What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

February 2, 2005 7:39 AM

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along? [...]By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval. But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong? It's hard to swallow, isn't it?[...]
posted by Postroad (240 comments total)

I've been saying this ever since Colin Powell went to the UN and told the world how awesome it would be if Iraq had democracy.
posted by ignu at 7:44 AM on February 2, 2005

Right about what? Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Because that's why we went to Iraq in the first place.
posted by bshort at 7:44 AM on February 2, 2005

Well, what if? We can play that game all day. What if Jerry Falwell really is right, and heaven really is populated by rich, white right-wing bigots? What if?
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:44 AM on February 2, 2005

I think that very few people would say that Bush is wrong to want to bring Democracy to anywhere. That's an honorable goal. But I think the only people who would say "Bush has been right about Iraq all along" are the people who prefer to ignore the facts: that invading Iraq was about WMD. When there were none, Bush changed his song.

That doesn't make him right all along. That makes him a flip-flopper.

(On preview, what everyone else said)
posted by Plutor at 7:45 AM on February 2, 2005

Pre-emptive war with no imminent threat? Yeah, I guess I really should get behind that.
posted by ao4047 at 7:46 AM on February 2, 2005

He wasn't right, regardless of what kind of government winds up in charge of Iraq. Self-determination is right, and is what I was taught was the foundation of American foreign policy. Invading a sovereign nation because we don't like its leader is wrong. Might does not make right, and we do not have the right to impose our beliefs on anyone else.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:46 AM on February 2, 2005

We had to destroy the country to save it.
posted by rushmc at 7:47 AM on February 2, 2005

Where's orogonthality (i can't remember the username correctly) with that great little bulleted list of the things Bush sure was "right" about this time around?


Remember the number 200 BILLION?
posted by odinsdream at 7:48 AM on February 2, 2005

I have been wrestling with this myself. I hate Bush for all the usual reasons. But, no matter how we got there, if Bush is able to establish a stable democracy in the heart of the Muslim world, he will go down in history as of the great American presidents. Which will really stick in my craw.

And good on Postroad for posting this.
posted by LarryC at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2005

What if the Iraqi people elect someone, sometime, that the US government doesn't like? Will their democracy be maintained? I hope so.

And what bshort said.
posted by fossil_human at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2005

Bush is right. Now that Saddam has been taken out and the Iraqis have "Democracy" we are all safer. Right?

And one event out of a thousand does not validate bullshit, in my politically neutral assessment. After all, this is a War without end.
posted by gsb at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2005

But, no matter how we got there,

... isn't that the entire POINT?
posted by odinsdream at 7:51 AM on February 2, 2005

Guys, come on! Mission Accomplished!

Also, if you have a strong stomach you could look at these free people.
posted by ignu at 7:53 AM on February 2, 2005

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

What if a frog had wings?

What if I were the richest man in the world?

What if fairy tales came true?

How does one lie and be correct at the same time?

Bush has always been way right but he's seldom correct.
posted by nofundy at 7:54 AM on February 2, 2005

It's too soon to tell. I agree with LarryC, but who knows what's going to happen with the insurgency. What happens if they kill Sistani? Or Allawi?
posted by atchafalaya at 7:54 AM on February 2, 2005

I'm very happy that the Iraqi people have taken this step. However, it is still way too early to make any judgements about the long-term impact our intervention will have on direction of Iraqi society. "Election" =/ "Democracy". They still have a lot to learn and a lot of civil society to create.

And the relative success of this election does not dispel any of the broader concerns about the Bush administration's views of civil society and democracy. They have a consistent track record of opposing government accountability and transparency. The civil authority they created in Iraq was staffed through cronyism rather than using an open merit-based process. This has also been true of their administration in the United States. They base their actions on idealogy and politics rather than evidence-based policy analysis.

They ignore math, and try to obfuscate mathematical realities that interefere with their agenda (for example on privatizing social security).

So in general I am (a) glad for the Iraqi people, (b) not sanguine about the future course of events in Iraq, (c) disappointed to the extent that this outcome could give Bush and company power to wreak more havoc in the U.S. and the rest of the world, and (d) cognizant of the fact that "bringing democracy" was only the backup reason for invading Iraq; the primary reason was that they had weapons of mass destruction and Al Queda links and were an imminent threat to the United States (which turned out to be not true).

It will also be interesting to see how this election effects the broader arab and muslim view of the United States. Will this decrease animosity towards us? Or will animosity towards us continue to increase, thereby continuing to increase the risk of future terror attacks. Again, a long-term question.
posted by alms at 7:55 AM on February 2, 2005

Winning a million bucks in Vegas doesn't retroactively justify putting your kids' college money on 00.

I wish the best for Iraq. I wish the best for counter-terrorism efforts. I hope that Bush will somehow have done right for the wrong reasons rather than having done wrong for the wrong reasons. There are still tens or hundreds of thousands dead, billions of dollars gone, and the goodwill of nations squandered. The war is largely believed immoral. It's a high price, and I really do hope the results will be worth it. I will vote Democrat again next time either way.
posted by callmejay at 7:55 AM on February 2, 2005

The Iraqis are now free to engage in civil war.
posted by lobstah at 7:57 AM on February 2, 2005

I have absolutely NO faith that this election is meaningful, we won't know that for a very long time..

and, somewhere in the statement "what if Bush was right" is the implication that "the end justifies the means".
posted by HuronBob at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2005

This is an awesome opinion about the GOP's chest thumping over this election:

You do not own their courage.

The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don't own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don't own their courage, Judith Miller. They did not stand in line to provide pretty pictures for vapid suits to fawn over, so you don't own their courage, Howard Fineman, and neither do you, Chris Matthews.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line in order to justify the dereliction of a kept press. They did not stand in line to make right the wrongs born out of laziness, cowardice, and the easy acceptance of casual lying. They did not stand in line for anyone's grand designs. They did not stand in line to play pawns in anyone's great game, so you don't own their courage, you guys in the PNAC gallery.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to provide American dilettantes with easy rhetorical weapons, so you don't own their courage, Glenn Reynolds, with your cornpone McCarran act out of the bowels of a great university that deserves a helluva lot better than your sorry hide. They did not stand in line to be the instruments of tawdry vilification and triumphal hooting from bloghound commandos. They did not stand in line to become useful cudgels for cheap American political thuggery, so you don't own their courage, Freeper Nation.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify a thousand mistakes that have led to more than a thousand American bodies. They did not stand in line for the purpose of being a national hypnotic for a nation not even their own. They did not stand in line for being the last casus belli standing. They did not stand in line on behalf of people's book deals, TV spots, honorarium checks, or tinpot celebrity. They did not stand in line to be anyone's talking points.

You do not own their courage.
posted by ignu at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2005

How the hell is there a right or wrong here? The question isn't whether Iraq is going to be doing peachy in the long term because of our actions, it was whether the course of action was the right one at the time and whether it was planned in a way to minimize the loss of life and damage to property. If an internal movement somehow ousted Saddam in another decade (improbable but possible), would things have been better?

There are some skeptics about the election but I haven't heard any doomsayers claiming it's a mark of the apocalypse. Were we right to do what we did when we did? Well, that's a measure of justification and public opinion which history may rewrite. Could it have great results? It's possible.

This whole republicans = pro-Iraq war = "free Iraq" = democracy thing is crap, though. Campaign rhetoric aside, Gore might have done the same thing had he been in office. Maybe with better a justification, maybe with worse.
posted by mikeh at 7:59 AM on February 2, 2005

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
posted by matteo at 7:59 AM on February 2, 2005

Guess who put Saddam in charge of Iraq to begin with?

Guess who supported Saddam and his evil reign for years and years?

Was that part of the long range plan to prove Bush's "rightness?"

Does anyone really expect to see things change in our behavior?

Elephants in the living room:

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are evil Islamist dictatorships.

The US is currently building 14 PERMANENT military bases in Iraq. Why?

And why won't the media touch these behemoths when politicians go spouting off about Mideast issues?
posted by nofundy at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2005

What navel gazing horseshit. Until WMD are found (and that's unlikely since, ya know, they've given up fucking looking for them) then he's WRONG. Historical revisionism, indeed.
posted by jperkins at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2005

Christ! Can't anyone keep their focus anymore? Are you still undecided about this war? Is democracy so sacred that it justifies ANY one thing the US has done during this debacle?

Iraq just elected a puppet dictator that supports an occupying force in their damn--back--yard! Hey grandma...yeah you. We're shooting up your house because we want democracy in your country. Nah, we aren't going to stop until you vote for democracy. Hey, now! Stop crying! You don't want us to have to shoot you too, now do you? You little scamp.
posted by apiaryist at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2005

and we're never leaving there, no matter what happens--the largest embassy in the world, many many enormous military bases...
posted by amberglow at 8:04 AM on February 2, 2005

The election is just the first step in a long and difficult path to a stable democracy. I hope they make it, but I have my doubts. Right now many citizens of Iraq still consider the insurgents legitimate. If the new government provides enough for the Sunnis that they are comfortable with it and start speaking out in numbers against the insurgents then there might be a chance. Civil war is still a distinct possibility. All in all, I think it is a bit premature to start thinking Bush has succeeded in Iraq. I hope he does, or rather I hope the Iraqi people do, as the world will be a safer place for it, albeit only marginally safer than it was before we invaded. The invasion made us less safe as it provided a new home for terrorists to breed. A stable government can perhaps eliminate that home. To achieve this status required a huge investment in lives and money and quite frankly even if Iraq does become a stable government I am not sure if it was worth it.
posted by caddis at 8:04 AM on February 2, 2005

Invading Iraq never was really about WMD, even though that's what the administration chose to talk about. That choice backfired for them, but it doesn't matter now - he's been re-elected.

Going to Iraq was, and is, about knocking over the first domino. Get something more democratic happening there, and provide a base for further operations to stamp out organized islamist militancy.

The real discussion to be having is not whether the administration knows what it's doing: big picture, it does - I suspect that the commonly-held image of the president and the administration as bumbling fools is more useful to them than it is annoying.

The question is, who are we (the US) to think we can just go and do this? And I don't know the answer to that one. I suspect that history will be the judge of that, and not the Hague or the UN. If the gamble turns out well, and the region is helped instead of further destablilized, Bush et al will look like geniuses, no matter how much that may bother some people.
posted by dammitjim at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2005

Winning a million bucks in Vegas doesn't retroactively justify putting your kids' college money on 00.

Probably the best answer yet.

I hope to hell it all works out, but I don't think it will, and if it does, it certainly won't prove that we handled the occupation beautifully, no matter what the right says.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2005

You mean, if you ignore all of the Iraqi lives, soldiers, the lies, the underhanded political work, and money that got us here, would it all be worth it?

Maybe if this was it, but things aren't done. There's still going to be violence there for a long time, particularly since it has become a magnet for jihadists across Europe. The cost will keep increasing exponentially. And people don't like occupying armies.

At some point the people will start to think maybe Saddam wasn't so bad comparitively, and at that point it will have been a complete failure.
posted by destro at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2005

So the ends always justify the means? God help us ....

And if I can add my personal favorite: "If your aunt had balls, she's be your uncle"
posted by ElvisJesus at 8:06 AM on February 2, 2005

What the Iraqi people really want is marihuana. If we legalize it over there and they get all happy, then was he right all along?

Just ask any of those kids who'll never walk again if George was right. Just ask any of the orphans, widows or parents who'll never get to see their loved ones again.

I already know the answer to that one: they're better off in heaven.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:06 AM on February 2, 2005

Right about what? The best I can come up with is "we're better off without Saddam in power," but I'm not even so sure of that.

An election does not a democracy make. I read/heard something yesterday about how many "elections" we've lent some degree of support to in the past 25 years. Once you get away from the glam success stories of Eastern Europe and look at the nascent African republics (the best analogy to Iraq), they're not any better off now- they just upgraded to better-dressed thugs.

Besides, it's an open secret that the Iraqis really aren't getting quite the government they actually voted for. Show me a functioning government, with an independent legislature and judiciary, that the Iraqi military is loyal to (because, whatever else happens, if the military doesn't fall in line, they're fucked), and I'll sing Hoseannas to W.
posted by mkultra at 8:07 AM on February 2, 2005

Also, let us not forget that BUSH DIDN'T WANT THESE ELECTIONS.

Like the 9/11 Commission and the Department of Homeland Security, Bush takes credit for things he fought tooth and nail.
posted by ignu at 8:07 AM on February 2, 2005

It's nice that the Iraqis got to sort-of vote, but it wasn't worth one American life, and it wasn't worth hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars. And this is going to cost us 3000+ dead, 20,000+ maimed, and 500+ billion dollars before we get out of it.

You see, Bush does not understand the concept of "cost." In Bush's world, everything is free because someone else always picks up the tab.
posted by grytpype at 8:07 AM on February 2, 2005

addendum: I'll need to see some WMD's first.
posted by mkultra at 8:11 AM on February 2, 2005

This is stupid. All that has happened is that there was a high voter turnout among people who registered. it says nothing about the views of those who did not turn out to vote, or what will happen now that the vote is over. Popular mandate does not a stable democracy make.
posted by Dr_Johnson at 8:11 AM on February 2, 2005

Bush wanted to invade Iraq because of the threat of terrorism particularly terrorists with WMDs.

What I'm thinking is, have we eliminated more terrorists or created more? Is there any argument that the world's feelings towards the US has grown cold? I'm actually more worried about terrorism now than I was back then. (Me and my family also live in Queens, NYC)
posted by pez_LPhiE at 8:11 AM on February 2, 2005

off-topic... amberglow,

>many many enormous military bases...

I just had a Police Academy flashback.
posted by gsb at 8:12 AM on February 2, 2005

To recap something I said somewhere else:
Left: "This war is immoral, murderous, unChristian, unneccessary, bloodthirsty, and based on two premises that have both been proven false and deliberately trumped-up."
Right: "Iraq voted!"

What I still don't understand was the urgency. Even if you think Iraq was a threat (they probably were) and the people were suffering under Saddam (they absolutely were), why was this something like, like Kosovo, required immediate action and Hard Decisions?
Getting inspectors in there was a HUGE step, the opening of a gateway to continue to inspect, sanction, and enforce standards in Iraq. No WMDs were being produced when we had inspectors there, no Kurds were being massacred, and we could've kept inspectors there INDEFINITELY. I have a feeling that better men than Bush could've brought some kind of democracy to Iraq within ten years without turning the world (and most of Iraq) against us.

Callmejay's metaphor fantastic, but I think misses the point that democracy WASN'T what we were gambling for; it was something that was almost sure to come out of this thing regardless. What we did was more like losing the college money on two spins, then going back to the hotel room and swiping some towels.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:12 AM on February 2, 2005

*sigh*

What the hell, Postroad. Not only is this a terrible FPP (chastizing single-link to an op-ed?), but it's horrifically ahistorical. The Bush Administration has been as much an opponent as enabler of free, one-person, one-vote elections. Needlenose has a good run-down.

But this isn't about reality, is it? This is about you, Postroad, which is what makes this such a spectacularly shitty FPP. Ass.

On preview: *shakes fist at ignu*
posted by Coda at 8:15 AM on February 2, 2005

Bush wasn't wrong, he was lying.
posted by signal at 8:20 AM on February 2, 2005

jperkins wrote:
"Until WMD are found (and that's unlikely since, ya know, they've given up fucking looking for them) then he's WRONG."

Can't you accept that WMD was a convenience? It's like you've learned that your parents were the ones taking the teeth from under your pillow and leaving money, and you're declaring that you'll never be able to trust their word on anything ever again.

Sometimes governments have to lie, even to their own citizens. This is - or should be, anyway - done for the greater good.

The real strategy is to overhaul the region completely, by toppling a country or two, then (this is the theory, now...) allowing the network effect of the benefits of democracy and stuff to tip the other countries in the same direction. Meanwhile, we spend a lot of time in the neighborhood, with our military, and our civilian advisors, and our investment of money.
posted by dammitjim at 8:21 AM on February 2, 2005

I'm speechless right now, for so many reasons.
posted by loquax at 8:21 AM on February 2, 2005

The article is a well done bait that requires serious and honest analysis, something politicized people is unlikely to do. Let's look at the article ..it

1. describes a kind-of-person who

opposed the war, but tought it was too late to call back the army without causing a bloodshed (showing responsability instead of rushed judgement) so something had to be done ; evaluated capture of Saddam as a positive event but considered that just a drop in the ocean..more of a propaganda victory then a tangible one

after this description which obviously fits some person the author delivers the sucker punch

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

The author implies that the above person (let's call it anti-war Joe) necessarily tought iraquis don't care about their own freedom (that's an implication) and leaves to the
reader to infer that Joe must have tought Iraquis aren't worth soldier time ! This inference is possible as every other inference, but it's not the only possible one..maybe Joe knew exactly that Iraquis cared about freedom..maybe some Iraqui would have preferred to obtain freedom by not giving away their oil in return and control of their government to an hidden theocracy (the likely outcome, imho) but by fighting.

There's another implication: that election is a clear sign of freedom. Well it turns out it isn't if the election is rigged..look at Ukraine and see what was about to happen in the very "democratic" Ukraine...sometime an election is an election is an election...sometime it's a rigged election, the complete denial of democracy.

It's hard to swallow, isn't it? Yes if one eats the bait, the line and the sink.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Another sneaky implication , that partecipation to events in Iraq is usually if not always an anti-american manifestation. It simply isn't true, because population is known to manifest sympathy to those who help them in any possible way..that probably includes helpful american soldiers.

Quite obviously the soldier who were of the same kind of the Abu Grabhi abusers were met and will be met with something more deadly then the usual Yank go Home invective.

Also, to some soldier probably the spectacle of a voting line is enough of a satisfaction for risking his/her life...but to some, maybe a little more disillusioned rather then cynical, that's just some cute show. I wouldn't be so sure I could speak for every soldier, I find it strange the author is so confident..maybe a little too confident.

My impression ? It's a sucker punch disguised as autocritic.
posted by elpapacito at 8:22 AM on February 2, 2005

So we've thrown the Iraqi people a buiscuit... "We blew your country to shit, we're gonna stay and rape it for all it's worth to us, but you can vote for one of these fine gentlemen, or choose what's behind the door Carol's standing in front of."

Please. Of course these people want to take part in governing themselves; who wouldn't want that? The point that we HAD to go in there and do the locust-dance so whoever might be left could have the opportunity to vote like we do is absurd. And while we're on that subject, we can't even prove our own elections weren't tampered with.
posted by LouReedsSon at 8:24 AM on February 2, 2005

dammitjim

Holy SHIT. Did I actually just read that you support the idea of the government of the United States (representatives of you so, by extension, working for you) lying to you "for your own good."

Holy FUCK that is one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever heard.

Pardon my language, but that level of stupidity is one of the best examples I have seen of reasons why democracy might not always be the best choice.
posted by Yellowbeard at 8:25 AM on February 2, 2005

The lie was wrong! No way it can be justified.
posted by caddis at 8:30 AM on February 2, 2005

So if this all happens to somehow end reasonably well, using logic, we'll all have to agree that the end completely justified the means.

Especially now that we have
...the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people...

It all makes perfect sense.
posted by 31d1 at 8:32 AM on February 2, 2005

Can't you accept that WMD was a convenience? It's like you've learned that your parents were the ones taking the teeth from under your pillow and leaving money, and you're declaring that you'll never be able to trust their word on anything ever again.

No shit? They were lying? Then I guess the appropriate thing to do is hold their feet to the fire over the series of lies that led to the invasion of a sovereign nation, the deaths of 1500 (and counting!) U.S. Servicemen and women, God knows how many Iraqis and at the cost of... well, a shitload of money.

No thanks, I think I'll stick with accountability of elected officials, but I do appreciate your "get over it" stance which tells me to keep repeating the cry of "where the fuck are the weapons of mass destruction?" Remember Senator Cato and his exhorations of, "Censer Carthaginem esse delendam?" I'll continue to do that same, if for no other reason than the memory of the members of our own armed services whose lives were traded in on lies (but white lies! Because the cause of nation building wouldn't have been as easy to sell as, "a mushroom cloud over Manhattan").
posted by jperkins at 8:33 AM on February 2, 2005

I don't think it's wrong to ask the question, but...

FAITH, people! FAITH. I have absolute, unquestioning FAITH in the ability of this dipshit administration to fuck up anything good.

While bringing Democracy to a foreign land may seem like a positive thing, don't forget that our administration is made up of managerial retards. They fucked up the war, they fucked up the reconstruction, they're about to fuck up social security. Don't worry, they'll fuck up this too.
posted by fungible at 8:33 AM on February 2, 2005

...the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people...

What, all the car bombs, resistance fighters, etc., wheren't a pretty fucking clear sign?
posted by signal at 8:33 AM on February 2, 2005

dammitjim, that's a terrible comparison. a convenience? i don't know about your household, but when most kids leave a tooth under their pillow, no one dies or loses billions of dollars. there's a big difference between a "white lie" to preserve childhood innocence (something i don't really agree with, and i know my parents were uncomfortable with because they came clean with just about everything when i wasn't quite five yet. not that i really believed in santa, the easter bunny or the tooth faerie to begin with) and a boldfaced lie to the entire american public about the reason we went to war. we're not all eventually going to be mature about this one day and realize there was no ill intent on george's part.

and i think you're right about the real strategy part. that's what scares me the most. hints of iran being next should send up signal flares all over the place. we might leave iraq, but we're not leaving the middle easy any time soon. why does our government think it should play world police? i liked it better when we stuck to our own borders and our own internal problems.
posted by Igor XA at 8:34 AM on February 2, 2005

Sometimes governments have to lie, even to their own citizens. This is - or should be, anyway - done for the greater good.

In which case, Bush can stand up tonight and say, like Chalabi earlier, that 'what was said before is not important', and that he's a 'hero in error', can't he?

If you really believe that, anyway.
posted by riviera at 8:34 AM on February 2, 2005

What democracy, they had 300,000 troops on the ground to enforce the peace on election day, there were still suicide attacks and people died. Yes, many people voted and that's a good thing but calling the election a victory makes as much sense as calling the SuperBowl after the first series of downs.

And Bush wasn't right, Bush lied about the WMD's or have you conveniently forgotten about that.

Last thought, democracy may be a nice ideal for US to spread around the world but missionaries think that spreading the word of God to heathen tribes is good work too. Just because we think it, doesn't make it so. Some people do not want democracy and yet we're going to try and force it down their throats and then hold their mouths closed so they can spit it out.
posted by fenriq at 8:36 AM on February 2, 2005

odinsdream, here it is.

[COMMENT RE-POST]
WE WENT TO IRAQ TO GIVE THEM THE GIFT OF DEMOCRACY*

*Not valid in Sunni majority provinces. "Democracy" means the right to cast a ballot, not necessarily to know for whom you're voting. Democracy means the right to cast a ballot, not necessarily national sovereignty. Democracy means the right to cast a ballot, not to decide who owns your oil. Not valid with other offers, like voting for Islamic theocracy or a pro-Iranian government. Must retain fourteen permanent U.S. military bases to play. Voting will not restore lost parents or children, and will not remove the horror from your soul. Void where prohibited by the USA Patriot Act, the Bybee Memo, Proconsul John Negroponte or any U.S. Soldier's whim.

posted by orthogonality at 3:40 PM PST

[ /COMMENT RE-POST]
posted by shoepal at 8:37 AM on February 2, 2005

Maybe postroad is right. Let's do a quick survey of the 100,000 killed in the invasion and see if they're cool with Bush's approach to democracy.
posted by mecran01 at 8:37 AM on February 2, 2005

Yellowbeard: Are you kidding? Do you really think the government ought to be required to always tell the absolute truth?

I'm not advocating perpetual cover-ups or anything, I'm talking about not tipping your hand.

If the administration were required to really tell the whole truth all the time, to the press and to Congress, it would immediately tell our enemies what to do. They watch CNN just like we do. In fact, I remember from Gulf War I, the Iraqis often got better battlefield situational awareness from CNN than they could get from their own sources.

The people in our government, dumbasses though they may sometimes be, have access to information that we as citizens don't have. They can't always be required to divulge what they know, or how they know it. Remember how Al Quaeda stopped using satellite phones because it came out in testimony to Congress that we were tapping the lines?

It's not like a being a citizen of a democratic republic entitles you to a slice of every decision, or to be informed about everything completely. This isn't a mutual fund, where we all have voting shares.
posted by dammitjim at 8:44 AM on February 2, 2005

Why do so many people say democracy when they obviously mean capitalism?
posted by 31d1 at 8:49 AM on February 2, 2005

Powell/McCain 2008:
The ends justify the means, hippies!
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:50 AM on February 2, 2005

This isn't like telling our enemies where troop positions were.

We told our enemies they had WMDs, and I'm pretty sure they knew they didn't. Our justification for the war would've changed nothing about how they defended or reacted, but it changed everything about why people like us supported it.

Lying to win a war is a tough call, but lying to start one is absolute bullshit.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:51 AM on February 2, 2005

Yellowbeard: Are you kidding? Do you really think the government ought to be required to always tell the absolute truth?

Yes, I think that was the idea. Why is that so surprising? CNN is not the government, your example makes no sense. Telling the truth doesn't mean saying "We are bombing at these coordinates"... it means saying "We are bombing aspirin factories" instead of lying and saying "We are bombing military installations."
posted by odinsdream at 8:52 AM on February 2, 2005

Alex, you just made me a little happier.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:52 AM on February 2, 2005

Democracy includes the right to vote FREELY.
I read a few articles, including a few on muslim websites, on how Iraqi citizens were intimidated to vote, some forced, by the threat of taking away their food rations. Many just voted in fear that they were going to lose thier food! Fear from the government? Sounds like Saddam is still there.
Sadams biggest mistake was bringing the USA ARMY to Iraq.
posted by bmpetow at 8:53 AM on February 2, 2005

FAITH, people! FAITH. I have absolute, unquestioning FAITH in the ability of this dipshit administration to fuck up anything good.

That's exactly where I'm at - let the dumbasses screw things up so badly that we'll reset the counter to another sixty years of Republicans attempting to gain a simple majority in either the House or Senate. The American populace may be slow to catch on, but their collective memory is long.

I'm not advocating perpetual cover-ups or anything, I'm talking about not tipping your hand. If the administration were required to really tell the whole truth all the time, to the press and to Congress, it would immediately tell our enemies what to do.

Calling for an invasion for nation building would've tipped our hand (and would never have been supported by the populace or any other countries) so we had to base the call for invasion on lies regarding their WMDs? And that's similar to operational security in what world?
posted by jperkins at 8:56 AM on February 2, 2005

This is long-winded, and I apologize in advance:

I was always under the impression that the WMDs were simply a ruse. Bush knew that Saddam was a bluffer, a blowhard, and a much-reviled tyrant - exactly the sort of person who would never exactly allow the world to know that he actually wasn't that dangerous, outside of his own people and writing checks to the families of suicide bombers. Oh, he was still quite dangerous - just ask the Kurds - but not dangerous in the 9/11 sense. In other words, he was no threat to us. In addition, his own tyranny acted as a cork on many of the ethnic and religious conflicts that would have otherwise arisen.

However, the neocons had other ideas. Their tactic was to use Saddam's own bluster against him, as pretense to invade the country he ruled. Their actual goal: to strike fear into anti-Western Islamic governments, and to stir at least grudging respect from rebellious forces within those countries. In their ideal world, Iraq and other such countries would be reformed into pro-Western democracies, which would not only allow for easier trade with the US - petroleum's a big one here, of course - but also as advertising for the American way in general. The way they see it, once the Middle Easy sees what it's like to remove a dictator and let the people run themselves, the dictators will high-tail it and the people will run themselves with a friendly smile to the West.

Of course, even the force of democracy is a pretense of a sort. What they really want are pro-Western republics, and installing democracy is the best excuse they can think of generate such things. That isn't to say that there aren't those within their ranks who sincerely want the Middle East to have the joys of democracy, but, to be sure, the US (and almost every other nation with the power) is, shall we say, rather primarily concerned with its own end. The neocons want the anti-Western leaders to fear that, either with the direct aid of the US or without, their people will rise against them and angle towards the West - so that, perhaps, those selfsame anti-Western leaders might temper their rhetoric, or at least be marginalized.

Pro-Western sentiment is what they want, and overthrowing an example dictator to install a democracy is how the planned on achieving it.

I'm not a Bush supporter. I am not a supporter of the War on Iraq. It is obvious to me that the WMDs were a thin and deceitful pretense, and even this act of democracy is a pretense in and of itself. But this vote is very, very much part of their overall plan, and it is not a contradiction to point out that much while also admitting that booting Saddam and then giving the Iraqis the vote is a wonderful thing. Assuming that it hasn't been rigged - and that the Shi'as do not discriminate against the Sunnis - that's terrific.

I do not need to go into every reason why I opposed this war or how this war has been mishandled, because this is just a post while my tea cools and not a position paper. However, I am still very, very happy for this part of the Iraqis' experience, even as I lament the rest of it.

Nifty post, Postroad.

PS: Fuck that was long. I will shut up now.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:57 AM on February 2, 2005

If the administration were required to really tell the whole truth all the time, to the press and to Congress, it would immediately tell our enemies what to do. They watch CNN...

You're citing reasons to limit truth during war, not reasons to get support to start one. Big difference, dude.
posted by LouReedsSon at 8:59 AM on February 2, 2005

odinsdream, here it is. [COMMENT RE-POST]

... actually, I like this one better:

I remember, as if it were yesterday, when President Bush went before Congress and the American people, and told us that

• Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction;
• and no ties to Al Quada;
• and no plans to attack the United States;
• but that we should
• forget about Osama bin Laden;
• and bill our grandchildren 200 billion dollars because the Iraq War couldn't be won on the cheap or paid for with Iraqi oil;
• and sacrifice 1430 of our fighting men and woman, and condemn another 20,000 to lifetimes of paralysis and amputation and post-traumatic stress disorder;
• and prepare for an indefinite occupation with the natives throwing, not roses and candy but IEDs and mortars;
• while we threw out the Geneva Conventions that had served to safeguard our own soldiers and our country's humanity;
• and dragged our country's integrity and honor by a leash through the mud in the dungeons of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib;
• to make Iraq into a giant recruiting booth for Al Quada while at the same time destroying our own Army and its readiness to fight any other wars;
• so that we could altruistically give Iraqis the gift of Freedom and Democracy!

We were told all along that the whole point of George W's Excellent Adventure was to give the gift of Democracy to Iraq!

Shame on you liberals! You have no right to question the costs or complain you were misled as to the rationale for war!
Shame on you conservatives who pretend that conservatism isn't about nation-building and exporting American lives and treasure in the name of Democratizing the world!
George W. Bush told us honestly and from the very first that the war in Iraq was all about securing Democracy for the Iraqis!
Shame on us all!
- orthogonality
posted by odinsdream at 9:02 AM on February 2, 2005

FAITH, people! FAITH. I have absolute, unquestioning FAITH in the ability of this dipshit administration to fuck up anything good.

That's exactly where I'm at - let the dumbasses screw things up so badly that we'll reset the counter to another sixty years of Republicans attempting to gain a simple majority in either the House or Senate. The American populace may be slow to catch on, but their collective memory is long.

And long is exactly the time a lot of American troops and Iraqi citzens will spend in that box in the ground. sigh.

But I do agree W will fuck this up too, sadly at great cost though.
posted by LouReedsSon at 9:03 AM on February 2, 2005

I nominate Mark Brown for this week's Alan Colmes Stepford Liberal award.
posted by psmealey at 9:05 AM on February 2, 2005

Going to Iraq was, and is, about knocking over the first domino. Get something more democratic happening there, and provide a base for further operations to stamp out organized islamist militancy.

Hello, Mr. PNAC. Are you a paid spokesperson? I think you're supposed to declare that fact....

Seriously, though. This time the dominos are falling because of US. Think about that. We once went to war to stop the dominos from falling. What the hell?
posted by taumeson at 9:06 AM on February 2, 2005

The American government has been devoutly/brutally/surreptitiously/illegally/inconsiderately bringing "democracy" to countries who are unfortunately deficient in that regard all around the world for decades.

Of course they were right to do it this time, everyone else sat in that big leather seat did the same. Hasn't hurt anyone yet, has it?
posted by NinjaPirate at 9:07 AM on February 2, 2005

Sticherbeast said it so well.
posted by caddis at 9:08 AM on February 2, 2005

dougunderscorenelso wrote:
"Lying to win a war is a tough call, but lying to start one is absolute bullshit."

But this assumes that the presence of WMD was the only valid reason to invade. According to the doctrine of pre-emption, it's not.

The concept of pre-emption gives me the creeps, since it means that we really need to have faith in the good intentions and capabilities of our leaders and our military. It's clear that most people in this discussion do NOT have that faith. I actually do - I don't think Bush and Rumsfeld and crew are really devil spawn, enjoying the smell of napalm in the morning.

But WMD was just one of the many reasons the administration had for pursuing the invasion of Iraq. It was convenient in that in the mood of the country at the time, support for getting rid of WMD was nearly assured. So that's the angle they leaned on. Getting approval from Congress was becoming more and more time-critical in the first months of 2003, since the weather was going to be getting worse for military action.

Anyway, I guess it comes down to whether or not one believes that the course of action that we're pursuing overall in the Middle East is valid and just. I happen to believe that. Some corners have been cut to get the plan moving in places, yes. That doesn't bother me as much as the alternate choice: useless discussions about what to do, while not doing anything.
posted by dammitjim at 9:10 AM on February 2, 2005

Oh, he [Saddam] was still quite dangerous - just ask the Kurds - but not dangerous in the 9/11 sense.

What's the difference here?
posted by LouReedsSon at 9:10 AM on February 2, 2005

"It will also be interesting to see how this election effects the broader arab and muslim view of the United States. Will this decrease animosity towards us? Or will animosity towards us continue to increase, thereby continuing to increase the risk of future terror attacks. Again, a long-term question."

Here's a short term answer...NO, it will not decrease animosity toward us. I can't understand why so many Americans continue to only view this situation from 'their' perspective. If China decided one day that George Bush was a threat and went before the UN spouting false intelligence to back a false claim and then invaded our shores, killed our citizens, tortured our soldiers and demolished a good part of our infrastructure, I doubt many of you would see the "good" in that. Sure, 48% of you might secretly enjoy the fact Bush was overthrown but at what cost?

dammitjim, you scare me.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:10 AM on February 2, 2005

Since I am a Democrat, mostly, I am clearly also a flip-flopper, so let me suggest that my very own post forgot to ask: What if the election was NOT what Bush wanted?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043
posted by Postroad at 9:11 AM on February 2, 2005

I am not a supporter of the War on But this vote is very, very much part of their overall plan, and it is not a contradiction to point out that much while also admitting that booting Saddam and then giving the Iraqis the vote is a wonderful thing.

Hear hear!

The Neocons used WMD to justify an agenda that Bush couldn't possibly elucidate as much as the Libs use Saddam's lack of WMD to disguise their lack of a realistic moral argument.
posted by WebToy at 9:15 AM on February 2, 2005

From September 3, 1967:
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon
Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

(From Harper's Weekly)
posted by cytherea at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2005

It's not like a being a citizen of a democratic republic entitles you to a slice of every decision, or to be informed about everything completely. This isn't a mutual fund, where we all have voting shares.

I am going to go ahead and disagree with that statement. Felons and minors aside, we all DO have a voting share. In addition, if we are not truthfully informed about issues, most importantly the motivations behind starting a war, that voting share is worth nothing. So, please stop with the "You can't handle the truth!!" argument.

Also, aren't we all forgeting tht Poland would be right too?
posted by Armen Tanzarian at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2005

Regardless of the effects or outcomes of the war, which has cost 20,000 lives and countless injuries, it's not a matter of whether freedom is better than tyranny or democracy is better than dictatorship.

The question is whether Bush was truthful or not. The answer is no. How can anyone trust this guy? I don't get it.

The question is how democracy might be achieved in a place the mistrusts the West and its types of governments even more. The answer is not at the point of gun in a society that will likely slip into civil while alienating the very allies we need. Simply ask yourself that in late 1970s should the US have invaded the USSR? Bush the Neo-cons say yes, but MAD tells us of no. If you believe that nuclear holocaust is correct, than I guess you might say Bush was right. If you believe otherwise the short answer is no.
posted by Bag Man at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2005

Getting approval from Congress was becoming more and more time-critical in the first months of 2003, since the weather was going to be getting worse for military action.

Weather? Are you for real? Such a just and noble cause had to be sold quickly and at any cost to credibilty because our tanks might overheat?

I think if time was any factor at all, it was more likely that re-election time was fast-approaching, and had nothing to with weather.

I can't believe people buy into this shit.
posted by LouReedsSon at 9:17 AM on February 2, 2005

But Rumsfeld gets to install his new man. Why would Bush ever not want the election?
Democracy means you get to choose who gets into power, and if it's Donny's election then he gets to choose. That's how it works.
Isn't it?
posted by NinjaPirate at 9:18 AM on February 2, 2005

If, in let's say, five years, Iraq is a relatively functional, reasonably free, open, and progressive democracy, I will cheerfully admit, not that W. was right, but that, somehow, some good has emerged from this debacle after all.

Sadly, I expect that the chances that I will be able to make such an admission are roughly the same as my chances if having the reanimated corpse of Richard Nixon showing up at my door to give me a million dollars and a free pony. I think the odds are much better that Iraq by then will either be a fundamentalist theocracy, a civil-war blasted anarchy, a brutally repressive pro-US one-party "republic", two to three bitterly warring smaller states, or a puppet regime propped up by tens to hundreds of thousands of US troops. I guess we'll see.

Until then, sing along! -

"For . . . might makes right!
Until they've seen the light!
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Til someone we like can be elected!"
posted by kyrademon at 9:19 AM on February 2, 2005

The Neocons used WMD to justify an agenda that Bush couldn't possibly elucidate as much as the Libs use Saddam's lack of WMD to disguise their lack of a realistic moral argument.

Can someone parse that for me? That makes no sense whatsoever.
posted by psmealey at 9:21 AM on February 2, 2005

There was no justification for the invasion of Iraq. Plain and simple. That something good might come of it is inconsequential to the assessment of the originating policy. The ends do not justify the means though they may mitigate the sting of failures along the way.
posted by effwerd at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2005

Can't you accept that WMD was a convenience? It's like you've learned that your parents were the ones taking the teeth from under your pillow and leaving money, and you're declaring that you'll never be able to trust their word on anything ever again.

No, it's like finding out that the reason you moved into a new house is because your parents burned down your old one and blamed it on the neighbors.

Sometimes governments have to lie, even to their own citizens. This is - or should be, anyway - done for the greater good.

Yeah, that whole transparency-in-government thing, as well as the "government accountable to the people" principle is way overrated.

High-ranking government officials resigning "to spend more time with family" is the government lying to the people for their own good.

God, that comment was the most fucking retarded thing I've read in a while, and people say a lot of retarded things here.
posted by mkultra at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2005

But this assumes that the presence of WMD was the only valid reason to invade. According to the doctrine of pre-emption, it's not.

Nope, I'm not letting that crap slide either. I don't give a shit what other "secret" reasons the Bush administration had for invading Iraq; the reason that they "sold the war" to us on was the presence of WMDs in Iraq. They were sure of this. They all but crossed-their-hears-and-hoped-to-die and that's what I'm holding them to. Period. Do I think that they were lying now? Yep. Hell, I thought that they were lying then. But they sold it on those grounds and on those grounds is where I'm holding them. And this means that I don't have to plumb the depths of their black souls as to what their real intentions were or if pre-emption was really the reasoning or not. I don't care. WMD is was, is now and shallever be. World without end.
posted by jperkins at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2005

Furthermore, Saddam was sitting on tons of enriched plutonium (not the most dangerous but sure as hell not a paperweight) and was rumored to be conversant with Osama for years (there are numerous web accessible news articles that put Osama in Iraq well before we went there). Saddam answered to noone and was rapidly convincing the UN and the rest of the world that sanctions, that were supposedly killing hundreds of thousands each year, were unjustified. Just being able to get rid of the sanctions is enough justification for this war.

Getting rid of him was a logical, bold step and history will bear this out.
posted by WebToy at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2005

taumeson: Hello, Mr. PNAC. Are you a paid spokesperson? I think you're supposed to declare that fact

I think that Den Beste and some other warbloggers were always up front about the strategy spelled out by dammitjim.

I mean, the administration might have lied about the rationale for the war (to sell it to the people), but plenty of government-unaffiliated neocons have offered dammitjim's explanation from the start.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. (I'm not being a smartass)
posted by trharlan at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2005

Jim, WMDs were presented as the main reason to us, the voting public in a democracy.
Our government lied about them.
My statement is still valid.

So your philosophy is that our government doesn't have to disclose its main reasons for its actions? They should just tell us the most palatable ones they have, and outright lie about them?

By that philosophy, there should be no accountability at all. Why should there even be a State of the Union address?

"None of your business" is a fantastic motto for a coin. Bravo, Jim.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2005

Sure psmealey, the left is trumpeting around the fact that no WMD were found as if there was no other argument for war. They seem to be just as narrow-minded as they claim the Neocons to be.
posted by WebToy at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2005

^
Basically, what perkins and everyone else said, but with a less coherent point.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 9:26 AM on February 2, 2005

Am I the only one that worries that these elections as a precursor to a potentially lengthy and bloody civil war amongst the various ethnic/religious groups, particularly the Shiite, the Sunnis and the Kurds?
posted by tuxster at 9:26 AM on February 2, 2005

Am I the only one that worries that these elections may be a precursor to a potentially lengthy and bloody civil war amongst the various ethnic/religious groups, particularly the Shiite, the Sunnis and the Kurds?
posted by tuxster at 9:27 AM on February 2, 2005

cool - "oil for food" is a "scandal", but vote for
food is not!

...just because it's not funny doesn't mean it's not a joke.
posted by dinsdale at 9:27 AM on February 2, 2005

Web, it's a good point, but WMDs were a major, major, major argument for the war. The other arguments were ones that apply to about 20 countries around the world.

Major argument for the war: Failed.

Late-game re-reasoning for war: Initially successful.

on preview: Tuxster: Nope. But since we have all those military bases in there, a civil war is practically action against US. We're likely going to just take the side of the Kurds and put down those who oppose.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 9:29 AM on February 2, 2005

What is it with our culture that requires a winner and loser, someone to be right and someone to be wrong?

In 20 years we will look back upon the war in Iraq as either an incredible strategic blunder that did immense damage to the security and standing of the United States, or, it will be viewed as a brilliant move to reshape the Middle East away from radicalism and towards moderation.

The risks are mighty, and the rewards are not so clearly established, so is the reward worth the risk? Reasonable people can disagree here.

What is important about the vote is that people voted. The average Iraqi's donned the mantle of democracy, ignored the threats of the insurgents and voted. That was an important event because individuals took responsibility for their government. Time will tell whether their government will be able to earn the trust of the people, but it was an important event.

I wish Iraq would stop being about Bush, and being about ... well Iraq.
posted by forforf at 9:30 AM on February 2, 2005

Getting rid of him was a logical, bold step and history will bear this out.

Can I have access to your time machine please?
posted by edgeways at 9:32 AM on February 2, 2005

Well, I'm just waiting to see what Bush and company will do when the Shia's win the day and push for an Islamic constitution. I'm gonna hold off on that Starbucks franchise in Iraq just a bit longer.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:34 AM on February 2, 2005

Thanks for the post, postroad.

nofundy, I would like to address a few of your concerns first.

Guess who put Saddam in charge of Iraq to begin with?

Well, that would depend on your perspective. I certainly hope you aren't implying that it was George W. Bush - or any other U.S. leader, for that matter. The correct answer would probably be Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, a relative of Saddam's, who took power in 1968 through a successful coup, and named Saddam as his chief deputy. One could also say it was Saddam himself, who forced General Bakr's resignation in 1979. If one were to hypothesize that it was an American leader pulling the strings (an old chestnut amongst activists on the left), then that would make it Jimmy Carter, and I'm not buying that.

Guess who supported Saddam and his evil reign for years and years?

This is another one where I'm not sure what your point is. Certainly you aren't implying that Saddam was supported by Bush Jr. or Sr.? As I recall, they both went to war against him.

Was that part of the long range plan to prove Bush's "rightness?"

Placing conspiracy theories aside (because they're silly), I think you're hitting on something here. The fact that there has been a long history of Saddam being an unruly and threatening (in the sense that he has consistently threatened the U.S., Israel, and his neighbors) world participant does sort of lend itself to the conclusion that W might be right in thinking that we ought to "liberate the people of Iraq."

Does anyone really expect to see things change in our behavior?

I certainly hope not.

As for callmejay's excellent soundbite:

Winning a million bucks in Vegas doesn't retroactively justify putting your kids' college money on 00.

That analogy doesn't quite fit, callmejay and John Kenneth Fisher. Are you saying that the chances of succeeding in having democratic elections in Iraq were less than 50%? To me, the whole point of considering whether Bush was right is considering whether the odds were not, in fact, against us, and the results were, in fact, positive.

This brings us to the WMD argument. Many are saying that they can't concede that Bush was right about Iraq, stating that WMDs were our "reason" for going in, and hence the whole enterprise is faulty. I can definitely see the logic there, but WMDs are not the only Iraqi issue on which Bush has stated a position. Is it possible that, though Bush was wrong about WMDs, he could have been right about some things in Iraq? Or is that the only issue worth discussing?
posted by rush at 9:37 AM on February 2, 2005

Forforf, as long as some of us believe going to Iraq was wrong, we'll be interested in holding those who did it with blood-thirsty and immoral reasons accountable. That's what makes democracy work.

If you crashed a truck into a few houses, could you get out and tell the residents, "Well, what's done is done. Let's focus on reconstruction!"? No, they would probably want to take away your damn license.

They voted: Great. But the more noise made about the war, the more likely future such mistakes will happen. Er, in theory.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 9:37 AM on February 2, 2005

The Neocons used WMD to justify an agenda that Bush couldn't possibly elucidate

Why couldn't he elucidate it? Isn't it a bit ironic that conservatives, of all people, should suggest we just trust the government to mislead us (and the world) for our own good?

as much as the Libs use Saddam's lack of WMD to disguise their lack of a realistic moral argument.

Why isn't the point that we simply don't have the right to do it a realistic moral argument? Where are the checks and balances going to come from if the administration is free to meddle wherever it wants without even being honest about why it does so?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:37 AM on February 2, 2005

Oh, he [Saddam] was still quite dangerous - just ask the Kurds - but not dangerous in the 9/11 sense.

What's the difference here?

9/11 happened to us. In any moral sense, there's no difference - my life is not worth more than a Kurd's - but as far as policy goes, do you really think the US doesn't care?

(Note that I am not necessarily opposed to the practice of prioritizing those moral battles that effect us the most, in and of itself.)

What if the election was NOT what Bush wanted?

Thanks, I think this goes a long way to proving my earlier points.

On preview:

The Neocons used WMD to justify an agenda that Bush couldn't possibly elucidate as much as the Libs use Saddam's lack of WMD to disguise their lack of a realistic moral argument.

Can someone parse that for me? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I think what WebToy's trying to say is, the WMDs were a ruse by the Bush administration to further goals that, by design, could not be laid plain, whereas the anti-war argument concerning the lack of WMDs dodges any realistic moral argument, by arguing against the ruse and not the policy. Apologies if I'm wrong...

My response to that would be, for one thing, that arguing against any sort of deceit like that is, in fact, a very moral argument, even if it doesn't immediately address the bigger picture. Realistically speaking, I'm aware that just about any war lives and dies through various ruses, but just because, as a sad part of human nature, wars happen and falsehoods are made as a matter of course, that doesn't make them all right.

Anyhoo. I'm taking enough time away from work as it is, but I'd like to see more anti-war arguments that tackle the bigger picture. I want to see really snappy ones that go beyond "where are the WMDs?" and "NO BLOOD FOR OIL."

There is, in fact, a Bush Doctrine. It must be identified and then refuted.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:38 AM on February 2, 2005

What if Bush & Co. told us the truth all along. What if he said "I want to undermine a soveriegn state and depose it's leader via military means. Then our military will occupy the country until a democratice government that meets my approval is installed. I don't know how much it will cost in numan lives and in US dollars but I can guess that it won't be cheap either way.

What if he told us the truth indeed!
posted by wonway at 9:39 AM on February 2, 2005

Rush, Bush Sr. was part of an administration that literally gave WMDs to the man, even as he gassed his own people with them. A war later doesn't make up for that; and it's more than enough reason to start realizing the ends don't justify the means.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 9:39 AM on February 2, 2005

Sure psmealey, the left is trumpeting around the fact that no WMD were found as if there was no other argument for war. They seem to be just as narrow-minded as they claim the Neocons to be.

There were a couple I recall: Besides WMD, there were possible links to Al Quida/9-11, and my all-time fav, "...and let's not forget, this is the man who tried to kill my daddy." I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting others, like I always forget Poland, but if there had to be so many "truths" to prompt Americans to support this, maybe there really weren't sufficiant reasons?
posted by LouReedsSon at 9:39 AM on February 2, 2005

Sure psmealey, the left is trumpeting around the fact that no WMD were found as if there was no other argument for war.

OK, should we start on the "harboring terrorists" argument? Last I checked, there were more there now than under Saddam, and bin Laden (remember him?) is still loose.

WebToy, I challenge you to same ONE argument given by this Administration BEFORE THE WAR that still holds up to scrutiny. None of this ex post facto bullshit.
posted by mkultra at 9:41 AM on February 2, 2005

the reanimated corpse of Richard Nixon...

...burglarized my hotel room last night.
posted by quonsar at 9:42 AM on February 2, 2005

I can't understand why so many Americans continue to only view this situation from 'their' perspective. If China decided one day that George Bush was a threat and went before the UN spouting false intelligence to back a false claim and then invaded our shores,...

This is exactly that point that I try to make when I encounter this ends-justifies-the-means nonsense. Not only it is profanely premature to call this a victory for democracy, there are also huge open wounds that will take decades to heal (we are talking about civilizations that still harbor bitterness over the Crusades, after all). What happens six months down the road, when the man on the street in Baghdad wonders what good the elections were when American troops are still patrolling the streets, and seem years away from leaving?

Whatever "moral" case there was to undertake this expedition is almost completely undermined by deceitful and amoral means that were used to execute it.
posted by psmealey at 9:42 AM on February 2, 2005

dammitjim, the argument you're making is long the one I've suspected really did motivate this administration to intervene in Iraq. And you're absolutely right, the WMD angle just happened to be one the public could get behind, so that was what was flogged relentlessly; it was a matter of, whatever will get the public behind this war, that is the rationale we will use.

But this is exactly why I did not support this war; because I suspected, from day one, that the administration was trying to bullshit the country.

Had the argument been made honestly; had the president or anyone else acknowledged that the main rationale for the war was because we believe that we can affect a reverse domino theory in the Middle East, and need to start somewhere, and Saddam's a comparatively unliked dictator running a mostly secluar state, I might have considered the run-up to war in a different light.

But the country would never have bought it. So, we went for the gut-punch, the WMD issue, instead.

The problem is that this central dishonesty, which have resulted in so many deaths, has made me unable to trust this administration on anything. If they are going to lie - for that's what it was - for political expediency when it comes to war, and the death of American servicemen and women, what else are they willing to lie about in order to get their way?

But beyond this is the fact that when you come right down to it, we are waging war in the Middle East on the basis of a theory - the reverse domino theory. This fight may well qualify as the largest attempt at social engineering in history. And I simply do not think it will work, especially because so many of our assumptions about who those in the Middle East are and what and how they think are so fundamentally flawed.

We are proceeding on the assumption that folks in Baghdad - and perhaps Tehran - are just like folks in Indianapolis or Des Moines, wanting the same things, valuing the same things.

Finally, is the role petroleum plays in all of this. It can never be discounted, and the more I read about China and India's population explosions and need for more raw resources, the more central I begin to believe that control of the globe's second largest proven reserves was to this whole enterprise.

All wars, at some level, are resource wars, aren't they?
posted by kgasmart at 9:42 AM on February 2, 2005

dougunderscorenelso,
but the Neocons, who were clearly in control at the White House, have been promoting war against Iraq since early in the Clinton administration. Their argument was well-documented, but everyone continues to hang their hat on the WMD argument. And did you have a time machine that allowed you to know that Saddam DIDN'T have the weapons he said he did. C'mon, the guy miscalculated and paid dearly for it. With the new accelerated schedule of promoting democracy and stability, we couldn't afford to have this pivotal jackass taunting us from the sidelines.
posted by WebToy at 9:42 AM on February 2, 2005

Does one think that if Bush went to congress and said, "well we want to spend 200+ billion to invade and occupy Iraq so we can further democracy in a country that poses us no real risk, oh and at least a thousand of our soldiers will die and who-cares how many Iraq civilians, what-do you-say?"
We would be over there now. of course not. So... either people have been incompetent and believed the WMD bit, or they lied to congress and the people.
I think if they lied it is an immoral act, I am not allowed to lie about my reasons of operation, neither should the government. It is an EXCUSE.
posted by edgeways at 9:43 AM on February 2, 2005

Webtoy: If you can provide evidence, in the form of reasonably mainstream links, to back up the saddam-osama connection as well as the enriched plutonium that you have claimed Iraq possessed, then I will eat my cat.

Saddam, the Pan-Arabian, secular Sunni Baathist was the sworn enemy of Osama, the fundamentalist islamic jihadist Shiite.

Would the Nascar Dads approve of their son dying to end sanctions in Iraq? Hell no. Would the Nascar Dad's approve of a war in order to spread democracy? Hell no. To build a nation? Nope.

That's what counts, really, in a democracy. It's the reasons the PEOPLE support the war, not the reasons the politicians support the war. You see, what all of you apologists are saying is " Look, you are all stupid. We had to fool you with false pretenses to get you to agree to kill a whole bunch of people, invade a sovereign nation, and generally piss the whole world off so that our little long term plan could be realized."

If the reasons to go to war are good enough reasons, the war can be sold on those reasons. If they are not good enough reasons to go to war, then you need to find some trumped up bullshit like WMD. That's the issue.
posted by Freen at 9:43 AM on February 2, 2005

wonway, that's assuming the truth is that he wants to bring democracy to the "heathens" (and maybe some Bibles?) when a growing belief is that there was never any intention to go in and then leave. The intention was to go in and create a US territory that happens to sit on some massively attractive oil fields.

The real truth from Bush is about as likely as either of the Bush twins saying some of any real relevance.
posted by fenriq at 9:44 AM on February 2, 2005

I'm still at a loss as to why those that seem to support this war never seem to consider that the same result ( The removal of Saddam, Breaking up the Batthist party, et al.) could have been accomplished without going to war.

We can put a RC car on Mars, spend 100 billion dollars on a missile defense shield but war was our ONLY option in dealing with Saddam? I refuse to believe that his miserable hide was worth one brave American soul.

We should have bombed the country and slipped in an assault team of iraqi exiles and created our own sleep assassination cell. Even if such an operation cost 100 billion it still would have been cheaper. And no one would have shed a tear.
posted by wonway at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2005

Furthermore, Saddam was sitting on tons of enriched plutonium

You mean uranium? Which was where, exactly?

and was rumored to be conversant with Osama for years (there are numerous web accessible news articles that put Osama in Iraq well before we went there).

You mean the one meeting where al-Q and Saddam decided they'd have nothing to do with each other?

Saddam answered to noone

Except for Al Quaeda?

and was rapidly convincing the UN and the rest of the world that sanctions, that were supposedly killing hundreds of thousands each year, were unjustified.

The world is a multiple choice test? Everything that is not A must be B?

Just being able to get rid of the sanctions is enough justification for this war.

So why'd they have to make up all that lie stuff then - if that was all the justification we needed?

Getting rid of him was a logical, bold step and history will bear this out.

And history will not allow us to wonder if there was any way it could have been done logically?
posted by 31d1 at 9:48 AM on February 2, 2005

We are proceeding on the assumption that folks in Baghdad - and perhaps Tehran - are just like folks in Indianapolis or Des Moines, wanting the same things, valuing the same things.

I dont't understand, are you saying that the people in Indianapolis or Des Moines would welcome being invaded?
posted by signal at 9:49 AM on February 2, 2005

This was a total bullshit trollistic Op-Ed FPP, postroad - shame on you. Though you did get the nest all stirred up - that must feel kinda good.

penance eh? Who among us will pay the penance when the rest of the world decides it can't risk a belligerent tyrannical superpower with a doctrine of preemptive invasion. I fear for us - this path we're allowing ourselves to be led down ends in a giant abattoir with the gnashing and the grinding and the blood spurting...
posted by dorcas at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2005

dougunderscorenelso, you have a point there. He was part of that administration, and they did supply Saddam with weapons. As I recall, he opposed it at the time. I will get a source for that, though, and post it.

As a side note, they weren't WMDs. If what we gave Saddam classifies as WMDs in your book, then according to your book, we have found WMDs in Iraq. Pick a definition of WMDs, and stick with it.

That having been said, I concede your point. In terms of supplying Saddam with weapons, two American administrations participated in those activities.
posted by rush at 9:53 AM on February 2, 2005

so how do those of you using the "it was necessary to say he had wmd's in order for us to invade" reconcile that with the fact that prior to 9/11, people from the bush admin were saying he had no wmd's and posed no threat regionally or globally? you have no problem with that flip flop?

what about the cooked up and doctored evidence for wmd's? you're cool with that, too?

you're cool with our troops being lied to about why they need to be put in harm's way?

you're cool with the fact that the bush admin won't let us get an accurate idea of how many iraqi civilians have been killed? that helps this cause in what way?

you're cool with the fact that the president can't pronounce abu ghraib and that probably 90% of those who voted for him in november have already forgotten about it?

you're cool with the fact that we can't quite seem to get democracy to work properly here, but now it's up to us to spread it all over the world, regardless of what other nations want?

cuz if you are, please hip me to what you're smoking and drinking so that i too can be at peace with what my country is doing.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:54 AM on February 2, 2005

Hmm, Freen, that wasn't very hard. Took all but two seconds.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1046064

And there certainly wasn't any reason to think he had weapons... http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-facts-042502.htm

About the enriched plutonium, I think it was actually not enriched. Does anyone out there have alink to all of the uranium or plutonium that was removed from Iraq roughly a year after we went in?

WebT
posted by WebToy at 9:58 AM on February 2, 2005

You mean uranium? Which was where, exactly?
I am still looking ro the links to this story.


You mean the one meeting where al-Q and Saddam decided they'd have nothing to do with each other?

Please refer to NPR link just posted.

Saddam answered to noone
Except for Al Quaeda?
Again, the NPR link

and was rapidly convincing the UN and the rest of the world that sanctions, that were supposedly killing hundreds of thousands each year, were unjustified.

The world is a multiple choice test? Everything that is not A must be B?

100,000 dead after we went in, 800,000 dying over 4 years before we went in. Another gamble, BUSH WINS!


So why'd they have to make up all that lie stuff then - if that was all the justification we needed?

Because they weren't lying. The CIA was misinforming the administration. The New York YTimes did an extensive expooise on this about 6 months ago.

Getting rid of him was a logical, bold step and history will bear this out.

And history will not allow us to wonder if there was any way it could have been done logically?

Like more world cooperation through the UN, I suppose? That wouldn't have taken very long, of course and the world would continue to rally around the US well after 9\11, YEAH RIGHT!
posted by WebToy at 10:05 AM on February 2, 2005

I'd gladly take Saddam Hussein being back in power in return for Abu Grahib having never happened. I have a feeling that the West is going to be paying for Abu Grahib with lives lost to terrorism for a long, long time.
posted by goethean at 10:05 AM on February 2, 2005

please hip me to what you're smoking and drinking so that i too can be at peace with what my country is doing.

lord_wolf, try this, man. Real good shit!
posted by LouReedsSon at 10:06 AM on February 2, 2005

Regarding your first link, WebToy.
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

But thanks for playing.
posted by Floydd at 10:06 AM on February 2, 2005

I for one, bet my brother $500 that Saddam didn't have any WMD, far in advance of the beginning of the war. I'm actually going to collect on my bet in a few days.

Look, the US gave Saddam everything and anything that could be remotely considered a weapon of mass destruction. We were his ally, up untill the Gulf War, when our Ambassador, April Gillespie gave Saddam tacit approval to invade Kuwait. I've heard reports that he was genuinely surprised that we were pissed off about it. As soon as we went to war in August of 1991, wouldn't you think the first order of operations would be to destroy any potential weapons of mass destruction? I mean really, do you think the US military is that incompetent not to bomb the most deadly arsenals first?

On preview: Webtoy: A) learn how to make links, it's not that hard. B) Yopur Claims are about pre-1991 Iraq. From the Iraqwatch link you gave me:

As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme:

•There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.

•Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon

•There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.

•There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material

•All the safeguarded research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.

•There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.

I'll get back to you about Ian Black in a bit.
posted by Freen at 10:07 AM on February 2, 2005

Winning a million bucks in Vegas doesn't retroactively justify putting your kids' college money on 00.

We can quibble about what the real odds might of been all day long. The only way to find the truth is to repeat the experiment for a large sample size. I think 100 or so might do.

It's great to see my faith in Bush is finally paying off. Watching libruls squirm is beautiful.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 10:08 AM on February 2, 2005