Study: False statements preceded Iraq warWednesday, January 23, 2008 12:35 am

sbaradell Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:04 am

A study was necessary?

Cam Beck Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:07 am

You have to question the validity of the biased study.

To state unequivocally that Iraq had no WMDs is manifestly false. He had them, and we found them. They just weren't "stockpiles."

I will provide links to prove it if you wish, but they're easy enough to find on the Net.

However, whether Iraq had (he did) or was pursuing (he was) WMDs is but one of the justifications Bush used to invade Iraq, and I thought it was altogether one of his weakest points -- right behind the one where he said Hussein was a tyrant to his own people (he was, but that was not our responsibility to fix), and right before the one where he said Hussein was in material violation of the armistice that ended Gulf War I (he was).

All of that to say this: Whether he had WMDs or not is irrelevant to the normative case for invasion, but he did have at least some, and he never accounted for the ones he admitted he had previously, one way or the other, as he was required to do.

To look back with all the information we have now when our invasion made disclosure inevitable and say, "Well, now that we can't find or account for the ones he said he had, we should have concluded that we wouldn't find them" is absolutely ridiculous.

We make decisions, rightly or wrongly, with the information we have at the time, in accordance with the risks associated with the possible consequences of each decision. Hindsight is great, but when facing the prospects we were facing against terrorism --in general-- knowing as we did that Hussein was a known (Bragging!) sponsor of terror (Al Quaeda or not) after we just had our buildings destroyed and people killed on our own soil by such people (who didn't need WMDs to do it), we had little choice but to act against those threats forcefully and unambiguously.

Invading Iraq was one of the few good decisions Bush has made his entire presidency. I'm not suggesting he did everything right in doing it, but there is no war where every decision turns out to be right, in hindsight.

sbaradell Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:56 am

What are they putting in the watercoolers at Chaos Scenario?

sbaradell Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:58 am

Based on most criteria that would actually influences American public opinion, we could have easily made a better case to invade Saudi Arabia and try to install democracy there.

sbaradell Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:59 am

Or Pakistan, for that matter.

Cam Beck Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:03 am

I don't know what was going through their minds at the time, but given the fact that we'd only just been in a war a decade before with Iraq, and because Hussein was openly hostile to the U.S. while the leadership in SA at least had the appearance of cooperating, they thought Iraq would be an easier sell -- both domestically and abroad.

The politics and culture of SA are too complex to sell in a 2 minute sound bite. "WMD," on the other hand, gets people frothing at the mouth, for some reason.

Sure, they're fearsome, and in the hands of terrorists their very specter coupled with a few hits can force us to tear ourselves apart, but the problem isn't WMDs. It's those freelance terrorists with no official sanction who would use them intentionally against civilians.

If it were a country, at least we would know whom to attack. Hussein fit that bill as well as any national leader.

sbaradell Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:53 am

Not really. Saddam hated and feared Muslim extremists as much as we do; they were a threat to his secular fascist party. He saw Islam's power as a direct threat, and just gave a pittance to Palestinian terrorists. If the US were smart, we could have worked to play natural enemies against each other rather than forcing them to band together because of this bone-headed idea that we could force democracy on a place that hasn't had in for 2000+ years. If Bush had ever read a couple history books rather than coking it up during his time at Yale, we might not have to be dealing with all this nonsense (not to mention death.)

Cam Beck Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:15 pm

"we could force democracy"

Priority #1 was to dispose of Saddam. Mission Accomplished.

Priority #2 was to stabilize the country and make it less of a threat. The operating presumption was that democracy would help stabilize it. The goal is good on priority #2, but the presumption is faulty.

Perhaps "Democracy in America" by de Tocqueville and "The Law" by Bastiat would have been good books to have read before going down that road.

Whatever the goals or the presumptions, concerning national defense, we understand that a nation entering a war ought not leave a situation in worse shape than when one entered it.

Whether that outcome is inevitable wasn't clear at the outset (nor is it clear now). But success is impossible if we retreat.

sbaradell Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:56 pm

Things turned out better in Vietnam because we left. We could have extended that war for many more years if we had wanted to -- and accomplished nothing.

Cam Beck Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:06 pm

I hardly call the political persecution and murder that took place in Vietnam after we left (and pulled all financial support) "better."

sbaradell Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:21 pm

The 2 million people killed in Cambodia because of the disruption we caused there was far, far worse.

Cam Beck Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:15 am

Your premise was "things turned out better in Vietnam because we left." Cambodia is a separate issue. And besides, when did we get off of Iraq?

sbaradell Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:54 am

The point is that the argument "We can only win if we keep fighting" can be used indefinitely in any war. Which doesn't make it much of an argument.

Cam Beck Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:37 pm

That was never the argument I was making, so it's a straw man.