More from Daniel Pipes

Forums: Politics, Iraq
Email this Topic • Print this Page

You can think what you will about Daniel Pipes but he attempts to answer the question that I keep asking----why did Saddam risk his regime?

Pipe's speculations are based on known historical facts about events and the faulty personality traits of two other well known dictators--Hitler and Stalin.

* Hubris: The absolute ruler can do anything he wants, so he thinks himself unbounded in his power.

* Ignorance: The all-wise ruler brooks no contradiction, so his aides, fearing for their lives, tell him only what he wants to hear.

These key elements for Pipe's speculation provide logical explanation for Saddam's final decision which caused his downfall.

Can anyone find fault with Pipe's analysis?

WMD LIES

By DANIEL PIPES

October 7, 2003 -- SUPPOSE for an instant that no weapons of mass destruction ever turn up in Iraq. Of course, they might well still appear, but let's imagine that Saddam Hussein did not have an advanced program for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as the missiles to carry them.

What would that imply?

President Bush's Democratic opponents say it renders the decision to go to war a "fraud" or "hyped." But they miss the point, for there was indeed massive and undisputed evidence to indicate that the Iraqi regime was building WMD.

Defectors and other Iraqi sources nearly all agreed on his WMD program. The actions of Saddam's government - fending off United Nations weapons inspectors tooth and nail, hiding evidence, forgoing opportunities to have the economic sanctions lifted - all confirmed its existence.

Nor is that all: Rich Lowry of National Review has shown that the entire Clinton administration leadership - as well as the United Nations and the French and German governments - believed in the existence of Iraqi WMD.

If no WMD exist, the real mystery is not how the Bush administration made the same mistake everyone else did; the mystery is why Saddam created the false impression that he had them. Why did he put himself into the bizarre position of simultaneously pretending to build WMD and pretending to hide his nonexistent weapons?

Presumably, his goal was to enhance his position. As The Washington Post's Walter Pincus and Dana Priest speculate, he "may have put in place a double-deception program aimed at convincing the world and his own people that he was more of a threat than he actually was."

At a certain point, however, Saddam's charade became self-defeating. Pretending to possess WMD meant continued economic sanctions that deprived him of billions of dollars a year, debilitated his economic base and hollowed out his conventional arsenal. Worse (from his point of view), the fakery spurred his removal from power, the execution of his sons, and his own likely capture or demise.

Why would a leader who reached the top of a slippery pole through supreme guile, persist in so counterproductive a policy? His biographers, Efraim Karsh and Inari Rautsi, describe Saddam Hussein's characteristics as "obsessive caution, endless patience, tenacious perseverance, impressive manipulative skills and utter ruthlessness." How could he not have cut his losses, acknowledged the nonexistence of his WMD program, and thereby have saved his dictatorship?

This mistake can best be explained as the result of Saddam inhabiting the uniquely self-indulgent circumstance of the totalitarian autocrat, with its two key qualities:

* Hubris: The absolute ruler can do anything he wants, so he thinks himself unbounded in his power.

* Ignorance: The all-wise ruler brooks no contradiction, so his aides, fearing for their lives, tell him only what he wants to hear.

Both these incapacities worsen with time and the tyrant becomes increasingly removed from reality. His whims, eccentricities and fantasies dominate state policy. The result is a pattern of monumental mistakes.

Two historical examples make this point. Hitler was winning World War II until he insisted, against the muted advice of his generals, to begin a two-front war by attacking the Soviet Union. Stalin responded to the buildup of Nazi forces along his border by pretending the whole thing was not taking place.

Hitler's mistake is seen as one of the turning points of World War II and a key reason for Germany's defeat. Stalin's error caused the deaths of many millions of his subjects. The Nazi-Soviet war was the largest, most brutal, and most deadly in human history, and it resulted primarily from the hubris and ignorance of two dictators.

Saddam Hussein already has a comparable record of mistakes (recall his disastrous invasions of Iran and Kuwait), so clinging to a nonexistent WMD program even as it led to his own perdition should come as no surprise. We on the outside can only imagine the ambitions and distortions that prompted his faulty decisions.

The propensity of totalitarian demigods to self-inflicted wounds has direct implications for dealing with North Korea, Libya, and other rogue states. Their rulers' vanity and isolation can lead toward a catastrophe that makes no sense to the outside world, but which has a vast capacity to do harm.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,059 • Replies: 24

No top replies

Re: More from Daniel Pipes

perception wrote:

Can anyone find fault with Pipe's analysis?

I'll try.

Daniel Pipes wrote:

...there was indeed massive and undisputed evidence to indicate that the Iraqi regime was building WMD.

This is a preposterous lie.

Daniel Pipes wrote:

...Nor is that all: Rich Lowry of National Review has shown that the entire Clinton administration leadership - as well as the United Nations and the French and German governments - believed in the existence of Iraqi WMD.

Well, Hans Blix certainly didn't believe that Iraq had WMDs. And if Clinton, the French, and everyone else in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs, they still didn't launch an illegal, pre-emptive war against Iraq.

Daniel Pipes wrote:

...If no WMD exist, the real mystery is not how the Bush administration made the same mistake everyone else did; the mystery is why Saddam created the false impression that he had them. Why did he put himself into the bizarre position of simultaneously pretending to build WMD and pretending to hide his nonexistent weapons?

Wrong. The real mystery is why the Bush administration, acting on flawed intelligence and policy analysis that can only be described as self-delusional, decided to launch a pre-emptive war when others, who may have also entertained doubts about Iraq's arsenal, urged caution.

Daniel Pipes wrote:

...Presumably, his goal was to enhance his position. As The Washington Post's Walter Pincus and Dana Priest speculate, he "may have put in place a double-deception program aimed at convincing the world and his own people that he was more of a threat than he actually was."

I believe that this is, in large part, correct. But then the question remains: so what? If Saddam was lying about his WMDs before the war (which was always a very real possibility), why didn't US intelligence figure this out? That's the real question.

Daniel Pipes wrote:

...The propensity of totalitarian demigods to self-inflicted wounds has direct implications for dealing with North Korea, Libya, and other rogue states. Their rulers' vanity and isolation can lead toward a catastrophe that makes no sense to the outside world, but which has a vast capacity to do harm.

Let's read between the lines here: since we now think that Saddam was bluffing, we can expect that the North Koreans are bluffing too. So we don't have to invade North Korea, because we now know that dictators always bluff about their WMDs. And that's why our Iraq policy is different from our North Korea policy. See?

0 Replies

Joefromchicago

I really appreciate you taking the time to state your opinion of Daniel Pipes analysis---you are a prolific and talented typist but that is all in my opinion. Since you did not state that any of your refutation was your opinion I must assume you believe all of your statements to be factual. Facts require evidence to be considered anything more than rhetoric or opinions. You presented no such evidence.

Furthermore I question the logic in your last bombastic statement:

"Let's read between the lines here: since we now think that Saddam was bluffing, we can expect that the North Koreans are bluffing too. So we don't have to invade North Korea, because we now know that dictators always bluff about their WMDs. And that's why our Iraq policy is different from our North Korea policy. See?"

It has been proven that some Dictators bluff but it does not necessarily follow that all Dictators bluff----your type of logic COULD have tragic consequences.

0 Replies

Hubris?
I don't think hubris per se has much to do with Saddam's behavior. Rather, your disgusting violent types so much like to surround those in their circle with liars promoting the lies that violence, terror, etc., are more powerful than they really are, that they end up believing the lies. He's rather like a dumb jerk who instinctively likes to take his girlfriend to slasher movies to scare her (to make her think he might behave to her similarly if provoked), and being unusually stupid even for a jerk, he ends up believing the lie that somehow he has something to gain from being a serial killer, and so he goes about killing people for no or little reason basically because the media has led him to believe that is what his sort profit by, even though of course he gains nothing except a likely ticket to death row. People like Saddam don't feel shame, they probably don't feel pride either.

If Bush's real motive was not to destroy WMD's, so what? A better motive would be to rescue Iraq from tyranny, and if Bush felt the war so important that he stretched the truth for a while at the risk of future political repercussions, that doesn't bother me. If Bush was not motivated by WMD destruction, the likeliest motive IMO was a humanitarian one, so it's not as though he likely lied for a bad reason. The journalist I have most agreed with about Iraq (and many other things) would be Christopher Hitchens; many of his recent columns are at http://users.rcn.com/peterk.enteract/ .

0 Replies

perception wrote:

I really appreciate you taking the time to state your opinion of Daniel Pipes analysis---you are a prolific and talented typist but that is all in my opinion.

Thank you. I take a great deal of pride in my typing skills. Thanks for noticing.

perception wrote:

Since you did not state that any of your refutation was your opinion I must assume you believe all of your statements to be factual.

Then you assume in error. All of my statements were opinions premised on facts.

perception wrote:

Facts require evidence to be considered anything more than rhetoric or opinions.

I stated opinions.

perception wrote:

You presented no such evidence.

I presented as much evidence as did Daniel Pipes. I didn't think I was required to do more than that.

perception wrote:

It has been proven that some Dictators bluff but it does not necessarily follow that all Dictators bluff----your type of logic COULD have tragic consequences.

I quite agree. Now if only we could, together, persuade Mr. Pipes that he should heed this warning.

0 Replies

Re: More from Daniel Pipes
Joe --- nice try to wiggle out of it and I might let you get away with it except for your most egregious first statement.

joefromchicago wrote:

perception wrote:
Can anyone find fault with Pipe's analysis?

I'll try.

Daniel Pipes wrote:
...there was indeed massive and undisputed evidence to indicate that the Iraqi regime was building WMD.

This is a preposterous lie.

He killed Iranians with WMDs-----he killed Kurds with WMDs-----after the first gulf war it was substantiated by the inspectors that he was much closer to a nuke than anyone ever suspected.

Your statement that it was a preposterous lie is indeed itself a preposterous lie. SEE?

0 Replies

Mr. Perception. I would warn you that Joe from Chicago is an attorney-gifted in argument and logic. You argue with him at your peril.

I am much more sanguine than Joe From Chicago.

I know several things- and I would ask the very insightful Joe from Chicago to show that my knowledge is incorrect.

First, I know that the most brilliant policy analyst, one of the Greatest of Our Presidents( according to the redoubtable Mr. Gore) -President William Jefferson Clinton would NEVER be wrong in his statements concerning other countries since he was the most intelligent president the country has ever had.

Second. President Clinton made some very very strong and unambiguous statements about Saddam and WMD's.

President Clinton( who was always being second quessed by the vile right wing conspiracy but was never shown to be wrong) said, in his speech on December 16th 1998 when he ordered the bombing of Iraq( Why would the most moralistic president in the last fifty years bomb Iraq if not to protect the American people from WMD's)

quote

"So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction..."

and

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of Mass Destruction Program..."

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them"

Now, Mr. Perception, I have no law degree but I am sure that when I read President Clinton's speech in 1998, it sounds as if Saddam actually has a program to develop WMD's and must be stopped.

Well, I don't care about the idiotic right wing, they just wanted to smear Clinton. I know that Clinton was correct.

0 Replies

Re: More from Daniel Pipes

perception wrote:

Joe --- nice try to wiggle out of it and I might let you get away with it except for your most egregious first statement.

Wiggle? Moi?

perception wrote:

He killed Iranians with WMDs-----he killed Kurds with WMDs-----

I don't accept that chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, but granting (for the sake of argument) that they are, the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and Iranians happened over a decade ago, before the first Gulf war.

Now, Pipes said: "there was indeed massive and undisputed evidence to indicate that the Iraqi regime was building WMD." If he was talking about the weapons that Saddam had used more than ten years ago, then he's not telling us anything new. Indeed, it's rather late to be learning that Saddam used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War. I can only imagine that Pipes, much like Captain Renault in Casablanca, is shocked to discover that such things occurred.

But then if Pipes is referring to those weapons of the distant past, why is he mentioning them in connection with the latest version of the gulf war? If he's suggesting that we went to war because we only recently uncovered evidence that Iraq used chemical weapons over ten years ago, then he's not just a liar -- he's a complete moron. On the other hand, if he's suggesting that there is "massive and undisputed evidence" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction this year, then he's a liar: I'll reserve judgment on whether or not he's also a moron.

perception wrote:

...after the first gulf war it was substantiated by the inspectors that he was much closer to a nuke than anyone ever suspected.

Look again at Pipes's statement: ""there was indeed massive and undisputed evidence to indicate that the Iraqi regime was building WMD." Note that Pipes didn't say that Iraq was planning to build WMDs, he said that it was building WMDs. If Pipes was referring to nuclear weapons as one of the WMDs that the Iraqis were building, then he's an unmitigated, baldfaced liar. On the other hand, perception, if you can find me one shred of evidence that shows that the Iraqis were actually in the process of fabricating an operable nuclear device, I'll be happy to revise my opinion.

perception wrote:

Your statement that it was a preposterous lie is indeed itself a preposterous lie. SEE?

No, I don't see that at all. Perhaps you could explain it again.

0 Replies

Italgato

I was quite impressed by Joe's initial offerings but that good impression has been greatly diminished by his latest rhetorical rants not identified until later as opinions which did not require backup with sound evidence.

I really had begun to believe that the left here had a real champion but I'm rapidly becoming convinced he's just a minor league version of Al Franken....................

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

Mr. Perception. I would warn you that Joe from Chicago is an attorney-gifted in argument and logic. You argue with him at your peril.

Thanks! I can always count on you to say the nicest things, gato.

Italgato wrote:

I am much more sanguine than Joe From Chicago.

I know several things- and I would ask the very insightful Joe from Chicago to show that my knowledge is incorrect.

I can only promise to do my best.

Italgato wrote:

First, I know that the most brilliant policy analyst, one of the Greatest of Our Presidents( according to the redoubtable Mr. Gore) -President William Jefferson Clinton would NEVER be wrong in his statements concerning other countries since he was the most intelligent president the country has ever had.

You're wrong on a number of counts. I would never say that Clinton was the most intelligent president: I'd give that honor to Thomas Jefferson, with a nod to John Quincy Adams and James Madison. Furthermore, Clinton was certainly not infallible with regard to his foreign policy statements.

Italgato wrote:

Now, Mr. Perception, I have no law degree but I am sure that when I read President Clinton's speech in 1998, it sounds as if Saddam actually has a program to develop WMD's and must be stopped.

Clinton may very well have believed that Iraq had a WMD program in place in 1998. But I'm not sure what that has to do with Daniel Pipes and his preposterous lie about the "massive and undisputed evidence to indicate that the Iraqi regime was building WMD." Perhaps you could explain the connection, gato.

Italgato wrote:

Well, I don't care about the idiotic right wing, they just wanted to smear Clinton. I know that Clinton was correct.

The idiotic right wing -- I think you have accurately located Pipes on the political spectrum, gato. Good work!

0 Replies

Joe wrote:

I don't accept that chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, but granting (for the sake of argument) that they are, the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and Iranians happened over a decade ago, before the first Gulf war.

You don't agree that chemical weapons are WMDs----my God man what door have you been hiding behind? Try adding Bio-logical weapons to Chemical and Nukes ----presto you have WMDs. You are far too involved in making irrational and unsubstantiated rants with your little white boxes. Please come back when you not so infatuated with your own inflated ego.

With your thinking on what constitutes WMDs it is small wonder that we can't ever achieve any concensus about any topic on this forum. We must first agree on a language and a thought process if we are ever to agree on anything. It seems egos and human nature always get in the way.

0 Replies

Oh come on, Joe from Chicago- You are not in a courtroom now. No posturing.

Clinton thought that Saddam had WMD's and he thought Saddam would continue to develop WMD's.

If you think that Clinton gets off free and Bush is to be blamed, you are really engaging in double think.

To put it plainly, the previous admininstration thought that Saddam had WMD's and would continue to develop them.

I am sure they had some "intelligence"

Now, President Bush has said essentially the same things but he is to blame and Clinton is not to blame.

Let's put it this way. Both presidents got poor intelligence.

But if you want to say that Bush lied while Clinton did not, you are being completely illogical.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

You don't agree that chemical weapons are WMDs----my God man what door have you been hiding behind? Try adding Bio-logical weapons to Chemical and Nukes ----presto you have WMDs.

See, here's the deal, perception: for the sake of argument, I was conceding a point to you. Don't you understand that? Although I noted my disagreement with the Bush administration definition of WMD, I framed my argument as if I agreed with it. There is, consequently, no disagreement between you and I, for the purposes of this discussion, over the definition.

perception wrote:

You are far too involved in making irrational and unsubstantiated rants with your little white boxes.

Little white boxes? What's that all about?

perception wrote:

Please come back when you not so infatuated with your own inflated ego.

That's asking quite a lot.

perception wrote:

With your thinking on what constitutes WMDs it is small wonder that we can't ever achieve any concensus about any topic on this forum. We must first agree on a language and a thought process if we are ever to agree on anything. It seems egos and human nature always get in the way.

No, you're wrong. We can only achieve consensus when we stick to the topic. I stated that Daniel Pipes was a liar. Now you want to talk about my definition of WMDs. Stick to the point perception and defend Pipes -- if you can.

[edited to correct a spelling error -- "concensus" indeed!]

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

Oh come on, Joe from Chicago- You are not in a courtroom now. No posturing.

I have very good posture. I didn't think my posture was an issue.

Italgato wrote:

Clinton thought that Saddam had WMD's and he thought Saddam would continue to develop WMD's.

If you think that Clinton gets off free and Bush is to be blamed, you are really engaging in double think.

Not at all. I do not blame Bush for having flawed intelligence, just as I do not blame Clinton for possibly having flawed intelligence. I blame Bush for starting a war based on flawed intelligence.

Italgato wrote:

Now, President Bush has said essentially the same things but he is to blame and Clinton is not to blame.

Let's put it this way. Both presidents got poor intelligence.

But if you want to say that Bush lied while Clinton did not, you are being completely illogical.

Nonsense. Bush lied when he said that the intelligence reports were sufficient reason to go to war. That was not just a lie, it was a damnable lie, and it was one lie that Clinton most definitely never told.

0 Replies

Apparently Joe from Chicago has never read Clinton's speech on 12/16/98. Joe from Chicago says that Clinton never told the lie that said that intelligence reports were sufficient to go to war.

Well, here is what Clinton said:

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use foce, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

What is force?

Is it not war?

What is the bombing of Baghdad.

Joe from Chicago forgets that Clinton not only bombed Baghdad, he did it without the assent of Congress.

President Bush received the assent of Congress. They Did not have to give him their assent.

Joe From Chicago is reasoning just like a shyster.

0 Replies

Since you claim to be a laywer, Joe from Chicago, if you are, you know that words have meanings.

You said that Bush said that the intelligence reports were sufficient reasons to go to war.

I was unaware that a war had been declared against Iraq. If you will examine the UN Resolution, you will find that the USA was enforcing the UN resolution. There has been no war declared, Joe from Chicago, YET YOU USED THE WORD WAR IN YOUR POST.
WAKE UP!!!!!

0 Replies

Joefromchicago wrote:

No, you're wrong. We can only achieve consensus when we stick to the topic. I stated that Daniel Pipes was a liar. Now you want to talk about my definition of WMDs. Stick to the point perception and defend Pipes -- if you can.

OK---let's stick to the topic. Pipes was analysing how and why Saddam threw away his empire. You, as do many folks on this forum,ignored the actual point of the article and instead latched onto a nearly irrelevant passage like a bulldog latches onto a bone and attempted, through "red herring" tactics, to derail the topic. You obviously have a personal dislike for the author which is also irrelevant.

The passage you chose to take issue with is controversial but certainly has not been proven to be a lie----maybe you should read the actual text of Dr. Kays report to congress on his not yet completed search for WMDs.

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

What is force?

Is it not war?

What is the bombing of Baghdad.

Italgato wrote:

I was unaware that a war had been declared against Iraq. If you will examine the UN Resolution, you will find that the USA was enforcing the UN resolution. There has been no war declared, Joe from Chicago, YET YOU USED THE WORD WAR IN YOUR POST.

Apparently, it's a war when Clinton talks about using force, but when Bush actually invades a country with thousands of soldiers that's not a war. Really, gato, it's extremely difficult to make fun of you when you launch these kinds of devastating preemptive attacks on yourself.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

OK---let's stick to the topic. Pipes was analysing how and why Saddam threw away his empire. You, as do many folks on this forum,ignored the actual point of the article and instead latched onto a nearly irrelevant passage like a bulldog latches onto a bone and attempted, through "red herring" tactics, to derail the topic.

Take another look at my original post, perception. Not only did I address Pipes's point about Saddam's motivation, I agreed with it. The real "red herring" here was Pipes's preposterous lie about "massive and undisputed evidence" of Iraq's WMDs.

perception wrote:

You obviously have a personal dislike for the author which is also irrelevant.

I don't know Daniel Pipes personally, so I have no personal dislike for him.

perception wrote:

The passage you chose to take issue with is controversial but certainly has not been proven to be a lie----maybe you should read the actual text of Dr. Kays report to congress on his not yet completed search for WMDs.

No, quite clearly it's a lie. After all, Pipes didn't say that there is still the possibility of WMDs in Iraq (had he said that I would have had no reason to disagree). Instead, he said that there is "massive and undisputed evidence that the Iraqi regime was building WMDs." That is a demonstrable fabrication. The evidence is neither massive nor undisputed. Indeed, despite the Bush administration's best efforts, it remains elusive and dubious.

0 Replies

Joe

You're still worrying over that bone while the rest of us are "movin" on.

I want to explore the details of the recent "shift" in power from Rummy to Condi. Apparently Rumsfeld wasn't told about the new "coordinating" group at the NSC

0 Replies

More from Daniel Pipes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know