A few thoughts on Mr. Bush's rationale for the war in Iraq

[StevieM]

I just felt like getting this off my chest to people who would listen and think. In other words, Democrats.

Bush said the war was about WMDs. First of all, you can't compare chemical, or even biological weapons, to a nuclear bomb. The broad category "WMD" is not a good one to judge from. Second, if you want to use the lesser standard, then let's look at what we knew when we went to war.

We knew that Saddam's weapons programs had been obliterated between the 91 Gulf War, seven years of inspectors finding and destroying materials and the Clinton '98 air strikes. We knew that sanctions were crippling Iraq, making rebuilding impossible. We knew that Saddam's military and economic infrastructure were getting weaker every year.

This guy was no threat to us or to any of his neighbors. Bush knew that and, to be fair, so did congressional Democrats. When people say that thought he had WMDs what they mean is that they thought he had tiny, isolated remnants of his program. One container of WWI-era mustard gas would constitute "having WMDs". In other words, they thought Saddam was in violation of a UN Resolution.

If that was what the war was about--violating international law--then it shouldn't matter whether we found weapons, because Saddam was in violation of other UN resolutions. Of course, that isn't something that automatically leads to war. And I think that most Americans, liberal and conservative, took the WMD claim to mean that Saddam had an enormous stockpile of weapons that could either reach us, or at least be threatening to his neighbors, which would enable him to dominate and influence much of the world's energy supply.

So Bush misled people to justify a war that he wanted to do from the moment he took office. And most Democrats failed to stand up to him.

Now, that isn't to say that there could be no justification for Iraq. Bush could have pointed to the sanctions, which worked well, and in turn hurt the Iraqi people. He could have said that we couldn't sustain them forever, because it was cruel to the Iraqis. But that would have involved admitting the policy of the Clinton Administration worked, and it certainly seems at times that Bush makes policy around his hatred of Bill Clinton.

We have invaded other countries and overthrown dictators before. Afghanistan comes to mind, but there was more of an urgent need there. Panama and Haiti (sort of) are other examples. But those countries were pretty receptive to us. And we were in and out pretty quickly, we certainly didn't have a massive, long-term occupations.

The war in Iraq clearly called for a long-term occupation in the aftermath of Saddam's fall. We knew that going in. We also knew going in that there was serious doubt as to whether there was a real country there. There are so many different groups (not just "Kurds in the North, Sunnis in the center, Shiites in the South"--nations aren't defined by allied no-fly zones either). We are talking about building Switzerland times 20 in the heart of the Middle East. Not such an easy thing to do. If this was Iran we invaded, we would probably be out by now.

We knew this going in. But Bush didn't care, he just wanted to do it and let the rest fall into place later. That is actually a pretty basic definition of modern conservatism. Liberalism is about careful thought and careful planning. Sadly, there was little of that in Washington before the Iraq debacle.

At any rate, we are in Iraq and I don't see how this ends well. If we leave, great, but I can't see that country becoming a safe place with all those different, unreconciled groups. Even if the groups don't formally start fighting, the tensions make it difficult to build the institutions that are needed in order to sustain a democracy.

A key part of the problem is that there is no way we can partition the country without alienating Turkey. They don't want to inflame a movement for an independent Kurdistan, but that's an issue that ultimately will have to be addressed and resolved. I am not sure how much longer we can keep defining right and wrong based on what our friends want it to be. As for the rest of Iraq, even if you did a north/south partition, those two new countries would be still be diverse confederations. But perhaps more manageable. The Kurdish situation is where it really gets tricky and is a perfect example of the lack of thought--or ignoring of thought--that characterized our blunder into this quagmire.

Many people who were against the war, both Americans opponents and other nations, tried to make some of these points. They tried to say "look, the war is about getting Saddam. Now the U.S. has overthrown governments before and this Saddam is a pretty bad guy, but what happens when it's over?" Most opponents of the war tried very hard to discuss the long-term ramifications of the post-war occupation. Mr. Bush chose to not only ignore them, but to distort their words. Time and time again he ignored people's comments and volunteered them for other positions and then attacked those. He refused to engage in honest debate, and still refuses to do so.

This war in Iraq has provided a myriad of examples as to why George W. Bush is not a man who belongs in public office. He is a very dishonest person, who plays games with human lives, and encourages his supporters to hate their fellow Americans across the ideological divide. Future generations of Americans, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, will regard him as a disgrace and as the worst president in American history.

Steve

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Good analysis. My read on the real reasons for this invasion/occupation:

1. Plants the American boot firmly in middle of the Middle East, complete with military bases, ready to jump off into Iran, Syria.

2. The act of invading, showing we are heartless enough to use force in this way, intimidates not just Arabs but the whole world, including our "allies".

3. Control over massive oil reserves, including the economic spoils proceeding from them.

4. Domestic political advantage. The act of creating a war, makes a "war president" out of Bush at the time when the only news was a crap economy and the various Enron and Enron Junior scandals. Inarticulate cowboy president plus crap economy equals express ticket to one term palookaville. The timing of the war propaganda and resolution was designed for maximum political benefit over midterm elections, and it worked.

5. Complete dad's "incomplete" or "failed" legacy, and surpass him.

1-3 boil down to PNAC doctrine, with a big dose of domestic politics, and "family legacy" thrown in. I don't think any of it ever had anything to do with WMD. That was clearly just the label to put on it to sell it to the people, and it worked. I honestly think that Bushco calculated that if the war went off smoothly and easily as they expected, that for the most part people would not care if there were any WMD. They were largely right, in that even though it HASN'T been smooth and easy, people didn't care enough to evict them last week.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. And now, unintended consequences:

The war to date has given a blueprint for other countries facing a similar war with the U.S. The active, high tech phase of invasion dominated by aircraft and tanks and expensive munitions, cannot be sustained indefinitely due to the massive expense. No country at this time can challenge the U.S. during such a phase. So if war and invasion is inevitable, do not fight. Or, put up the flimsiest facade of fighting, but let as much of your manpower and weaponry fade into the country and be hidden as possible. Active resistence then comes as guerilla warfare. Occupation phase is still low tech, with pimple faced teenagers from Alabama riding around in (un)armored Humvees who are susceptible to AK-47 rounds, mines, mortars, RPGs, cell phone triggered car bombs and the like. Of course, if all electoral accountability is removed from the political system of the U.S. and a conscript army is put in place, free to commit genocidal acts and suffer massive losses of its own without political consequence, then the U.S. can ride that horse like Imperial Rome. For a time.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. I think my "true objectives for the war" outlined above, clearly required

a long term occupation of the country from the beginning. I truly think it is naivete and lack of true military experience among the ideologues like Wolfowitz and Feith and Cambone etc. (PNACers) that led them to expect that the smaller force would suffice both in the "blitzkrieg" (it did) and in the stabilization/occupation (it was a massive failure).

They just wanted to get their war on, and realized they only had a year or so to get it in gear or they might wind up out of office and never have their chance to implement PNAC doctrine. So I think once the propaganda drumbeat for war began, they were just anxious to get it started, and DID plan to just figure out the rest as the ashes and rubble fell.