad as reported by the French government. Regular readers of my website will recall my discussion of this very matter last month.

("Africa" = Kenya and Tanzania. And yes, Somalia is in Africa. I did not take the time to properly edit this sentence.)

OK - if that is all that is left it is a matter just of defensive empire. Which may be valid but drop the rest of it - WDM, the UN resolutions, exporting democracy - before it drops away from you of its own accord, act on that policy and see if you get re-elected. Maybe he would?

Justification for war because of abrogation of UN security council resolutions is tripe. Clearly the decision to act was held by the UNSC and 1441 did not authorise an essentially unilateral US/UK intervention. What was the Iraqi breach of the Safwan ceasefire agreement? It's nonsense, there was none.

The notion that Iraq's alleged WMDs were a threat is appalling propaganda. It is categorically dispelled by Colin Powell's stated in February 2001.<blockquote class="smalltext">

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. <b>And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.</b> So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."</blockquote>
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

If they were really concerned about the terrorist threat, as you assert, they would be in Pakistan.

Blair however, does allude to the true reason removing Saddam was in Britain's national interest:<blockquote class="smalltext">
"And if people say: why should Britain care? I answer: because there is no way that this man, in this region above all regions, could begin a conflict using such weapons and the consequences not engulf the whole world."</blockquote>

This “region <b>above all regions”,</b> what could he possibly mean? What separates this region from all other regions on the globe?

Vice President Cheney provides the answer in his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 26, 2002:<blockquote class="smalltext">

“Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies…” </blockquote>

It is in the interest of the US/UK global imperium to ensure that the timely and continuous flow of oil, serving the rapid growth of the global economy is ensured. Bush 1, Clinton/Gore and Bush2/Cheney knew this. The policy toward Iraq differs little between each administration. The US/UK production of oil has peaked. The UK will be a net importer of oil by 2020. Even more importantly ensuring the timely and continuous supply of an ever increasing demand for oil to developing economies, like China and India, diminishes the possibilities of future worldwide conflicts over an ever diminishing resource. The Middle East has 65% of the known world oil reserves and Saudi Arabia alone has 25% and the capacity to increase production at the flick of a switch.

Foreign policy is based on amoral self-interest. Is control of the one resource, more than any other that drives economic growth and stability, worth the death of 10,000 innocent Iraqis?

[From the Editorial staff: <i>I have gone into this comment and added some block text and make the URL a hyperlink</i>.]

Now we read:<blockquote class="smalltext">CIA director George Tenet has defended the gathering of intelligence later used to justify declaring war on Iraq.
No-one told security officials what to say or how to say it, he said, adding: "We always call it as we see it." He said the intelligence services had never said Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat" but stood by warnings about the future danger he could pose.</blockquote>Again, why not wait the three weeks many countries asked for in March 2003? [If you answer because they would only ask for three more, you learned your debating skills in kindergarten over cookie rationing policies.]

The United nations is a "Paper Tiger"..a "debating society" that allowed the senseless slaughter of 800,000 Tutsi's in Rwanda, and would not act to stop the killing in Bosnia. Without NATO, who also acted outside the U.N., Rwanda would have happened again! If you want the world to be a safer place for all humanity, including Africa, and ultimately here at home, make changes in the U.N. to force countries to account for their crimes. And to do that, you need to be able to back up such demands. Next time, the U.N. should ignore the French trying to protect their little nest eggs, and take action. Why France is in the Security Council is a mystery to me...their economy is smaller then California, and their influence and credibility disappeared after WWI and certainly WWII.

Then the US were fools to attend and make presentations and even to bother with resolutions as a justification. All that is left, then, is the "Empire of the Fearful".

Why not wait the three weeks? Political expediency. According to the polls Americans' support for the war was waning since Sept. 2002. The longer Bush/Blair waited and the more UN inspectors came up empty in their search for WMD in Iraq the less likely the American public would sanction the war.

It's ridiculous to sight conflicts like Rwanda, and criticise subsequent UN inaction because the UN does not have a standing army. It is dependent upon member states to supply the military force to intervene. Why didn't the US intervene in Rwanda? The extent of their global commitments will not allow it. Countries act in their own interests. What would be the cost of such an intervention? N. Korea is another example. Estimated US casualties in the first 90 days are almost 60,000 soldiers, more the the first Korean War or Vietnam. Possibly a million civilians would die.

France will be involved when their interests are threatened. Kosovo is a prime example. Chirac urged Clinton to utilise NATO and circumvent the UN. Whether the incursion into Kosovo was a valid action or the state will be run by some Mafia like strongman with Western sympathies is yet to be determined.

Alan's point is a valid one. Should Iraq have been invaded or just contained.

<p>Three reasons for invading Iraq, still entirely valid:<br>
- violation of the 17 security council edicts _related to_ WMDs
<br>
You have been (evidently) misled by the media. The only security council resolution that *supported* the use of force was struck down by the council itself. Now: go back to much quoted 1441. I quote:
<br>
"Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,".<br>
<br>
All the resolutions say that Iraq didn't comply. Think about it, there are no WMD and they haven't been found yet, despite everyone's claims. So if there were no WMD, how could Iraq ever have complied?
</p>
<p>violation of the cease fire of 1991
</p>
<p>You mean the no-fly zones? They were <b>imposed</b> on Iraq by the France, GB and the US. The UN had nothing to do with them. If I'm not wrong, the no-fly zone was more or less a patch done by the Coalition because they weren't willing to support the Shia uprising.
</p>
<p>the belief - supported by Iraqs - actions that they had WMDs and were willing to use them. You can only act on what you think you know.
</p>
<p>Rubbish. "The American people truly believed that there were WMD in Iraq. They could only act on what they thought they knew.". See how funny your rationale sounds?
</p>
<p>Alas, at the end everybody was wrong. If I claim things during my working hours and at the end, I can't deliver the promises, I get fired. It's too bad that nobody in politics takes reponsibility for the claims they make.
</p>

Soe points in response...

Number one, the fact that you can't help everyone is emphatically *not* a valid reason to never help anyone. Its a lame, pathetic excuse for inaction, and speaks very ill of any who use it.

Number two, one must consider the costs of containment. Containing Saddam meant a) constantly reminding everyone in the Arab world that the US 'hadn't had the guts to finish the job'; b) constant sanctions against Iraq; c) continuous troop presence in Saudi Arabia. The last of these is one of the most commonly cited motivations of Al Qaida in attacking the U.S.; the first of these is one of the reasons bin Laden is said to have joked he would face nothing worse than a lawsuit for 9-11.

The failure to understand that all alternatives (including inaction) have their own costs, and so the costs and benefits of any one plan cannot be looked at in a vacuum, is my single worst aggravation in public policy debate.

Number three is the question of inevitability. If you believe that, sooner or later, war with Iraq is inevitable, then doing it sooner (while you have better odds of winning at lower cost; can avoid having more years of sanctions; and while you have the ability to motivate people to agree to do so) makes more sense than doing it later.

Fourth is mistaking motive for result. If a man gives money to a homeless shelter only to impress a woman into bed, is that act rendered unhelpful because the motives for giving the money are impure?

Fifth, past inaction is not an excuse for future inaction. Would you argue "I can't save that man from drowning today, because I didn't save the one yesterday?" No.

One can challenge bad intelligence results, or the intelligence upon them.... but whether or not the war is on the whole a good and worthwhile act, or not, will be determined by the follow-through. Displacing a dictator is a good thing, but not if you only replace him with one equally bad (see: Haiti).

I'm not much of a fan of Bush the younger, and I abhor the father more than any living ex-President.

All very good. Thanks for joining in Desmond. [You have one of my favorite ska names by the way - Desmond.] I think you are right saying the Rwanda comparison is unacceptable. The failure to commit was universal and, as we have learned from the greatest Canadian, Romeo Delaire, pathetic in the truest sense. Likewise, Srebrenica. The UN did not fail those people anymore than the US did who stood with so many watching the killing of innocents. Pity those poor 167 Dutch saps with small arms. Not the country which could have sent in jets unilaterally to support its own troops - just those poor few saps.

Craig: You are right not to help all is no reason to help one but to claim to be helping one under the guise of other intentions is unacceptable as well. I like the containment argument - which, however, does not address the real problem that there will be troops in the area for a long period to deal with the result of invasion. It also and does not speak to the need to move before the three weeks by which time other nations including Canada would likely have been in. Haiti should be in everyone's mind in the endgame - Haiti in the middle east. The real problem now is how to get out without leaving a bigger problem. The good thing about dictators is that they are homogenous, two-dimensional. You never want to replace a simple ugly problem is a ocmplex ugly problem. Why was war with Iraq in evitable but not war with Iran, Syria or Pakistan? Is is that the US and UK had better maps? Why do you hate Bush the elder more?

Arthur makes a good point about losing the job. Who loses the job here? Is anyone going to get the chop or, like Kay, will the ethical walk?

Here we see once again the criticism about the Americans when they act, and similar criticism when they don't.( "Likewise, Srebrenica") The U.N. is seen as the one world agency that exists to ensure humane treatment of the worlds citizens. If they don't have the will or the means to do so, get outta the business. And don't be surprised if other countries step in to impose their view of what is right if the U.N. does not. For this reason, the Americans acted in Iraq. The war on terror involves the Middle East, and Iraq was seen as the one Arab country that stood up to the Americans by Arabs(according to Saddam, he won the first Gulf War) which also empowered the poor and destitute Arab street to embrase the twisted version of "jihad" propigated by OBL and Himen al Zwarhiri.

Seeing any good in any form of a dictator(stupid or not) puts one right at the front of the class of the Neville Chamberlain School of Foreign Affairs. Am I hearing you correctly in saying that stupid dictators offer no threat to the world, just his own people, so it is proper and OK to do nothing? Leaving Saddam for 3 more weeks would have done nothing to improve the situation, just drag out the inevitable. And infidels in Arabia inflames the Islamics like nothing else. Their goal to unite the Islamic world from Somalia to Spain and cleanse the land of the Arabs of the Jews and Christians is well documented.

Also consider the fact that the Americans really believed Saddam had WMD, and their forces were under threat continously of attack by chemical or biological weapons, or so they believed. The homefront was also a concern. Popularity would not last, whinners in the military wanting to come home because they missed College football, and this was getting plenty of sympathetic play in the media. They could not sit around and hope for a diplomatic breakthru with the Iraqi regime. Weather was also a concern The wet season was coming, with rivers overflowing, threatening the ability of men and machines to manouver. Surprise was also important. How else could the Americans avoid costly casualities and lose the support they had at the time. With these forces at his doorstep, who knew whether or not another mass slaughter was ready to occur? Reasons to act? Lots.

[The sound of one Wayne thinking: leap...leap...leap...]<p>So everything is involved with everything, there is no reason to review errors or fine tune anything - lash out everywhere. I know you don't think that but that is about as reasonable as your analysis of what I have said.<p>The big conspiracy is attractive and comforting as it is a simple way of looking at this. What is really happening, however, is also and I would suggest more related to Cold War ramifications still being played out. Dictators were propped up by the States (Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) or the Soviets (Syria, Pakistan) and these dictatorships are playing out the program set up for them. The idea that there is a mass movement in Islam to take over militarily or polticially the world it affects culturally is hogwash and confuses extremists with the population and the culture. You may as well say the Oklahoma bombers spoke for the USA and Christ. Sadly, learning this week that there are fewer than 100 Arabic speakers in the CIA, we also learn one reason for the failure of the US to grasp the situation before it is the comprehension of the issue perhaps on terms as simplistic as yours.

Late to the party ...

(1)
There was no rush to war -- 13 years is not a rush; or if you believe it was planned from the start of the Bush II regime, 3 years is not a rush; or from 9/11, 15 odd months is not a rush.

(2)
There was no point in waiting another 3 months; what was going to happen then that didn't happen in the preceeding 100+ months? This isn't a Grade 1 argument: the nature of the enemy, and his fellow travellers was clear: delay always works in favour of the weaker party.

(3)
Furthermore, US troops were deployed -- its expensive and demoralizing and dangerous to have that kind of deployment without using it. It was sh*t or get off the pot time.

(4)
It's fine to talk about the 10,000 killed, as long as your willing to put that in the perspective of the number of people already being killed monthly in Iraq, and the expected number once he got back in power (based on previous actions).

Incomprehsible as it may seem: human lives have value, even if they aren't being killed by Americans. Crazy hey?

(5)
"Just war" theories requires many predicates before a war can be started. A condition of injustice in the invaded land is one of them, but not the only one. A willingness to stick it out; an ability to _win_ is another.

Done warmongering for now.

[Now, don't get insulting, Al. That is not like you. I am not a lawyer, but that doesn't mean you should insult my intelligence. OK, I forgive you.]

True, the Cold War has left its mark. The influence Pakistan had in Afghanistan when they funneled CIA money to fighters they saw as suiting their agenda has been a problem. Had the CIA admitted they were in Afghanistan as a payback for Soviet support for N. Vietnam, and financed Masood in his fight against the Soviets, the Taliban would never got to power, and OBL would stil be in a hole in the Sudan instead of a hole in western Pakistan.

However, regarding your response to the Islamic Mission Statement, there may not be the mass movement you attribute to my comment, but there is a very influencial one, nontheless. A lack of focus on human intelligence has revealed some of the shortcomings in the intelligence business, but these tyrannical states and dictatorships are difficult to penetrate, human intelligence or not. Especially when the particular ideology of which I speak has taken hold even the more educated of their society. Even their lawyers!

As I have no complaint with the overthrow of dictators by force - that is always just just as propping them up is not - the only point here is the focus and the way it is gone about.

Although David is correct that there is no rush in the sense that he has stated, that is not how the matter has really been presented to the public - it is draped in 9/11 and homeland security rather the longer term. By doing so it is confusing and at risk of being misunderstood. This ties to other policies like tax reduction. Why isn't there a war bond push? Why is the war on terror being run Rumsfeldianly on Chicago School of Economics theories? The neo-con overlay creates shortcomings in intellegence or at least reluctance to examine whether enough resources are being put in place. It also creates the illusion that the war on terror is a simpler thing than it is, not requiring either the resources or committment of the nation. Powell knew this and was sidelined.

Further, think of 1930s Britian facing the new reality of an entrenched Soviet Union. Russian scholars were recruited widely and spies were trained. For more than 20 years this present conflict should have similarly been anticipated through administrations going all the way back to perhaps even Ford. The difficulty in penetrating the culture is entirely based on being unprepared to do so. Having family members who gained the cultural and language skill sets needed for personal reasons, I know it not difficult to do. It just needed being done. It wasn't. Hence, we are where we are.

There's a beautiful quote today from VDH (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200402060837.asp):

Let us for the nth time recite them: Saddam had broken the 1991 armistice agreements and after September 11 it was no longer tolerable to allow Middle East dictators to continue as rogue states and virtual belligerents. Two-thirds of Iraqi airspace were de facto controlled by the United States — ultimately an unsustainable commitment requiring over a decade of daily vigilance, billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of sorties to prevent further genocide. He had defied U.N. resolutions; and he had expelled inspectors, demanding either enforcement or appeasement and subsequent humiliation of the international community.

It's too bad we can't create an individual RSS feed for each individual article, so the discussion could be tracked by an aggregator...

What I can do is create a one thread category with its own RSS feed and I think that will pick up comments as added. A custom job that I would not want to do for all posts for anti-RSS ethical reasons, but lets experiment with this one. Give me a minute.

OK. Go here and grab the RSS feed.

Totally understanding a loving, generous Acadian culture is very difficult by a unilingual english-speaking anglo-saxon - even after endless French lessons. Food, fun and frolic is all different. And, we are talking about the same country, and in some cases, the same Province. I have contact with the Islamic culture - almost daily. I am a willing listener and have learned enormous information about their views on religion, other cultures, and historical events. Faced with the challenge of infiltrating a hostile, closed culture that has at its very core the mistrust of outsiders, is totalatarian in nature, with its population living in fear and mistrust, officials all related and living under the threat of executation(even sons-in law) and with many having the interpretation of the Qu'ran that tells them that nonbelievers are to be shunned, I believe that infiltration would be far more difficult than that faced by those with the job of infiltrating ans observing the juggarnaut USSR. Perhaps proper preparation would be prudent, but probably limited in its productivity.(Say that 3 times fast)

All I can tell you is a redheaded freckled person can be mistaken for a local in Damascus with a few years training. I know this is so.

To claim to be helping one when you're doing it for other motives is only wrong when you aren't actually helping (or even, arguably, if the actual help is entirely incidental). There's a good argument that any improvement in Afghanistan would be considered incidental to U.S. attempts there, but that doesn't apply in Iraq.

As for the invasion also requiring troops in the area.... it does, but not in "holy Saudi Arabia" from which they've been gone practically since the day the war ended. Also, a long, finite stay is better than infinite containment (and containment, to have been effective, would have to have been nigh-infinite; lasting at least as long as it took to beggar Iraq to the point it could no longer mount a meaningful WMD program.)

You assume other nations would have been in had they waited three weeks; I see no reason to believe that any U.S. delay short of waiting for Paul Martin to take office would have changed the involvement of Canada in the war. Plus, keeping troops in the field is a substantial commitment of resources and money, and allows additional time for enemy action (whether pre-emptive, or additional defensive work). You're arguing that the U.S. should have accepted known increases in cost and risks in exchange for chances of changes of hearts that ranged from the unlikely (Canada, Germany, Russia) to the impossible (France). To say these nations would "likely" have been in after a 3-week delay is to claim something that has less obvious evidence than exists now to support the argument that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs going into the war.

But yes, Haiti is the bad example of nation building. But you misstate the problem. The problem isn't how to get out, its how to make things better. At some point, making things better will involve getting out. But if your focus is just on getting out, the odds of a bad solution that doesn't work escalate. Leaving should be either for the best or worst case scenarios.... when things are stable and livably good (at least to the level of, oh, Jordan), or completely gone to hell past the point of redemption (Soviets in Afghanistan).

The Haiti example was actually a good argument against the war that few on the Left used (whether because Haiti was a Clinton Op, or because its run by a "leftist" thug now).... that to make the war worthwhile, you had to fix things afterwards, and there was (and is) doubt that Bush could do that properly.

War with Iraq was more inevitable than war with Syria because Iraq has more raw wealth (through the oil) than Syria, or even Iran. Its also worth noting that there was a legal pretext for going into Iraq... it would have been much harder to make a case for ongoing reasons to invade Syria or Iran. Not impossible, given the support of both for Hezbollah, (Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, remember?) but much harder.

As for why I hate Bush the Elder, while merely disliking the son....

W., to me, is lazy, too much so to be good in anything but an immediate crisis. He doesn't plan ahead very far, doesn't do many things that require difficulty, and generally has a history of avoiding work he should do but doesn't absolutely have to (grade-performance at school, lack of review of death penalty cases because 'someone else already reviewed them', long vacations, no push on passage of judgeships, no fiscal discipline, ....). Not an awful fellow, but not a reliable one.... eminently replaceable by someone better if you can find them, which despite the evidence of the Democratic nomination process, shouldn't be that hard.

His father, on the other hand, is the man who encouraged the Shia and Kurds to rebel against Saddam after Gulf War I, then stood by and watched them get slaughtered when it was easily in his power to intervene. That single decision, to me, is worse than any other single move by a U.S. President since Nixon, and I say that only because I don't know enough about Nixon to be sure he didn't do something worse, and, given the US conduct of the Vietnam War and abandonment of the South Vietnamese to their fate, wouldn't be surprised if he had.

For the record the "Craig" posting here is not the "HB" Craig.

(1)<br>
There was no rush to war...

<p>Think about it: the whole invasion was all well planned you mean?</p>

(2)This isn't a Grade 1 argument: the nature of the enemy, and his fellow travellers was clear: delay always works in favour of the weaker party.

<p>Delay for what? What was the essence of the delay? Did Saddam have a masterplan, and if so, did he tell you? Did he tell the US? He was just bluffing. It apparently worked for all those 19 years.
</p>

(3)
Furthermore, US troops were deployed -- its expensive and demoralizing and dangerous to have that kind of deployment without using it. It was sh*t or get off the pot time.

<p>There are US troops deployed in the DMZ of the Korean continent. They have been there for ages. At least as far as I can remember.
</p>

(4)
It's fine to talk about the 10,000 killed, as long as your willing to put that in the perspective of the number of people already being killed monthly in Iraq, and the expected number once he got back in power (based on previous actions).
<br>
Incomprehsible as it may seem: human lives have value, even if they aren't being killed by Americans. Crazy hey?
<p>If we're talking about lives, I wonder where the US where when Indonesian troops committed genocide in East-Timor. The last time I checked the newspapers, Americans still have no clue what happened over there, but apparently *Iraq* is overly important for whatever reason. Maybe Iraq was all about payback time: if so, don't give me the 'moral obligation' story. I don't buy that anymore.
</p>

(5)
"Just war" theories requires many predicates before a war can be started. A condition of injustice in the invaded land is one of them, but not the only one. A willingness to stick it out; an ability to _win_ is another.

<p>This kind of thinking reminds me exactly of the German point of view before they invaded The Netherlands in May of 1940. I bet you: there was no way to change their minds either, because 'the willingness was there' and the 'ability to win' too.
</p>
<p>Done warmongering for now.</p>
<p>Go study history books first before you start a war or even try to build a nation. The UN managed to do it right, just a couple of years ago, remember?
</p>

Godwin's law: I'm outta here. Everyone is Hitler, except the your pal with moustache shoving humans in the wood chipper.

Did the RSS work?

[BTW - incorrect invocation of G<strike>o</strike>odwin's law. Reference was to Germany's attitude to the Dutch 1940. Reference was by a Dutch national. Godwin's law relates to usages like "you f^#%$ing Nazi" or "the god damn Feminazis". You cannot invoke defence against bad analogies where a correct one is being made.]

Back again for the metadiscussion. I thought it was the odds of a discussion devolving toward someone being called a Nazi approaches 1 over time? Must go research...

I'm using the RSS to track this discussion. Also:
http://blog.davidjanes.com/mtarchives/2004_02.html#002246

You can HMTL your links around here. I will make your last comment linky.

Everyone is Hitler, except the your pal with moustache shoving humans in the wood chipper.
<p>As far as I know, I never mentioned the name: I was pointing out the mindset of the invaders. No matter what the Dutch would have done, the fate of the country (and Belgium and Luxembourg) was sealed: The French (yes, those weasels!) and British troops (badly equipped) were in the South of the country ('Weapons of Mass Destruction!') so therefore the Netherlands was an imminent threat to the German ambitions.
</p>
<p>But to get back to the discussion: *nobody* should be allowed to make outrageous claims and then 'walk away' with it like if nothing happened. That's not morally right.
</p>

Janes' Law: the odds of a discussion thread devolving to a invocation of Godwin's law approaches 1 over time.

(3)
<i>Furthermore, US troops were deployed -- its expensive and demoralizing and dangerous to have that kind of deployment without using it. It was sh*t or get off the pot At least as far as I can remember. time.</i>
“There are US troops deployed in the DMZ of the Korean continent. They have been there for ages.”

...Of all the statements I have read today, I have seen none that are more indicative of the need for research then this one. Anyone with the slightest grasp of Middle East attitudes towards people of another religion established in Arabia, let alone troops, let alone female troops would realize that troop deployment in S. Korea has no similarity to troop deployment in the land of Mecca and Medina whatsoever.

Your credibility, Wayne, might rise above the floor if you actually substantiated your position rather than wallowed in self-congratulatory clap-trap such as the above. Explain yourself and refer to authority outside yourself - don't just slag others for not agreeing. Of course there are similarities: both are references to long-term inextractable committment to unreadable foreign lands by US troops.

It would be useful to summarize the points. My main one is it is now clear that intelligence has sucked in relation to Iraq that the only remaining argument is that "we got an easy target bad guy".

Hear hear on the last point. However, the failure was old: there should have been a bloodbath in Washington on 9/12 amongst the members the "intelligence" community.

Note a similarity to the past, when the Berlin Wall fell. It was unexpected in the intelligence community because they believe the BS that East Germans were telling themselves.

Comments on the RSS feed. I'm obviously proposing something very general -- all bloggers should make RSS feeds tailored on a per-post basis. There's a chicken and egg problem with the tools to use the feeds; I'm on the case I hope.

The channel.link element in the RSS should point to this URL, not the home page, should it not?

<b>Wayne says:</b>let alone female troops would realize that troop deployment in S. Korea has no similarity to troop deployment in the land of Mecca and Medina whatsoever.

<p>
Wayne, I was referring to the point David made earlier:
</p>
its expensive and demoralizing and dangerous to have that kind of deployment without using it. It was sh*t or get off the pot time
<p>There are US troops in the area. They have always been there. Even recently. However: if David says its demoralizing and dangerous to have 'that kind of deployment without using it', then those troops must be pretty much bored too particularly with the tension in that area. There is no reason to start a war because the troops are 'demoralized'.
</p>
Janes' Law: the odds of a discussion thread devolving to a invocation of Godwin's law approaches 1 over time.
<p>Don't you hate that when it happens <g>
</p>

It was unexpected in the intelligence community because they believe the BS that East Germans were telling themselves.
<p>As someone who lived close to Germany when that remarkable event happened, I can tell you that nobody expected this to happen that fast. Apparently you can't stop people from marching out and crossing the border collectively.
</p>
<p><small><small>Though, I remember that the signs (the fall of East Germany) were there when hundreds of East Germans managed to escape to Hungary and Austria a couple of months before the East-Berlin crowd started to make way to the borders and demolish the Wall.
</small></small>
</p>

I humbly, and hurriedly submit?

"Let there be no two religions in Arabia”. ..the dieing edict of the prophet Muhammad

The Khalifa is the dream that Muslims around the world would be united under one ruler.” Peter Bergen London dispatch: London Calling Peshawar on-the-Thames <i>The New Republic</i> June 5 2000

"Scholars have long agreed that fighting the infidel enemy is an obligation to every Muslim" Sheikh ibn Taymiyyah said..."after faith, nothing is more obligating then defending against the enemy who spoils the religion and the world. We call upon the Almighty Allah to visit his anger, disgusts and concern on the American soldiers in the Gulf their allies the Jews in Palestine and all those hypocritites to send who He has from the sky to kill them”. Fatwa March 1998 issued in Karachi, Pakistan

The inam of the Prophets Mosque in Medina further called for the withdrawal of American troops the following June and his message was widely circulated throughout the Muslim world. One of Muhammads successors, the Caliph Umar, issued a final and irreversible decree that Jews and Christians be evicted from the "holy land of Hijaz" .

The Qu'ran.."Let there be no two religions in Arabia" Peter Bergen <i>Holy War Inc.</i>2001 The Free Press

Dr Saad al-Fagih, the London based Saudi dissident?"I don't think there is a sensible person who believes the Americans should stay in Saudi Arabia...if you are a devoted Muslim, there is a religious obligation not to accept non-Muslims in Military form staying in the country, especially the holy land." This belief is the major reason for OBLs support in the Islamic world, the fact he has given up all his riches to come to the defense of the Muslim faith?an attempt to reinvent himself as a prophet.

OBL’s professor and a major influence on his life, Abdullah Azzam was responsible for a widely distributed pamphlet, entitled “Defending Muslim territory is the most important duty” (Try Google for references). This opposition to the presence of American troops in Saud Arabia was echoed by two religious scholars Safarr al=Hawali and Salmon al-Auda. In a sermon, 1991, al-Hawali observed:” What is happening in the Gulf is part of a larger western design to dominate the whole Arab and Muslim world.” OBL often cites these two to justify his own pronouncements against the USA.

Of course, the support of the Arabs in Afghanistan as Mujahadeen can be accredited to the furor of Muslims over a Muslim country being occupied by Infidels.

Your research is started?as I gaze down from my perch above “the floor”.

Not a chance. You have not contextualized these random statements in the hierarchy of thought. Where is your argument? These are sticks floating in water. Not a boat or a bridge.

True...but I have company, darn it.(And why do "three periods make an iritating "?" on your blog?)

Briefly, my point returns to the troop deployment, which the American admin. dearly would like to remove from the Middle East, but cannot, due to the instability in the region. And, yes, with the oil reserves, it is a region with economic importance to the economy of the U.S.and that is why they are there.

My references above attempt to demonstrate that non-Muslims are not welcome there, not welcomed by the Islamic leaders, their followers or the Saudi Kingdom. And these radicals who want them gone are also threatening their hosts for befriending them, (see recent attacks in Riyad) which puts the vast oil field reserves at risk. And the troops are at risk of terrorist attack, much like what happened in Beirut. Yes, the troop deployment is about oil and Israel. Without them, I would imagine the rest of the world would let them blow themselves up as much as they wanted. The UN could not be counted on to step in and save the Kurds. To bring stability, the US was required to act, and act quickly on Saddam. This hopefully secures the oil, and also helps secure Israel against its most threatening neighbour. And stop the killing and torture. All good reasons.

Hopefully with this nut removed from power, the forces will be able to withdrawl, and the Saudi monarchy will continue to ensure the flow of oil to the free world unimpeded.

This directly contrasts with South Korea, who, up until this generation (that holds no gratitude and has forgotten that the combined forces drove the Chinese back across the DMZ)has long welcomed the presence of Americans in the region, along with the Japanese, and kept the North at bay. They are right now very concerned over American consideration of removing those troops due to deployment pressure. No matter, the South would easly defeat the North, with, yes, serious loss of life on both sides. But, the outcome is assured.

American forces have not always been in Saudi Arabia, as stated, and have recently decided to move their bases to the tiny kingdom of Qutar, a more safe and receiving country. But, Muslims really just want them to stay only long enough to clean up this nastly little Arab problem (Iraq) then go home.

The moderator tonight seems particularly demanding.
The shrimp dip awaits. Wish y'all were here.

They (South Koreans) are right now very concerned over American consideration of removing those troops due to deployment pressure.
<p>Actually, I remember that a lot of South Koreans (shortly before the Iraq war) demonstrated against the US presence (Praise the BBC for having those archives). That was not too long ago. Additionally, from what I gather, South Koreans are generally opposed to an armed conflict (despite the 'nuclear power' desire of their Northern siblings).
</p>
<p>The shrimp dip awaits. Wish y'all were here.</p>
<p>I'm on genetically modified Dream Puffs (link to Greenpeace) tonight. Trade?</p>.

The drownining man analogy is weak. It assumes that 1)the man is good 2)that saving him is an inherently good act and 3)that the result of his saving is also good. What if the drowning man is a murderer sentenced to drown as punishment for his crimes and by saving him you are incurring the wrath of the society that sentenced him to death. Such is the nature of foreign policy. If not in your national interest the cost of intervention must always be weighed against the benefit.

Take the case of Afghanistan 1980. The Reaganites throw the Taliban a life raft in the form of American stinger missiles and with CIA trained mujahadeen proxies the US deals the final blow in the death knell of Soviet communism. The belief is US geopolitical interests (the Carter Doctrine) in the Middle East are no longer threaten by the Soviets. What if the Americans had let the Soviets drown the Islamic fundamentalist "freedom" fighters. Would the twin towers still be standing?

In light of the fact Iraq posed no threat to the US or its allies in the region the concern is that Iraq could split up under U.S. intervention, potentially leading to chaos and the creation of new anti-American regimes and terrorist sanctuaries in the region as happened in Afghanistan. Containment was working. The US just had to wait until Saddam died or was killed. Now they face a deadly, hugely expensive situation in which they cannot afford to fail.

Best Wayne Quotation Yet:<blockquote class="smalltext">(And why do "three periods make an iritating "?" on your blog?)</blockquote>I leave you the grace and the hope of self-redemption with those few three dots. It is a big world we all face. The world which McNamara now says was this close to being smoked in nuclear holocaust in '64 when I was one, the world which I was abducted from and returned to 10 or 24 hours later at three or four during just an idle crime in Mexico (really), the world until I was twenty-five I thought that might be smoked again by Ronnie and Leonid. At the end of the day it is a world we can each nudge along a tiny little bit if we try. I know nothing but hope and thought. That is my little drum... That is what is all in those three little dots...

The outrage at American forces has come from Korean youth protestors who have either no knowledge, or value of the American sacrifice to keep them free. This is in contrast with the government, who are very concerned about American talk of leaving.

It has been said containment in Iraq was working. Containment was starving the people of Iraq, not hurting Saddam or his Friends. The rest of the Arab world sympathized with the starving people, and blamed the U.S. for the misery of the people. Troop deployment in the area was costly, dangerous and a risk to the flow of oil.(See above) The belief was he was advanced and threatening in the development of WMD was a concern to Israel. It is believed that there were connections to terrorist activity in the north, and that terrorosts could benefit from WMD in Iraq to attack the west. There was a concern the slaughter of Kurds could begin again, and there was evidence of his brutal treatment of his own people.

The fact that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. is a statement made with the aid of hindsight, which is almost always 20/20. Invasion addressed all these concerns. The maintaining the status quo was not an option. Setting up a democracy in the Middle East will threaten the kingdoms and dictatorships so that change will be possible in other countries, and address the problem of by the youth whose minds are twisted by an ideology that promotes hate, and know no other hope then that presented to them with a bomb and Allah.

The world is a better place without him. Direct American involvement will preclude the develpment of Taliban-like regimes. In Afghanistan, Americans were not directly involved, although their equipment turned the tide on the Soviets. Blame the Pakistanis for the Taliban. Just watch <i>Meet the Press</i> tomorrow and hear for yourself. (I am citing no more, because nobody else has been required to do so, and I have a headache this AM. Does Alan have a headache, too?)

from Korean youth protestors who have either no knowledge, or value of the American sacrifice to keep them free.
<p>Those BBC articles say nothing about 'youth protestors' as you so demeaningly comment. Additionally, if you talk about the value of 'American sacrifice', think back how the war started and why it was exactly started.<br> But after all, this wasn't the point I made: Once again, I was referring to an earlier (David's) comment about 'it not being responsible to leave troops just sit there at the borders of Iraq, eating out of their noses, and it is a waste not to put them in action'. Lets put those American troops in Korea in action too (at least there might be actually a good reason to do so since North Korea's First Man is more dangereous than Hussein).
</p>
<p>The belief was he was advanced and threatening in the development of WMD was a concern to Israel. It is believed that there were connections to terrorist activity in the north, and that terrorosts could benefit from WMD in Iraq to attack the west. There was a concern the slaughter of Kurds could begin again, and there was evidence of his brutal treatment of his own people.
</p>
<p>'I believe' is not a legal argument: you build your case with facts. THe US administration says it had facts. Nobody claimed responsibility or even called the quits out of principles when the facts were just a couple of made up things. <br>Get back to the analogy of work: if you claim things and you can't meet up to those claims, you should be fired. <b>I believe</b> that you can hold people accountable for their actions.
</p>
<p>Setting up a democracy in the Middle East will threaten the kingdoms and dictatorships so that change will be possible in other countries, and address the problem of by the youth whose minds are twisted by an ideology that promotes hate, and know no other hope then that presented to them with a bomb and Allah.
</p>
<p>Yes, but you forget: you are talking about a 'democracy' that has been forced upon people. Forcing opinions, ideas and ideals on others causes resistance. Occupation always leads to resistance and shifting political climates for the worse. I have plenty examples.
</p>
<p>The world is a better place without him.
</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings about this. I have my sincere doubts about the new 'democratic' Iraqi government.</p>
<p>In Afghanistan, Americans were not directly involved, although their equipment turned the tide on the Soviets. Blame the Pakistanis for the Taliban

</p>
<p>Heh. Blame 'short-term' American foreign policy.
</p>
<p>I have a headache this AM. Does Alan have a headache, too?

</p>
<p>I hope it wasn't the shrimp dip? :-) My GM Dream Puffs were actualy good.
</p>

[Has no one noticed my misspelling of "Intelligence"?]

Containment affected Iraqis differently in each region. The Kurds under the northern no fly zone and the Shia under the no-fly zone in the south were doing reasonably well. <p>Moreover, Bush and Powell in May 2001 were considering removing economic sanctions and moving to smart sanctions [weapon based].<blockquote class="smalltext">
"Last week it was first reported that the Bush Administration was considering alleviating the economic sanctions against Iraq, that have been in place the past ten years. I commend the Bush Administration for taking this position and I strongly urge President Bush and Secretary of State Powell to follow through with alleviating the sanctions by pushing the United Nations for appropriate relief."<blockquote>http://www.house.gov/conyers/pr051601.htm</blockquote></blockquote>It would be interesting to see the numbers for troop deployment before the invasion but it would be surprising if the cost exceeded the expenditure to rebuild Iraq. Earlier sanctions impeded further development of Iraqi oil resources; however limiting foreign investment to increase production is different from oil flow security, which the US military presence assured.<p>Btw have you seen these reports that the Israeli intelligence services knew before the war that Iraq had no WMD:<blockquote class="smalltext">"Jerusalem - A government critic said on Tuesday that Israel was aware before the war against Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, but Israel did not inform the United States.<p>"But lawmaker Yossi Sarid, a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, said on Tuesday that Israeli intelligence knew beforehand that Iraq had no weapons stockpiles and misled US President George Bush.. . "<blockquote>-at:this page.</blockquote></blockquote>Again, the Kurds were quite secure under the auspice of the no-fly zone.<p>Powell’s statement [see up top for link] in Feb. 2001, 9 months before 9/11, debunks the hindsight argument. He stated that sanctions had worked and that Saddam was not a threat to the region. The fact that the Bushites [at least the State Department] were considering mitigating sanctions is further evidence that many in this administration no longer considered Saddam a threat.<p>Where is the evidence that the US intends to establish a democracy in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Using Bosnia or Northern Ireland as the examples, successful nation building usually requires a ratio of 20 soldiers per thousand population. This is not the case in either Iraq or the ‘Stan. see: this page.<p>
Agreed no doubt Saddam is a bad guy and we all hope the Iraqi people don’t let him leave this world without driving at least a dozen nails in his head. However, US forces are stretched thin and it is unclear that Iraq will see anything more than a US backed thug over the next five years. In addition, do not count out a potential US reconciliation with the more moderate elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan.