July 27, 2005
I Told You So
The “War on Terror” is over… But don’t pop open the champagne just yet. According to the Bush administration, we are now fighting a “global struggle against violent extremism”. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, now tell us the solution is, “more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.” No shit, Sherlock.
Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said in an interview that if the nation's efforts were limited to "protecting the homeland and attacking and disrupting terrorist networks, you're on a treadmill that is likely to get faster and faster with time." The key to "ultimately winning the war," he said, "is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists."
What a freakin' revelation! Wait... Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. Democrats have been saying that since September 11, 2001! And what was President Bush's response at the time:
Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. My opponent [Senator John Kerry] said, and I quote, "The war on terror is less of a military operation, and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation." I disagree - strongly disagree.
But now the administration is telling us they do agree - strongly agree. This is a HUGE flip-flop.
I could be gracious and say, I'm glad the administration is finally on board with our successful strategy, but screw that. I'll leave that to the politicians and diplomats. After all the derisive comments about "serving the terrorists arrest warrants" and wanting to "understand the terrorists, rather than destroy them", screw that. Democrats were right, so - In Your Face!
Democrats were right; Republicans were wrong.
The way Republicans treated the "War on Terror" as a military operation vastly increased the number of terrorists, their deadliness, and the Islamic world's support for them - just as Democrats said it would. But now, all of a sudden, like these guys just had some great epiphany, we hear that the solution is, "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military."
President Bush and his merry band of Mayberry Machiavellis - and the not-so-"useful idiots" who enable them - are finally wising up, but it's four years of ever increasing terrorist attacks and one unnecessary - and spectacularly disastrous - war too late. Like I tell my 3-year old son: Sometimes "sorry" just isn't enough.
Good lord - stop the presses.
Whoa!
wait a minute: has anyone let Cheney in on this? I mean, I think he still thinks there was a direct link with 9/11 and Saddam.
This is really starting to sound like Dilbert on Terrorism… the pointy-haired leader of the free world…!
Posted by: tony at July 27, 2005 11:02 AMThey must be worried about the Elections on ‘06. Regardless, we cannot abandon Iraq. No matter how much blood and gold we spend, Iraq must be saved!!!
Any word on when Bush will visit Iraq again? Our Troops could use it.
Posted by: Aldous at July 27, 2005 11:08 AMAldous, I don’t think our troops are going to fall for the old plastic turkey trick twice. :)
Posted by: American Pundit at July 27, 2005 11:13 AMI am not joking. It has been a very long time now since a Bush visit. His arrival in Iraq would tell the troops that they have not been forgotten. It would really help them and demoralize the enemy.
Posted by: Aldous at July 27, 2005 11:27 AMI would be quite so quick to crow, Pundit. I still don’t think that the Bush Administration fully understands what’s going on in Iraq yet. (For that matter, I think that the Democratic leadership is equally confused.)
There are at least two distinct kinds of terrorists operating in Iraq: nationalistic insurgents and religious fanatics. The problem is that military measures will work effectvely against the former but not the latter. Both need to be confronted socially and ideologically, but the former must be interdicted by the military while the latter are handled better by the police.
I must admit, however, that it is gratifying that the Administration is at least hinting that it may be willing to jettison its ostrich theory of nation-building finally.
FYI: Don’t know if you saw it, but there’s a great article int the Sunday New York Times by John Burns about the very real prospect of the insurgency degenerating into a cruel and protracted civil war. Remember Lebanon in the 1980’s? That’s the real threat to peace in Iraq, not a bunch of religious fanatics fighting a futile, albeit vicious, rearguard battle against secular modernity.
Also loved the fact that Negroponte’s people called Bremmer’s people “the illusionists”. Personally, I would have preferred “the Pollyannas”, but I’ll settle for illusionists.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 27, 2005 12:21 PMGood article — stunning revelations!
AP:
“I don’t think our troops are going to fall for the old plastic turkey trick twice. :)”
:^) Perhaps instead they’ll try plaster-of-paris shish ka bobs — they’d be a lot less likely to melt in Iraq’s scorching temperatures!
Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2005 12:50 PMAmerican Pundit:
more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is militarydoes not equal:
My opponent [Senator John Kerry] said, and I quote, “The war on terror is less of a military operation, and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.” I disagree - strongly disagree.
So before you dems become too self congradulatory, maybe you should understand what the administration is saying. They are not saying that the war on terror/extremism will be won with law enforcement, but through economic growth and equality in regions that are still hemoraging extremism. So you not said it in the first place. This is a bit of a carrot and stick approach, the stick was afganistan and Iraq, and now we are trying to build trade and integration. Dont try and spin words that are not equivilents and make them so. That is not acceptable rhetoric.
——-Douglas J. Feith quote——-and then:
What a freakin’ revelation! Wait… Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. Democrats have been saying that since September 11, 2001!
Pundit…is that why so many Democrats voted FOR the war in Afganistan?
Is that why so many Democrats voted FOR the war in Iraq?
What you’re saying doesn’t calculate.
If the Democrats were against using military force, why did they vote FOR using military force?
Why wasn’t a war of idealogical, political, social and monetary issues pushed by the Democrats at that time?
Why did the Democrats take the position of “War? Oh, OK…me too”?
It’s because the entire country was outraged at that time. A foreign entity had attacked America. Republicans as well as Democrats were pissed off to the max. No one…and I do mean no one…was sitting down and saying, “Woah…wait a minute…we need to wage an idological, monetary, social and political war of attrition against our enemy.”
Or does our collective short memory forget this?
Make absolutely no mistake about this…Democrats as well as Republicans voted FOR the use of military force.
Remember when you point your finger…there are 4 fingers pointing back at you.
Jim T,
Because they(Democrats and Republicans) were lied to by this administration.
You and I were lied to by this administration.
The world was lied to by this administration.
Tenet, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Rice and even Colon Powell lied so that this administration could justify attacking Iraq.
The minutes from the Downing Street meeting were taken 8 months before we invaded Iraq.
Here are portions of the minutes:
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being “fixed” around the policy.”
“Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided, but the case was thin.”
“Saddam’s WMD capability was less than that of Libya, N.Korea or Iran.”
Why would our closest ally at the time, believe the Bush administration’s mind-set as being overzealous and underhanded in regard to invading Iraq?
Why would Rove and Libby retaliate against someone in the CIA about remarks her husband made about Bush’s claims?
Why was Halliburton KBR researching the logistics for this war long before any talk of invasion?
Bush lied!
Andre,
Were we lied to when we went to Afganistan? Did we fight an idological, monetary, social and political war there? Who voted for that war? Republicans? Democrats? Who voted for direct military intervention instead of an idological, monetary, social and political war? Republicans? Democrats?
I have no problem with with admitting that we were lied to about Iraq. That’s a fact and no apologist speculation is wanted or needed.
But it just seems to me that the “we were right all along” statement is somewhere between “wishful thinking” and “willful delusion”.
Posted by: Jim T at July 27, 2005 03:02 PMJim T.-
Democrats have not wavered from the opinion that the geopolitical problem this represents cannot be solve by military force alone. We have never been of the opinion that the methods of peace were the only ones practical in this conflict, especially when it comes to Afghanistan. What Afghanistan did can be argued to be an act of war by proxy. Afghanistan didn’t kill Americans, but they provided support and basing for those who did.
That was the argument for Iraq too. However, there was no act of war for us to act upon, despite a number of provocative acts by American and British military services. We were forced to make this a pre-emptive war, which ensured that if we were wrong, we were stuck in an essentially illegal war. There were doubts from the start, and only evidence as proffered by Colin Powell convinced us there might be something to it. It is not to our credit that we failed to play the red team on this and figure this out, but it’s also not to the Republican’s credit that they created a political atmosphere where opposition to a War in Iraq was tantamount to opposition to the war on terrorism (and political career suicide). One error required the other to come about.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 27, 2005 03:50 PMThe Democrats voted for the war because they were lied to? Give me a break. Have the Democrats forgotten that President Clinton made the same argument for WMDs in trying to get the UN to go to war with Iraq? He did it several times, but failed to get UN backing. Don’t believe me? Check your history. Better yet, read President Clinton’s new book.
You make it sound like this horrible conspiracy that the Bush administration hoisted on the UN and the world. But that ignores the fact that the UN agreed that Iraq had WMDs, and had violated every UN sanction against it. They just didn’t want to do anything about it, and Clinton went along with them, where Bush did not.
Posted by: John at July 27, 2005 03:57 PMStephen,
However, there was no act of war for us to act upon,
No act of war? How about the multitude of incidents of US and British aircraft being targeted and or fired upon patroling the no fly zones?
Operation Northern Watch
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/northern_watch-2003.htm
Operation Southern Watch
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch-2003.htm
Posted by: Kirk at July 27, 2005 04:36 PM
John
Clinton never invaded Iraq. Check your own history.
Also, if I understand your argument, the US was justified in ignoring the UN and invading Iraq - for ignoring the UN?
Posted by: ElliottBay at July 27, 2005 04:42 PMStephen,
The last sentence of your post is the one that makes the most sense of all.
One error required the other to come about.
Errors.
Errors and misjudgements caused WW1.
Errors and misjudgements caused Korea.
Errors and misjudgements caused Viet Nam.
And now, errors and misjudgements have caused Iraq.
Notice a trend here?
How many times has the world gone to war over errors and misjudgements? How many times more will the world go to war over errors and misjudgements?
Hindsight is truly 20/20.
Posted by: Jim T at July 27, 2005 05:09 PMMake absolutely no mistake about this…Democrats as well as Republicans voted FOR the use of military force.
To be sure, I believe many democratic politicians voted to to give Bush the authority to go to war because they were afraid of the political fallout from voting against it.
Is this a justifiable position? No, not really. However, I do honestly believe that the administration went to improper lengths to remove ambiguities from the ‘intelligence’ information that we had, thus securing the blessings of much of the public (at least at the time) in a manner that wasn’t completely on the up-and-up.
Whatever Congress’ vote, this was Bush’s baby. Many Americans now feel it wasn’t worth it and feel that we’re not any safer because of it, but more importantly many feel that the administration has mismanaged it.
I’m not a registered member of either party, and my position has always remained the same on this war, from day one.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 27, 2005 05:19 PMLook back at the time of the vote in Congress… Bush was threatening to use military force in Iraq without first going to the UN. The vote to authorize force as a last resort was a political move to force Bush into going to the UN. He was suppose to bring the rest of the world along with him into Iraq, if force was required.
30 days prior to the UN Inspectors finishing their job, Bush pulled them out premature for the invasion.
1 - Congress voted to give Bush the authorization to use force as a last resource (which he pretty much had anyway but complete ignored the ‘last resort’ part)
2 - Bush did not comply with this due to his failures in diplomacy at the UN…
Take into effect that fact that Bush presented ‘doctored’ intelligence that removed all doubt about assertions of WMDs in Iraq to both the Congress and the UN…
3 - Bush pulled the trigger. For a war that his followers are so eager to support - no one wants to admit responsibility for his decision to invade Iraq. What we have here is a failure to own up to the post…
Posted by: tony at July 27, 2005 05:57 PMVictory, victory, glorious victory.
Notice another news item today about US withdrawal from Iraq next year? Gen Casey floats the idea yet again. We’re being prepared.
Brace yourself for Republicans waving blue thumbs in the air. We’ll be declaring victory and leaving Iraq next year.
And one of the versions of the Iraqi constitution proposes an Islamic state, with rule of law based upon the Sharia.
Yesterday 4 US Marines died, and 16 Iraqis were machine gunned in a bus, with 27 others wounded. Numerous other incidents of violence and death also occurred. It made page 13 of The Oregonian newspaper.
Isn’t it amazing, what we can get used to?
Yes, we’ll declare victory and leave Iraq. I wonder how the Kuwaitis will feel about being encompassed by the Shia Islamic Republics of Iran & Iraq?
Yes, we’ll declare victory and leave Iraq. Wonder if the Shia mullahs have contemplated a Jihad to capture Mecca? A Shia v Sunni Holy War would suit us quite nicely, as long as the oil keeps flowing.
Posted by: phx8 at July 27, 2005 06:07 PMJohn-
I don’t think you got it. One, the Bush administration was intent on going to war from square one, and WMDS were a pretext. How can you tell? Well, when people start making solid plans before they’ve got the causus belli lined up, that’s a sure sign of it. it would be over a year between when they started preparing solid OPLANS and bulking up the ports in Kuwait, and when they presented America with their case fo war. Two, the overwhelming evidence is that Bush’s team employed a great deal of muscle in creating that pretext, and used some sources unavailable to or unwanted by the last president to get it. Clinton also never claimed a conspiracy of Saddam and al-Qaeda terrorists. He certainly didn’t claim the pretext of a pre-emptive war. Clinton operated off a dropping of the cease fire. Different evidence, different strategy and justification, therefore different manners of going to war.
Kirk-
Technically, they were justified in shooting at us! You see, the No-Fly zones were not UN mandated. They were our idea, and it had us flying jets into sovereign territory. Meaning they could shoot at us. Of course, the fact is, they never hit anybody. Probably on purpose. Actually hitting somebody would be the end of the cease-fire.
Jim T.
I don’t buy hindsight in this case, because there were too many people saying “This evidence is questionable”, “we need better plans than this”, and “these are too few soldiers” when asked. You don’t get to claim hindsight unless nobody could have seriously imagined that things would mess up the way they would.
As for mistakes, errors do get committed in every war. But Iraq is unique among major wars of the modern age in the fact that we were the aggressor. Even in Vietnam, we could claim to be defending a sovereign country that had asked our help, even if the rest of our reason to be their was crap. The fact that we essentially started the war means that we have an administration for whom starting the war was a political choice that had to be defended. It means that any suggestion that the war was unfounded, no matter how well found it was, was rejected as a political attack by envious, and then traitorous political opponents.
The difference, ultimately, is that it is our error that caused the Iraq war, rather than the error of somebody truly harboring or supporting al-Qaeda terrorists. We put ourselves in the hole with this war, when we should have continued the drive and denied al-
Qaeda the opportunity to regroup.
I guess in the end, I do not feel it healthy to resign ourselves to going to war for foolish reasons, over foolish mistakes. We should learn from the mistakes of the past, because even if foresight isn’t 20/20, we’re not blind.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 27, 2005 07:48 PMJose,
They are not saying that the war on terror/extremism will be won with law enforcement, but through economic growth and equality in regions that are still hemoraging [sic] extremism.
Are you kidding me?
You guys just don’t get it. Isn’t Osama from one of the richest families in the world? Weren’t the guys who flew the planes into the WTC from affluent Saudi familes?
Religious terrorism is a crime of passion, not economic or social injustice.
Regarding the Iraqi insurgency, you can’t have “economic growth and equality” unless you have societal stability. Remember the billions we poured into Vietnam? You won’t have stability in Iraq until the religious terrorists are neutralized and/or captured. And that’s not a job for the military, it’s a job for the police.
Just because the Bush Administration is deliberately combining the two in order to justify the war doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be able to see through their subterfuge.
Bush could have espoused a valid reason to depose Saddam. Forget about UN violations, terrorism & WMDs. He could have said that we have to eliminate a vicious dictator who’s terrorizing and murdering his own people and who’d blow us all to kingdom come if he got half a chance. At least then we could have had an honest debate, and I for one would have supported him. But he didn’t. He took the easy and fallacious way out and now our troops and the Iraqis are reaping the whirlwind.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 27, 2005 08:01 PMStephen,
My bad. I was almost positive that Sadam had signed a Gulf War Cease Fire when it was actually a Gulf War Cease Hit.
So, does that mean that if a police officer is patrolling through the parking lot of the business that I own I can shoot at him all I want as long as I don’t hit him?
Posted by: Kirk at July 28, 2005 03:06 AMSpeaking of the outright hypocrisy of this administration, I see where the US and North Korea are holding bi-lateral talks within the context of the six-party talks - just like Democrats said we should.
What was President Bush’s response to that idea before the election: “The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That’s exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.”
US representatives are even using the ‘N’ word: Negotiate. What was President Bush’s stance on negotiating with North Korea:
“…we will not negotiate. That’s the United States position.”
Once again, Democrats were right; Republicans were wrong.
mattLaw
To be sure, I believe many democratic politicians voted to to give Bush the authority to go to war because they were afraid of the political fallout from voting against it.
The Democrats put personal political gain above what they believed to be the good of the military and the country as a whole? I am shocked, SHOCKED!
Kirk,
My bad. I was almost positive that Sadam had signed a Gulf War Cease Fire when it was actually a Gulf War Cease Hit. So, does that mean that if a police officer is patrolling through the parking lot of the business that I own I can shoot at him all I want as long as I don’t hit him?
I like the way you fill in the blatant holes in their logic. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: TheTraveler at July 28, 2005 10:12 AMKirk,
Bush lied.
The cost: billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
That’s a pretty serious lie.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 28, 2005 01:46 PMThe Whitehouse in alluding to a protracted global strategy as far as the eye can see, vs. a war which can be fought and won, has the implication that abridging of civil liberties here at home via legislation like the Patriot Act could also remain intact for as far as the eye can see.
Many of us knew and said, before we invaded Iraq, that terrorism was not a war we could wage militarily and win. Now, that Bush et.al. are catching up with our wisdom, enacting the Patriot Act for a minimum of another 10 years appears logical from their point of view.
America is heading for some deeply entrenched civil strife thanks to this Administration and its extreme shortsightedness and lack of historical lessons many of the rest of us had learned just by living and being educated here in America. Bush was too busy partying to stay up with the rest of us, apparently. I knew a lot of folks like him. I didn’t respect them much either.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2005 02:57 PMThe Democrats put personal political gain above what they believed to be the good of the military and the country as a whole? I am shocked, SHOCKED!
Many in the GOP would have done the exact same thing in a heartbeat. Don’t kid yourself.
Please, mattLaw. The whole GOP response to 9/11 was to take advantage of it for political gain. Bush even made the case that we couldn’t import cheap drugs from Canada because the terrorists might somehow tamper with them. What a crock.
Posted by: American Pundit at July 28, 2005 11:34 PMactually…the administration has found that “terrorist” has not been testing well…
so from now on folks…we are fighting “freedom wreckers”.
pass the word.
Posted by: views at July 29, 2005 03:07 AMviews, now that is funny. Kinda like home wreckers, eh? LOL! The Whitehouse is at the very least good for some intellectual humor.
One of my favorites comes from Arlo Guthrie. Speaking about Reagan’s falling asleep frequently in the oval office and during meetings, Arlo said, he thought this was a good thing. The more he sleeps, the safer we all are. Now if Bush would only take a lot more naps in the Whitehouse…
to Bush (W):
EAT more Pretzels! EAT more pretzels! EAT more pretzels!
btw - I’ve always thought W’s use of ‘Freedom Haters’ and ‘Evil Doers’ were pretty avant guard. Of course - the first one was at one time ‘French Haters’ which had a much broader appeal - but the Congressional Overreact Committee changed to ‘Freedom Haters’ for all the obvious reasons.
Posted by: tony at July 29, 2005 09:23 AMStephen,
You state- Technically, they were justified in shooting at us! You see, the No-Fly zones were not UN mandated.
You are correct, the no-fly zones were not mandated by the UN but were authorized under multiple Security Council Resolutions.
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 states;
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
The US is a Member State. Therefore, the US, Britian and in case you forgot France (who was originally on board for the no-fly zones) were given authority to implement the no-fly zones by Security Council Resolutions.
UN Security Council Resolution 678 states;
Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
Again, the Security Council authorizes all Member States to use all necessary means to force Iraq?s compliance.
In addition the Blix ? ElBaradei letter to H.E. General Amir H. Al-Saadi (Advisor, Presidential Office, Baghdad) following a meeting with the General in Vienna was included as an Annex to Security Council Resolution 1441. This letter includes the paragraph below specifically references the no-fly zones.
On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.
If the no-fly zones were not authorized by the Security Council or were ?illegal? why would they be made part of Security Council Resolution 1441 through inclusion of the Annex?
Posted by: Kirk at July 29, 2005 12:46 PM
