100 facts and 1 opinion

[Cool Hand]

Cool, Warrenly. I hope others will join in with their speculations and unsupported theories too. The wilder and less supported by hard data the better.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

Cool Hand, that's a very good analysis and I mostly agree that that's what Bush and cadre were thinking. In my opinion access to oil played a larger role in their thought process than you seem to think, but otherwise I think you are probably right.

Where I differ with the Bush team (and maybe with you, I don't know) is that any of that thinking is reasonable. To mass all terrorism together into one movement that can be fought and defeated is like trying to attack the concept of guerilla warfare or attrition warfare by attacking particular targets. Terrorism is a tactic. I think most of us share the opinion that it is a despicable tactic (I do), but it is not a unifying ideology like anti-Semitism, communism, or even fascism. To attack Hussein because he provided some support to groups who use the same tactic as Al Qaeda is just plain silly.

Besides the fact that there is no evidence that Saddam provided any support to terrorist groups who planned to attack the US, there is not much evidence that he provided substantial support to any other terrorist groups. He wrote some checks to families of Palestinian suicide bombers whose houses had been bulldozed by the Israelis, but that's about it. After Gulf War I he seems to have spent most of his money building palaces for himself and buying expensive luxury goods for his supporters. Anti-Israel terrorist groups get far more support from Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt than they got from Iraq, with little to no interference from the governments of those countries.

And why should we fight Israel's wars for her?

After 9/11, I saw Al Qaeda as the only enemy against whom we needed to use military force in order to defend ourselves. Other enemies existed, but the threats they posed were neither large or immediate, and could best have been dealt with by other means in cooperation with other nations. And Al Qaeda seemed a big enough target. Even then it was a loose movement more than an organization that would require creative and unconventional means to defeat.

As to the UN being useless, I agree that many of Bush's team and many conservatives hold that belief. And frankly I find it very, very dangerous. The UN is by no means perfect, or even intended to be, but it still has utility in fulfilling its original purpose: encouraging nation-states to avoid war by facilitating negotiation between them and setting up a system for other nations to exert influence on nations that employ or seek to employ force.

Yes, that involves limiting the US's actions in the world. That's part of the idea: to keep the most powerful nations from using military or economic power to dominate the rest. I support this goal even when - hell, especially when - my nation is the most powerful in the world.

That brings up something I want to say about unilateralism. I can envision a situation where the US needed to do something on the world stage in order to defend itself, something which was opposed by most of the world community. But Iraq was not such a situation. Germany, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq for a very good reason: we had not presented an adequate case for why we would be justified in invading Iraq and the world is justifiably - based on world history - afraid of any nation that undertakes military action for any reason other than self-defense, the defense of allies, or the prevent a humanitarian catastrophe - the very reasons stated in the UN charter as justifying war. Sure, those nations had selfish reasons for opposing the war as well. If their only reasons had been self interest it would have been a different story. But they had a good reason: they claimed there was no compelling evidence that Saddam had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, or that he was a threat to regional security. As we all now know, they were right.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But that does not mean that invading Iraq (even if Bush had had a viable reconstruction plan, which he clearly doesn't) would result in an improvement inside Iraq or in the world at large.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Cool, Warrenly. I hope others will join in with their speculations and unsupported theories too. The wilder and less supported by hard data the better.

Cool Hand

Here's some hard data for Warren's theory:

Project for a New American Century

They've been right out in the open the whole time.

I would also point out that maps of Iraqi oil fields were examined by Cheney's energy task force in 2001.

[godfry n. glad]

Well... Your hypothesis would be worthy if it weren't for my understanding that George HW opposed deposing Saddam...even the second time around. His reasons for not bringing down Saddam in the First Gulf War was stated in The World Transformed, which he co-authored with Brent Scowcroft. Insufficient military power to pacify the country after occupation and the high likelihood we would become involved in a military and diplomatic quagmire.

I also understand that the Dumbya administration was planning the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11.

My supposition is that the Saudis want us there. The Saudi royal family, actually. It's my understanding that the king is an invalid due to a stroke and his days are numbered. There seems to be a great deal of unease upon the part of the royal family due to simmering resistance to the control of the royal family within Saudi Arabia....Osama bin Laden being amongst them. I'd say that the invasion to depose Saddam was to remove the most likely extra-Arabian source of attempts to grab Saudi possessions in the event of regime instability brought on by the passing of the king.

So... How does Saudi Arabia get us to dance to their tune? Money. Specifically, the oil profits which the Saudis have been raking in since the 1970s have, in large part, been reinvested in the American economy. Huge sums. Huge sums that can be withdrawn in the blink of an eye....to some considerable damage to the U.S. economy. That, I believe, is the leverage.

I suspect that should there be an internal confligration within Saudi Arabia, we will be involved in it...most likely as a prop to the existing regime. And...if you're looking for a corrupt dictatorship that terrorizes its own people, look no farther than Riyadh....our "ally".

My tenuous source for this is Robert Baer's Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude.

godfry

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Cool, Warrenly. I hope others will join in with their speculations and unsupported theories too. The wilder and less supported by hard data the better.

No more so than your speculation about George the Elder changing his mind about taking Saddam out. That runs a bit contrary to things he has said in the past. From what I've read he recognized the potential for quagmire in an occupation. I therefore speculate that he actually advised Junior not to stick his hands in that tarbaby, and has been marginalized by the Junior and his administration as a result. He's only campaigning for Junior now because that's an image thing and a Republican thing, families sticking together sort of thing.

Say, this unsupported speculation thing is fun. OK, tell me what I have wrong, unsupported or not, doesn't it make sense?

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by warrenly

No more so than your speculation about George the Elder changing his mind about taking Saddam out. That runs a bit contrary to things he has said in the past. From what I've read he recognized the potential for quagmire in an occupation. I therefore speculate that he actually advised Junior not to stick his hands in that tarbaby, and has been marginalized by the Junior and his administration as a result. He's only campaigning for Junior now because that's an image thing and a Republican thing, families sticking together sort of thing.

Say, this unsupported speculation thing is fun. OK, tell me what I have wrong, unsupported or not, doesn't it make sense?

Poor choice of words on my part, Warrenly. I was being cheeky and gleeful at the prospect of posters expressing wild, speculative theories. I didn't mean it as a critique of yours, although I can now see that anyone might take it that way. I freely admitted that mine is speculative and that I cannot support it with hard data. I stand by that. It's just speculation on my part.

I'm not going to attempt to critique yours, because I think you meant it in the same spirit as mine, although perhaps with a bit more partisanship.

Mine is no better or worse than yours, as a speculative theory. If we are going to get down and pick them apart and note that they aren't supported, then that's pretty self-fulfulling, isn't it?

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

Aw, don't worry about it, it is just speculation. I really don't think my basic theory is partisan at all, that the purpose was to establish a significant military presence in the region in order to secure the steady flow of cheap oil.

Back to partisan politics for a second. Republicans were often critical of Clinton for not having an energy policy. Clinton had one and it is the same one as the Republicans. Use up the cheap oil while we can still get it. That's the policy. Like I said, it's a little short-sighted, but I do think that is the unstated energy policy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Incidently, I don't believe the "no blood for oil" hype from 2002, and I didn't believe it in 1990. It's an overly simplistic explanation for a complex problem. It's also far more cynical than what I believe to be more plausible explanations.

I'm in partial disagreement with you here. While "no blood for oil" is, indeed, an overly simplistic take on the situation, it's not, IMO, based on false premises. It's simply a reduction of a complex argument to a sound bite sized slogan, not an uncommon thing in America's spin laden political discourse.

It's no secret that it's been part of US defense policy for decades to ensure that the Middle East's oil resources are not controlled by sovereign nations unwilling to meet American demand for oil. It's not necessarily that the US wants to control the oil fields; we simply don't want them to be controlled by anyone who isn't willing to sell us the oil we need to run our military machine and the oil we want to run our SUV's. Any US action in the Middle East is going, to some extenet, to take this goal into account. I don't necessarily disagree with this, by the way; I simply prefer that it be spelled out as a reason for action, rather than obscured by vague threats of WMD, or even more vague assertions that "freedom is on the march". The degree to which this end influenced the decision to invade Iraq is debatable. Almost certainly, it had some impact, and several pieces of evidence (the fact that Cheney's Energy Policy Task Force apparently reviewed a map of Iraq in early 2001, the fact that the Iraqi Ministry of Oil was virtually the only important government facility secured by American troops in the early stages of the occupation, the rapidity with which Iraqi oil was privatized) argue that it was fairly influential.

Work done...going home...more later...

Adam

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Cool Hand, that's a very good analysis and I mostly agree that that's what Bush and cadre were thinking. In my opinion access to oil played a larger role in their thought process than you seem to think, but otherwise I think you are probably right.

Thanks, GD. Who really knows? It's just speculation.

I don't doubt that our interests in maintaining a ready access to trade in crude oil from the Middle East plays a substantial role in our presence there. The industrialized world is too dependent on Middle Eastern oil for us not to care about the political and military stability of the region. It may seem callous to some people for those interests to play a substantial role in policy making, but I submit that it's naive to discount it. Self-proclaimed peace lovers who denounce "No blood for oil" might find themselves shifting their stances somewhat if gasoline in the U.S. suddenly became in short supply, and as a result they couldn't drive to work and had to pay 3 times what they do now for groceries and other basic necessities.

Life in a complex world economy isn't so simple and binary. It's also a lot more pragmatic and dominated by self interest than many are willing to admit. I don't delude myself into believing that our actions are dominated by altruistic ideals. On the other hand, opponents of our actions sometimes act as if their opposition is premised on altruistic ideals when it truly isn't.

Where I differ with the Bush team (and maybe with you, I don't know) is that any of that thinking is reasonable. To mass all terrorism together into one movement that can be fought and defeated is like trying to attack the concept of guerilla warfare or attrition warfare by attacking particular targets. Terrorism is a tactic. I think most of us share the opinion that it is a despicable tactic (I do), but it is not a unifying ideology like anti-Semitism, communism, or even fascism. To attack Hussein because he provided some support to groups who use the same tactic as Al Qaeda is just plain silly.

I agree with you about the terrorism vs. terrorists argument. Transnational terrorism is mostly a tactic employed by the politically and militarily impotent. It's a last resort to gain attention to the causes of terrorists.

I disagree with your conclusion that attacking Hussein is silly due to his support of terrorists dedicated to harming the U.S. and its political allies. From a deterrence perspective, it is reasonable to punish those who fund terrorists.

And why should we fight Israel's wars for her?

That's a topic far too broad and deep to discuss in the context of this thread.

As to the UN being useless, I agree that many of Bush's team and many conservatives hold that belief. And frankly I find it very, very dangerous. The UN is by no means perfect, or even intended to be, but it still has utility in fulfilling its original purpose: encouraging nation-states to avoid war by facilitating negotiation between them and setting up a system for other nations to exert influence on nations that employ or seek to employ force.

That sounds nice on paper. I think it discounts the historical context in which the U.N. was formed. It replaced the failed League of Nations after WWII. The League was formed after the first world war in an effort to prevent another large scale war, mostly across much of Europe. The U.N. was established by the Allied Forces and China as reactions to the aggressions and atrocities committed by Germany and Japan. They had two primary goals, both of which grew out of those reactions. One was arms control of potentially aggressive nations like Germany and Japan, and the other was to prevent the recurrence of genocides like those committed by those same nations during WWII.

The Cold War began as soon as the ink on the U.N.'s charter was dry. It was never truly a peace-loving, humanitarian organization, despite the spin on its purpose being given it today. It was a pragmatic organization formed strictly as a reaction to the events which allowed Germany and Japan to terrorize and conquer their neighbors, and to massacre certain ethnic groups. Almost immediately, it became a roundtable for the world's nuclear superpowers to square off, and for the rest of the world to jockey for position seeking to keep them and nuclear proliferation in check.

The U.N. did not prevent nuclear testing or the proliferation of nuclear arms. Furthermore, it was not effective as a force in preventing the Soviet Union and the U.S. from nearly annihiliating each other. The deterrent effect of a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction and a healthy dose of luck prevented WWIII in the last century.

With no more internal threat to the security of Western Europe, with a Japan no longer seeking military imperialism, and after the fall of the Soviet Empire, the U.N.'s original purposes have largely become irrelevant. Today, the U.N. struggles for relevance almost solely as a check on the military and political influence of the U.S.

Yes, that involves limiting the US's actions in the world. That's part of the idea: to keep the most powerful nations from using military or economic power to dominate the rest. I support this goal even when - hell, especially when - my nation is the most powerful in the world.

Well, that's why many in the U.S. feel the U.N. is no longer relevant to the U.S. Of course nations who feel threatened by perceived abuses of the U.S. military and political might support the U.N. That's all they've got.

That brings up something I want to say about unilateralism. I can envision a situation where the US needed to do something on the world stage in order to defend itself, something which was opposed by most of the world community. But Iraq was not such a situation. Germany, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq for a very good reason: we had not presented an adequate case for why we would be justified in invading Iraq and the world is justifiably - based on world history - afraid of any nation that undertakes military action for any reason other than self-defense, the defense of allies, or the prevent a humanitarian catastrophe - the very reasons stated in the UN charter as justifying war. Sure, those nations had selfish reasons for opposing the war as well. If their only reasons had been self interest it would have been a different story. But they had a good reason: they claimed there was no compelling evidence that Saddam had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, or that he was a threat to regional security. As we all now know, they were right.

I disagree. I think they opposed our actions because they see the U.S. as an imperial nation. They oppose any military action by the U.S. that doesn't serve the interests of the opponents. They're not interested in altruistic ideals like global peace. They want the U.N. to be an international governing body so they can feel enfranchised in decisions the U.S. makes which might impact them. That's understandable from their perspective, but it isn't exactly high-minded idealism. It's pragmatic, not principled. Thus, the U.N.'s objections sound hollow.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But that does not mean that invading Iraq (even if Bush had had a viable reconstruction plan, which he clearly doesn't) would result in an improvement inside Iraq or in the world at large.

Except that it has, regardless of the different justifications given for the invasion.

Cool Hand

[Adam]

Home now...

Anyway, to wrap up the point I was trying to make, oil is always a factor in the US's Middle East policy, as you seem to agree with in your most recent post. There's an argument, which I almost agree with, that we'd be better off simply forgoing Middle Eastern oil than paying the high price (including lives lost) of maintaining the security of our sources, and "no blood for oil" is the simplest reduction of that argument.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I disagree with your conclusion that attacking Hussein is silly due to his support of terrorists dedicated to harming the U.S. and its political allies. From a deterrence perspective, it is reasonable to punish those who fund terrorists.

I agree with your point about deterrence. In fact, I read an interesting piece not too long ago (damn, I wish I could remember where) about the rationality of engaging in seemingly irrational overreaction to threats. Essentially, if one has a reputation for escalation, other parties are less willing to commit small offenses.

We have to remember, though, that when nations act to punish other nations, a host of innocent bystanders get caught in the way, and that their opinions matter. Punishing Hussein for providing suicide bomber insurance policies to Palestinians makes sense in a vacuum, but you have to weigh the costs and the benefits. I'm not at all convinced that Hussein's cash rewards did more to create new terrorists than our deposing of him. Hell, I'm not even sure how to do the math on that one.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Adam

Home now...

Anyway, to wrap up the point I was trying to make, oil is always a factor in the US's Middle East policy, as you seem to agree with in your most recent post. There's an argument, which I almost agree with, that we'd be better off simply forgoing Middle Eastern oil than paying the high price (including lives lost) of maintaining the security of our sources, and "no blood for oil" is the simplest reduction of that argument.

Thanks, Adam, for clueing me in. I never understood "no blood for oil" in those terms. I always assumed that it reduced the complex reasons giving rise to our involvement to crass consumerism. I can understand it better as an objection when you put in the way you do.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Adam

We have to remember, though, that when nations act to punish other nations, a host of innocent bystanders get caught in the way, and that their opinions matter. Punishing Hussein for providing suicide bomber insurance policies to Palestinians makes sense in a vacuum, but you have to weigh the costs and the benefits. I'm not at all convinced that Hussein's cash rewards did more to create new terrorists than our deposing of him. Hell, I'm not even sure how to do the math on that one.

I have a problem with our accepting responsibility for "creating" terrorists. I understand your point, and it's a good one, and a good cause for concern.

Actually, when I mentioned deterrence, I was thinking of deterring those funding terrorists from funding them, not those who might become terrorists from becoming them.

You're right. Doing the math on that one would stump anyone.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I don't doubt that our interests in maintaining a ready access to trade in crude oil from the Middle East plays a substantial role in our presence there. The industrialized world is too dependent on Middle Eastern oil for us not to care about the political and military stability of the region. It may seem callous to some people for those interests to play a substantial role in policy making, but I submit that it's naive to discount it.

As Adam explained, that's all we mean by "no blood for oil". Is petroleum the only issue involved? No. But complicated issues don't fit on posters and bumper stickers.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Self-proclaimed peace lovers who denounce "No blood for oil" might find themselves shifting their stances somewhat if gasoline in the U.S. suddenly became in short supply, and as a result they couldn't drive to work and had to pay 3 times what they do now for groceries and other basic necessities.

Not me. For one thing, it might induce Detroit to use some 10-year-old Japanese technology to make more fuel efficient cars, and it might induce Mr. & Mrs. Soccermom to think twice before buying that next Chevy Tahoe.

Call me a peacenik if you must (and I make no apologies for believing that war is so terrible it must always be a last resort), but to me no natural resource is worth killing for. If we have to give up some of the luxuries we consider necessities we have only ourselves to blame: we've seen this coming for decades.

Hell, I won't even kill for weed, I sure as hell won't do it for petroleum.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Life in a complex world economy isn't so simple and binary. It's also a lot more pragmatic and dominated by self interest than many are willing to admit. I don't delude myself into believing that our actions are dominated by altruistic ideals. On the other hand, opponents of our actions sometimes act as if their opposition is premised on altruistic ideals when it truly isn't.

Of course. But that doesn't mean we always have to give in to self-interest, especially when it is at the expense of others. I also belive firmly that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to the self-interest of the US.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I agree with you about the terrorism vs. terrorists argument. Transnational terrorism is mostly a tactic employed by the politically and militarily impotent. It's a last resort to gain attention to the causes of terrorists.

I disagree with your conclusion that attacking Hussein is silly due to his support of terrorists dedicated to harming the U.S. and its political allies. From a deterrence perspective, it is reasonable to punish those who fund terrorists.

Show me one shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists dedicated to harming the US. If he had, our allies would probably have felt differently about our actions and so would I - although I would still say that invasion and occupation was not the only option.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

That's a topic far too broad and deep to discuss in the context of this thread.

It is a huge topic, but it's a crucial component of this whole Iraq situation.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

With no more internal threat to the security of Western Europe, with a Japan no longer seeking military imperialism, and after the fall of the Soviet Empire, the U.N.'s original purposes have largely become irrelevant. Today, the U.N. struggles for relevance almost solely as a check on the military and political influence of the U.S.

First of all, good, we need that check. But I don't think the UN is irrelevant. There are still nation states and they still come into conflict. I would agree that the makeup of the Security Council no longer reflects the realities of world power. But I think the UN has an important role to play.

I also don't think that having nearly every nation-state in the world sign a binding treaty promising not to wage war except in cases of self-defense or to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe will ever be obsolete. I can not think of any other reason for the country I am a citizen of to declare war. Ever.

War is not just another political tool. It involves killing lots of people; it means even those soldiers who survive will be changed for life, often in bad ways.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I disagree. I think they opposed our actions because they see the U.S. as an imperial nation.

Based on many of our past actions in the third world, and especially our action in Iraq, that's a pretty good perception on their part.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

They oppose any military action by the U.S. that doesn't serve the interests of the opponents.

You think Germany and France thought that?

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

They're not interested in altruistic ideals like global peace.

Global peace is not altruistic. It is self-interest.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

They want the U.N. to be an international governing body so they can feel enfranchised in decisions the U.S. makes which might impact them. That's understandable from their perspective, but it isn't exactly high-minded idealism.

I never said it was.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

It's pragmatic, not principled. Thus, the U.N.'s objections sound hollow.

Non-sequitor. How does being pragmatic make their objections hollow? Of course they are being pragmatic. In my opinion, international affairs should virtually always be decided on pragmatic grounds.

You're also making the mistake of talking about the UN as if it were a single entity. The UN doesn't make decisions. Its member nations make decisions individually, and those with membership on the Security Council vote. You have to look at the motivations for each of those members.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Except that it has, regardless of the different justifications given for the invasion.

I vehemently dispute that.

There's no way the aggregate situation in Iraq has improved. It could have if the immediate post-invasion had been handled differently. If that had happened I would be saying "We had no good reason to go in and I was right about the WMDs, but that idiot managed to pull it off and the people of Iraq will be able to choose their own government and build a civil society." And 18 months ago that's exactly what I expected to happen! I knew Bush was a misinformed bully, but, to paraphrase John Kerry, I had no idea he would fuck it up this badly.

And if the U.S. is more secure than it was two years ago, I'm skinny, sober, and celibate.

I said above that the use of military force - killing people - is not just another foreign policy tool. But I can't deny that the threat of military force is, and it is a very effective tool in certain situations. That's why I didn't protest Bush before the invasion - I thought maybe he knew what he was doing. I'm sorry I was wrong.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Well... Your hypothesis would be worthy if it weren't for my understanding that George HW opposed deposing Saddam...even the second time around. His reasons for not bringing down Saddam in the First Gulf War was stated in The World Transformed, which he co-authored with Brent Scowcroft. Insufficient military power to pacify the country after occupation and the high likelihood we would become involved in a military and diplomatic quagmire.

I don't know enough about that to comment. I'll try to check out that book and see. Thanks for the tip.

I also understand that the Dumbya administration was planning the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11.

I haven't heard that. Do you have a reference or source for your understanding?

My supposition is that the Saudis want us there. The Saudi royal family, actually. It's my understanding that the king is an invalid due to a stroke and his days are numbered. There seems to be a great deal of unease upon the part of the royal family due to simmering resistance to the control of the royal family within Saudi Arabia....Osama bin Laden being amongst them. I'd say that the invasion to depose Saddam was to remove the most likely extra-Arabian source of attempts to grab Saudi possessions in the event of regime instability brought on by the passing of the king.

So... How does Saudi Arabia get us to dance to their tune? Money. Specifically, the oil profits which the Saudis have been raking in since the 1970s have, in large part, been reinvested in the American economy. Huge sums. Huge sums that can be withdrawn in the blink of an eye....to some considerable damage to the U.S. economy. That, I believe, is the leverage.

I suspect that should there be an internal confligration within Saudi Arabia, we will be involved in it...most likely as a prop to the existing regime. And...if you're looking for a corrupt dictatorship that terrorizes its own people, look no farther than Riyadh....our "ally".

My tenuous source for this is Robert Baer's Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude.

godfry

I haven't read the book, but your theory sounds plausible. Thanks for sharing it, godfry. It's good to get differing perspectives.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

I vehemently dispute that.

There's no way the aggregate situation in Iraq has improved. It could have if the immediate post-invasion had been handled differently. If that had happened I would be saying "We had no good reason to go in and I was right about the WMDs, but that idiot managed to pull it off and the people of Iraq will be able to choose their own government and build a civil society." And 18 months ago that's exactly what I expected to happen! I knew Bush was a misinformed bully, but, to paraphrase John Kerry, I had no idea he would fuck it up this badly.

GD,

Thanks for responding again. I hope you don't mind that I snipped most of your post and chose to respond only to this little part. I'm simply growing weary of making posts in this thread and I'm tapped out on the subject for now. Surely, you and others in this thread can understand that. It doesn't mean I'm no longer interested in what you and the others kind enough to continue this discussion have to say. It also doesn't mean I'm running away from your rebuttals and comments. It just means I'm tired.

Anyway, getting to the merits of your claim above, we could argue all day long about whether Iraqis have benefited from our deposing of Saddam. I don't think either of us would agree with the other's ultimate conclusion.

All I will say is I suggest that you read the October 24, 2004 Los Angeles Times article I linked to above in this thread, which came from your link to the PNAC. It relates several positive impacts on Iraqis as individuals, as a culture, and as a nation from our removing Saddam from power. It notes several positive benefits to Iraqis from our reconstruction efforts, the influx of capital, and the influx and ready availability and affordability of Western consumer products and services, especially internet, satellite television, and cell phone goods and services. It notes that the Iraqi dinar is more stable against the U.S. Dollar than the Canadian Dollar is. It notes that Iraqis are risking their savings in establishing businesses, indicating optimism and feelings of security. Millions of Iraqis living in exile are returning to Iraq. Iraq is embracing capitalism and is optimistic about being able to establish their own brand of democratic, representative government.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I haven't heard that. Do you have a reference or source for your understanding?

This is not a source for the administration planning an invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11, but Mickey Herskowitz, a former GWB ghostwriter and biographer of Prescott Bush, claims that Bush himself spoke of invading Iraq in order to get the approval rating of an easy war to help implement his legislative agenda.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Beyond a reference to Paul O'Neill's book, there is no external confirmation that I can see, but the case he makes is at least as plausible and internally consistent as anything else in this thread.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

This is not a source for the administration planning an invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11, but Mickey Herskowitz, a former GWB ghostwriter and biographer of Prescott Bush, claims that Bush himself spoke of invading Iraq in order to get the approval rating of an easy war to help implement his legislative agenda.

Beyond a reference to Paul O'Neill's book, there is no external confirmation that I can see, but the case he makes is at least as plausible and internally consistent as anything else in this thread.

Thanks for the reference, Liv.

I agree about the plausibility and internal consistency.

I'm skeptical about Herskowitz' claims. Look at his conclusion at the beginning of his paragraph. He claims that Bush was already thinking about invading Iraq in 1999. That may or may not be true, and I infer that you recognize this. After reading Herskowitz' quote carefully, I note that he quotes Bush as having said during the campaign, "If I have a chance to invade...." Invade whom? I understand the context in which Herskowitz' claims to be quoting George W. Bush, but the ellipsis occurs in such a convenient spot as to make his conclusion plausible, but not necessarily the only logical inference from the words he alleges Bush spoke. I am acutely aware from time to time that some journalists with agendas or biases will sometimes carefully cobble together quotes from various parts of an interview, or even from different interviews altogether, so as to lend support to the assertion the journalist is making. This could be one of those instances.

On the other hand, the ellipsis could simply be illustrative of how Bush tends to speak in broken fragments and incomplete thoughts. Herskowitz could be quoting Bush precisely in context, and Bush may have in fact meant what Herskowitz claims he did. I don't have enough information available to me at the moment to reach a firm conclusion one way or the other.

It is a provocative paragraph.

Cool Hand

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Thanks, Adam, for clueing me in. I never understood "no blood for oil" in those terms. I always assumed that it reduced the complex reasons giving rise to our involvement to crass consumerism. I can understand it better as an objection when you put in the way you do.

Oh, no doubt, many who use the phrase do understand it that way. The strength and the weakness of political slogans is how easily they appeal to the emotions of voters who do not understand, are not aware of, or don't care about the underlying arguments behind them. I just wanted to explain that there actually is an underlying argument and, while an indictment of war for consumer interests is a part of it, it's not by any means the entire argument.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I have a problem with our accepting responsibility for "creating" terrorists. I understand your point, and it's a good one, and a good cause for concern.

I wouldn't say that we are solely responsible for creating terrorists, but I do think that we clearly have a role in the creation of anti-US terrorists. I think that there are a number of factors that lead an individual to become a terrorist. Most important are probably a situation of despair for the future (Jessica Stern's Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill is an interesting exploration of this factor), leaders who are willing to provide spiritual or ideological justification, an overwhelming opposition that cannot be defeated by conventional means, and perceived grievences at the hands of that opposition. While we have (arguably) nothing to do with the first, and certainly nothing to do with the second, we are responsible for our own overwhelming military supremacy (probably not something we can reasonably change) and our actions that are percieved as grievences in the Muslim world (something that we can reasonably change). No, we are not solely responsible for creatting terrorists; there's a reason that, say, the French don't hijack our airplanes when we piss them off. We are responsible, though, for being aware that, when our actions are perceived as unjust by people in cultures where the other conditions for terorrism exist, we are playing a role in encouraging terror.

Actually, when I mentioned deterrence, I was thinking of deterring those funding terrorists from funding them, not those who might become terrorists from becoming them

That's a goal I wholheartedly agree with, provided that we can punish those parties with minimal damage to other, non-guilty, parties.