A war of utter folly

A war of utter folly

Hans Blix

Responsibility for this spectacular tragedy must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a tragedy - for Iraq, for the US, for the UN, for truth and human dignity. I can only see one gain: the end of Saddam Hussein, a murderous tyrant. Had the war not finished him he would, in all likelihood, have become another Gadafy or Castro; an oppressor of his own people but no longer a threat to the world. Iraq was on its knees after a decade of sanctions.

The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. That they believed in the weapons' existence in the autumn of 2002 is understandable. Why had the Iraqis stopped UN inspectors during the 90s if they had nothing to hide? Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.


By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery. The allied powers were on thin ice, but they preferred to replace question marks with exclamation marks.

They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants. A third declared aim was to bring democracy to Iraq, hopefully becoming an example for the region. Let us hope for the future; but five years of occupation has clearly brought more anarchy than democracy.

Increased safety for Israel might have been an undeclared US aim. If so, it is hard to see that anything was gained by a war which has strengthened Iran.
There are other troubling legacies of the Iraq war. It is a setback in the world's efforts to develop legal restraints on the use of armed force between states. In 1945 the US helped to write into the UN charter a prohibition of the use of armed force against states. Exceptions were made only for self-defence against armed attacks and for armed force authorised by the security council. In 2003, Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody. Instead, the invasion reflects a claim made in the 2002 US national security strategy that the charter was too restrictive, and that the US was ready to use armed force to meet threats that were uncertain as to time and place - a doctrine of preventive war.

In the 2004 presidential election campaign, Bush ridiculed any idea that the US would need to ask for a "permission slip" before taking military action against a "growing threat". True, the 2003 Iraq invasion is not the only case in which armed force has been used in disregard of the charter. However, from the most powerful member of the UN it is a dangerous signal. If preventive war is accepted for one, it is accepted for all.

One fear is that the UN rules ignored in the attack on Iraq will prove similarly insignificant in the case of Iran. But it may be that the spectacular failure of ensuring disarmament by force, and of introducing democracy by occupation, will work in favour of a greater use of diplomacy and "soft power". Justified concerns about North Korea and Iran have led the US, as well as China, Russia and European states, to examine what economic and other non-military inducements they may use to ensure that these two states do not procure nuclear weapons. Washington and Moscow must begin nuclear disarmament. So long as these nuclear states maintain that these weapons are indispensable to their security, it is not surprising that others may think they are useful. What, really, is the alternative: invasion and occupation, as in Iraq?

Hans Blix was head of UN inspections in Iraq in 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/20/iraq.usa

So because we 'marched' in for the wrong reasons, we should now just 'march' out?

Aaron wrote:So because we 'marched' in for the wrong reasons, we should now just 'march' out?

Have I ever said that? No, I haven't.

But to have an honest discussion about where to go from here we need an honest discussion about how we got here- and including about whether the guys who got us lost in the wilderness of international idealogical confrontation and unnecessary war can be expected to get us back on the path to international righteousness.

Ziggy,

Do you honestly believe that in the 1990s the US was on the path to international righteousness? I was in graduate school then, and from my experiences there and in Spain and France, I can say that the international view, as well as the view of Political Science academics, was certainly NOT that we were on the path to international righteousness. The idea that the US was well thought of in the world until Bush came and screwed everything up is quite the myth. I'm not saying that we aren't LESS popular now, I'm taking issue with the idea that somehow the French and others were Americaphiles until Bush came along. Bush may have exacerbated a preexisting condition of antipathy towards the United States, but he is hardly responsible for its origination.

When discussing unnecessary wars (and I place this one in that category, Zig), do not forget US troops in Somalia, Haiti, and Serbia in the 1990s, as well as the bombing of Iraqi targets.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Do you honestly believe that in the 1990s the US was on the path to international righteousness?

Not particularily, no. But relative to the first decade of the 21st century, America of the 1990s were less confrontational, with a more nearly "live and let live" international policy. Saddam was contained, and Iraq was secure- however internally undemocratic.

I was in graduate school then, and from my experiences there and in Spain and France, I can say that the international view, as well as the view of Political Science academics, was certainly NOT that we were on the path to international righteousness. The idea that the US was well thought of in the world until Bush came and screwed everything up is quite the myth.

Well, it isn't my myth. America, for example, supported the atricious military excesses of both Israel and its political and military adversaries (I.e. Egypt) for most of the last half of the 20th century. And of course there was/is that still lingering unpleasantness called the Vietnam War ........................

I'm not saying that we aren't LESS popular now, I'm taking issue with the idea that somehow the French and others were Americaphiles until Bush came along.

I am not talkking about what the French think. I am talking about what the U.N.'s designated chief weapons inspector thinks. You remember the U.N., right- that body whose resolutions we adopted as but more bogus excuses for going to war in Iraq?

Bush may have exacerbated a preexisting condition of antipathy towards the United States, but he is hardly responsible for its origination.

Whether Bush was the "originator" of American attitudes and doctrines about international politics, or was the perpetrator of enhanced military confrontation
is of little moment to the innocent victims of the Iraq war.

When discussing unnecessary wars (and I place this one in that category, Zig), do not forget US troops in Somalia, Haiti, and Serbia in the 1990s, as well as the bombing of Iraqi targets.

The difference is only one of degree. And the degree under Bush is ten fold, or a hundred fold- depending on who is doing the counting, and how.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:
When discussing unnecessary wars (and I place this one in that category, Zig), do not forget US troops in Somalia, Haiti, and Serbia in the 1990s, as well as the bombing of Iraqi targets.

The difference is only one of degree. And the degree under Bush is ten fold, or a hundred fold- depending on who is doing the counting, and how.

And one can attribute that to both the "Bush Hating" media and the Internet.

In the 90's most West Virginians didn't have a clue what was going on in Somalia, Haiti and Serbia except what was reported in the Gazette.

.

So we can blame the "Bush hating media" and the internet for the Iraq war?

We can blame the "Bush hating media" and the internet for 4000 needless and useless U.S. soldier deaths, and hundreds of thousands of needless and useless innocent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraqi?

By what measure do the U.S. involvements in Somalia and Haiti and Serbia in the 1990s compare to the American and Iraqi victims of the horrors of Iraq in the past 5 years?

ziggy wrote:So we can blame the "Bush hating media" and the internet for the Iraq war?

We can blame the "Bush hating media" and the internet for 4000 needless and useless U.S. soldier deaths, and hundreds of thousands of needless and useless innocent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraqi?

By what measure do the U.S. involvements in Somalia and Haiti and Serbia in the 1990s compare to the American and Iraqi victims of the horrors of Iraq in the past 5 years?

The vast majority of the 'Iraqi victims are at that hands of Iraqi insurgents because there wasn't enough troops on the ground.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So because we 'marched' in for the wrong reasons, we should now just 'march' out?

Have I ever said that? No, I haven't.

But to have an honest discussion about where to go from here we need an honest discussion about how we got here- and including about whether the guys who got us lost in the wilderness of international idealogical confrontation and unnecessary war can be expected to get us back on the path to international righteousness.

Bush screwed up. How much more discussion is there about how we got there?

As for the path to 'international righteousness' what is that? Why do we have to be righteousness in the international community? As Mike pointed out, Bush is not responsible for how other countries veiw Americans. It's older then the 90's. Germany was protesting against America in the 80's. We weren't considered 'righteous' in the international community then. Why should we worry about that now?

So how do we get out of Iraq?

We marched in, we can march out.

We can fund relief agencies with good track records of assisting the displaced, the injured, the diseased etc.

Aaron wrote:Bush screwed up. How much more discussion is there about how we got there? So how do we get out of Iraq?

The first step in getting out is to get rid of the guys who keep saying:

President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

Asked by “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.

The U.S. invasion “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/ .

So how do we get out of Iraq? We start by getting rid of the people who still insist- and likely will until the day they die- that Bush was perfectly correct in invading Iraq. Cheney and Bush do not want to get us out of Iraq- not now, not a year from now, nor in 10 years from now. Their self-image is based on "We would do exactly the same thing" kinds of denials to and betrayals of America.

Like we tried to tell you 5 years ago, it never was about WMDs. It was not about any U.N. resolutions. It was about putting forth one bogus excuse after another to make the American people swallow the agenda that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kristol, Pearl, Wolfowitz, etc. had determined years earlier that they wanted to do- establish permanent military base(s) in Iraq.

As for the path to 'international righteousness' what is that? Why do we have to be righteousness in the international community? As Mike pointed out, Bush is not responsible for how other countries veiw Americans. It's older then the 90's. Germany was protesting against America in the 80's. We weren't considered 'righteous' in the international community then. Why should we worry about that now?

Righteousness is not about what the world thinks of us for what happened in the past. Righteousness is about doing the correct things and not doing monumental screw ups like Cheney-Bush did with Iraq, and then instead of admitting the folly of it, insisting that they would do it all over again if given an opportunity.

Just because we've been rougue militarists for a half century does not mean that we have to continue to be so. It is Bush, not Ziggy, who claims that the U.S. is bringing democratic salvation and freedom to the world- but to a world that seems to want anything other than Bush brand force-fed freedom and democracy.

You seem to suggest that because we are not percieved as righteous, that we should not determine to be righteous. That's about as poor of an excuse for the continued incivility of one peoples to others as I can imagine.

Mr. Ziggy,
How many wise and just wars do you believe that American has conducted? Please name them.

Armon Ayers wrote:Mr. Ziggy,
How many wise and just wars do you believe that American has conducted? Please name them.

In my adult lifetime, none.

But my father, who was born in 1909, believed that the U.S. had to stop Hitler and Tojo in WWII- that doing so was "wise and just", to use your words. I have no reason to dispute his judgement on that.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:So we can blame the "Bush hating media" and the internet for the Iraq war?

We can blame the "Bush hating media" and the internet for 4000 needless and useless U.S. soldier deaths, and hundreds of thousands of needless and useless innocent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraqi?

By what measure do the U.S. involvements in Somalia and Haiti and Serbia in the 1990s compare to the American and Iraqi victims of the horrors of Iraq in the past 5 years?

The vast majority of the 'Iraqi victims are at that hands of Iraqi insurgents because there wasn't enough troops on the ground.

Before we invaded Iraq, there were plenty of troops- Iraqi troops- on the ground there to keep Iraqi insurgents in check. America destroyed the Iraqi Army, and left the Iraqi civilians- those that we didn't kill with "shock and awe" bombing- virtually helpless against insurgents. The blood is on our hands. If we had not intervened- under bogus pretenses no less- life could have gone on as usual in Iraq.

Ziggy I have to disagree with the idea that life as usual was an acceptable situation under Saddam Hussein. I also disagree that it's worse there today than it was under Hussein.

That's not to say that I agree with our ground occupation of Iraq. I think the thing to do with a Hussein is to bomb wherever he is, if previous gunshots fail you. But I also truly believe that Iraqi life is not generally worse than it was under Hussein, and in a lot of circumstances, quite a lot better.

Stephanie wrote:We marched in, we can march out.

We can fund relief agencies with good track records of assisting the displaced, the injured, the diseased etc.

What do we do with Al Qeada, which clearly in now in Iraq, regardless of how they got there. And what do we do when Sunni governments refuse to set back and watch Moqtada al Sard take over Iraq and join forces with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Shite govenment and move thier beliefs into other countries such as the UAE, Kuwait and Qatar?

Your answers are simple but they fail to address very REAL problems.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Bush screwed up. How much more discussion is there about how we got there? So how do we get out of Iraq?

The first step in getting out is to get rid of the guys who keep saying:

President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

Asked by “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.

The U.S. invasion “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/ .

So how do we get out of Iraq? We start by getting rid of the people who still insist- and likely will until the day they die- that Bush was perfectly correct in invading Iraq. Cheney and Bush do not want to get us out of Iraq- not now, not a year from now, nor in 10 years from now. Their self-image is based on "We would do exactly the same thing" kinds of denials to and betrayals of America.

Like we tried to tell you 5 years ago, it never was about WMDs. It was not about any U.N. resolutions. It was about putting forth one bogus excuse after another to make the American people swallow the agenda that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kristol, Pearl, Wolfowitz, etc. had determined years earlier that they wanted to do- establish permanent military base(s) in Iraq.

As for the path to 'international righteousness' what is that? Why do we have to be righteousness in the international community? As Mike pointed out, Bush is not responsible for how other countries veiw Americans. It's older then the 90's. Germany was protesting against America in the 80's. We weren't considered 'righteous' in the international community then. Why should we worry about that now?

Righteousness is not about what the world thinks of us for what happened in the past. Righteousness is about doing the correct things and not doing monumental screw ups like Cheney-Bush did with Iraq, and then instead of admitting the folly of it, insisting that they would do it all over again if given an opportunity.

Just because we've been rougue militarists for a half century does not mean that we have to continue to be so. It is Bush, not Ziggy, who claims that the U.S. is bringing democratic salvation and freedom to the world- but to a world that seems to want anything other than Bush brand force-fed freedom and democracy.

You seem to suggest that because we are not percieved as righteous, that we should not determine to be righteous. That's about as poor of an excuse for the continued incivility of one peoples to others as I can imagine.

First, you didn't tell me anything. Second, I don't know if you know it or not, but both Bush and Cheney are gone in 10 months. The liberal right along with thier media keeps attempting to paint McCain as the continuation of Bush but I don't believe that's true.

McCain was critical of Bush while maintaining that we must make changes so we can win in Iraq a year ago and did so at that very real possibility that it would cost him this election. You can try to paint him as a continuation of Bush but it's just more liberal lies.

I do beleive that we as Americans do the right thing the vast majority of the time. It is your contention that we don't. You're the one that is wrong here. And you still offer no solituon for getting out of Iraq. You're the one that's always saying you want an honest debate. No one on this board is arguing that Bush wasn't wrong in going in and so stop trying to place blame and offer a solution.

ziggy wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:Mr. Ziggy,
How many wise and just wars do you believe that American has conducted? Please name them.

In my adult lifetime, none.

But my father, who was born in 1909, believed that the U.S. had to stop Hitler and Tojo in WWII- that doing so was "wise and just", to use your words. I have no reason to dispute his judgement on that.

Stalin and Khrushchev were just as bad if not worse then Hitler and Tojo. We were "wise and just" in stopping them. We just didn't do so on as grand a scale.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:So we can blame the "Bush hating media" and the internet for the Iraq war?

We can blame the "Bush hating media" and the internet for 4000 needless and useless U.S. soldier deaths, and hundreds of thousands of needless and useless innocent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraqi?

By what measure do the U.S. involvements in Somalia and Haiti and Serbia in the 1990s compare to the American and Iraqi victims of the horrors of Iraq in the past 5 years?

The vast majority of the 'Iraqi victims are at that hands of Iraqi insurgents because there wasn't enough troops on the ground.

Before we invaded Iraq, there were plenty of troops- Iraqi troops- on the ground there to keep Iraqi insurgents in check. America destroyed the Iraqi Army, and left the Iraqi civilians- those that we didn't kill with "shock and awe" bombing- virtually helpless against insurgents. The blood is on our hands. If we had not intervened- under bogus pretenses no less- life could have gone on as usual in Iraq.

There were no Iraqi insurgents. The ones that weren't killed, along with hundreds fo thousands innocents, by WMD's were rounded up and slaughtered, some for as little as refusing to vote for Sadaam Hussein. While Iraq was certainly contained, their citizens were by no means stable or safe. As bad as it is now, the average citizen is much better off then they were 5 years ago. If we 'march out' they will be much worse off then they were 5 years ago.

Aaron wrote:There were no Iraqi insurgents.

You are the one who said there were- that "The vast majority of the 'Iraqi victims are at that hands of Iraqi insurgents because there wasn't enough troops on the ground."

The ones that weren't killed, along with hundreds fo thousands innocents, by WMD's were rounded up and slaughtered, some for as little as refusing to vote for Sadaam Hussein. While Iraq was certainly contained, their citizens were by no means stable or safe.

They were far more "stable and safe" the five years before the U.S. invasion in March, 2003 that in the 5 yeras since then.

As bad as it is now, the average citizen is much better off then they were 5 years ago.

As measured by what? Even the how ever many hundreds of thousands who are now dead, too- are they better off than they were 5 years ago? What right do we have to determine that they are "better off"? I suppose that by that logic American Indians were better off in 1900 than in 1400, right?

Aaron wrote:First, you didn't tell me anything. Second, I don't know if you know it or not, but both Bush and Cheney are gone in 10 months. The liberal right along with thier media keeps attempting to paint McCain as the continuation of Bush but I don't believe that's true.

It is McCain who said that keeping troops in Iraq for another hundred years would be OK. He has not repudiated his support of the Iraq invasion 5 years ago. He obviously agrees with Cheney and Bush- who say that they would do it all over again.

McCain was critical of Bush while maintaining that we must make changes so we can win in Iraq a year ago and did so at that very real possibility that it would cost him this election. You can try to paint him as a continuation of Bush but it's just more liberal lies.

If it's lies, it's McCain's lies, in his own words- "another hundred years".

I do beleive that we as Americans do the right thing the vast majority of the time. It is your contention that we don't. You're the one that is wrong here. And you still offer no solituon for getting out of Iraq.

Why should I offer a solution for getting out? Until the people running the show, both now and later- be that Bush-Cheney, or McCain, or Clinton or Obama or whomever- admit that getting into Iraq was a mistake- a collosal mistake- talking about getting out is useless. As long as they defend the proposition that getting into Iraq was the right thing to do, their primary focus is to defend that position, and getting out of Iraq would be contrary to defending that.

You're the one that's always saying you want an honest debate. No one on this board is arguing that Bush wasn't wrong in going in and so stop trying to place blame and offer a solution.

But Cheney and Bush still contend that invading Iraq was the right thing to do- and that they would do it again. McCain says that another "hundred years" there would be OK with him. Hell, even Rumsfeld said that it wouldn't take 6 months- only six weeks, maybe even 6 days. Now McCain is OK with a hundred years. Are you?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy I have to disagree with the idea that life as usual was an acceptable situation under Saddam Hussein. I also disagree that it's worse there today than it was under Hussein.

That's not to say that I agree with our ground occupation of Iraq. I think the thing to do with a Hussein is to bomb wherever he is, if previous gunshots fail you. But I also truly believe that Iraqi life is not generally worse than it was under Hussein, and in a lot of circumstances, quite a lot better.

Including for the how ever many of hunderds of thousand who are dead as as result of our invasion of Iraq?

What hubris! What right do you have to determine that they are better off?

I suppose that you "truly believe" that life for Native American "Indians" was better under their European conquerers in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries than under their own previous societal structures in 1400, right?

SheikBen wrote:That's not to say that I agree with our ground occupation of Iraq. I think the thing to do with a Hussein is to bomb wherever he is, if previous gunshots fail you.

But if your hidden agenda is permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, then simply bombing Hussein to hades does not achieve your agenda, does it?

That's why the "Mission Accomplished" show in May, 2003 was such a fraud. The "mission" had not been accomplished. The real, underlying, hidden "mission" had just begun.

And that's what almost no one wants to talk about- the underlying agenda to have permanent (the "hundred years" McCain is OK with is effectively "permanent", for this and the next several generations) U.S. military installations and personnel in Iraq.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy I have to disagree with the idea that life as usual was an acceptable situation under Saddam Hussein. I also disagree that it's worse there today than it was under Hussein.

At the time neither the stated nor primary underlying reason for the invasion of Iraq was to make life better for Iraqis. That is only after the fact, and factually dubious, cover Bush's and now McCain's political ass propaganda.

ziggy wrote:
You are the one who said there were- that "The vast majority of the 'Iraqi victims are at that hands of Iraqi insurgents because there wasn't enough troops on the ground."

That is true. There were no insurgents under Sadaam Hussein. Any potential individuals that dared to speak out were immediately silenced.

ziggy wrote:They were far more "stable and safe" the five years before the U.S. invasion in March, 2003 that in the 5 years since then.

Stable maybe. Safe, only if they didn't speak out and did exactly as they were told. Any that spoke out were immediately silenced, in most cases, by death. Some were imprisoned but most were executed.

ziggy wrote:As measured by what? Even the how ever many hundreds of thousands who are now dead, too- are they better off than they were 5 years ago? What right do we have to determine that they are "better off"? I suppose that by that logic American Indians were better off in 1900 than in 1400, right?

Standards of living and rights. The average citizen has far more rights and their standard of living is better then it was 5 years ago. The opportunity to grow and achieve more is defiantly greater then it was.

And considering American Indians didn't live under a brutal dictator that had a history of using WMD's on his own citizens, there is no comparison thus your analogy makes no sense. Try again.