georgeob1 wrote:blatham wrote:[This presents an obvious and significant question. Why did you disagree at the time?
There's a second, possibly related question for you as well. A week or two past, you mentioned that a friend (senior military) had been expressing privately to you over the last couple of years his opinion that Iraq was going to hell in a handbasket (not his words, those are my aunt nettie's words). But I certainly got no hint from you in discussions here that such opinions, from sources you respect, were coming your way at all. How come I didn't hear any echoes of that?
Good questions Bernie. They said many things, some of which I still reject. However, their specific warning, noted in the previous post, that Iraq could not hold together without the hand of an unscrupulous and murderous tyrant has proved correct. They also criticized the decision to invade with only 140,000 troops as unwise - a view that I do not hold, precisely because we would not have been able to long sustain the 400,000 troop level they wanted. ( Some of these guys end up with an unmerited sense of infallibility, which usually excites my opposition.)
Like you I consider and entertain many conflicting opinions. Moreover I don't restrict my reading and discussions to those who hold views similar to mine. The debates on these forums tend to be a bit polarized, and, though I have tried to avoid extreme positions, I have usually found myself devoting more energy to countering truly false or untenable assertions, than to exposing my own doubts and uncertainties. In addition, though I did not and do not know the Administration's motivations for the invasion of Iraq, I tried hard to find one that made sense to me.
Certainly Saddam, after the Gulf war was a dangerous figure, desperate to hold on and willing to deal with anyone to do so. Certainly our "allies" in France and Germany were willing to do whatever it took to keep the payoffs flowing and get the development contract for the northern Iraqi oilfields (Chirac) and win the election while advancing his version of oestpolitic (Schroeder). In this unhappy situation, toppling Saddam appeared to be the best way out. History may well eventually show that this was the right course.
My real doubts, and disagreements with these friends centered on the wisdom of the Gulf war itself. Kuwait has no more historical legitimacy as a distinct country than Iraq. Both entities were the artificial creations of a British empire looking to continue its influence and protectorates over a long period of time. So what if Iraq took Kuwait ! Saddam would get the money he desperately needed to recover from the long war with Iran (a country more than three times as populous as Iraq). Once recovered he would still be dangerous, as were the Iranians, but their mutual hostility could be a great advantage for us.
george
Thankyou. I find myself in the same boat as well (contesting poorly educated or reasoned assertions) though perceiving and concentrating on those which catch my attention - and that's clearly a function of policy/ideology bias and preference.
Yet, I really hope that citizens, political folks and the military can draw lessons from the last six years. And that they'll draw the correct ones.
First and foremost for me as regards this war was and is the danger posed to America itself, as a functioning democracy and as a positive/effective influence on the world stage, by a governing ideology which is aggressively militarist, arrogant in sense of self righteousness, authoritarian-leaning as regards secrecy and enforced consensus, and which does not hesitate to purposefully deceive, often using very sophisticated propaganda techniques, its own citizens and the rest of the world in pursuit of its (disguised) goals. Here, I find you and many other complexly-intentioned individuals guilty. Too much was ignored or justified.
In today's Independent, there's a significant story...
Quote:Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.
"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."
He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.
Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.
The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.
It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece
At the time, there were clear indications, from many credible and knowledgeable voices in the US, the international community, the UN, the weapons inspection people, etc which made the compelling case that precisely such deceits were being forwarded, that the Bush administration was going to war no matter what contrary evidence/argument was presented and no matter really anything at all, all the while insisting (falsely) that no such decision had been made. Myself and others posted such warnings rather urgently then.
At the same time, the propaganda campaign to smear these voices (recall, for example, all that was said and suggested about Blix or Ritter) was absolutely transparent to many of us as a concerted, organized and pervasive endeavor. In tandem with that campaign, was another which had as its goal the fomenting of terror within the public through further deceits and exaggerations (smoking gun to nuclear cloud, etc).
One can, and one should, go back now and survey the "news" outlets and individuals who served as unrelenting and unquestioning carriers for this propaganda. And not merely to help establish for oneself who/what must now be acknowledged as the uncredible propagandists they are, but even moreso to gain a handle on the very unsettling scale of this phenomenon in your modern political culture.
