> Unfortunately, your statement comes across as similar to those who
> defended President Clinton after he talked about sex, except in this
> case, a war resulted.
Except, the British still believe that the statement
was true.
Yes, they are saying that. But months ago, the US intelligence
services said they think it is wrong to talk about uranium from Niger
(and Niger is what this story is about -- it is a red herring to talk
about other possible African sources).
So, what you are saying is that you think the Bush Administration
thinks that British intelligence is better than US intelligence.
That may well be true. However, if that is the case, then six or nine
months ago, the Bush administration must have begun a major -- a
really major -- revamping of US intelligence. Or else it failed at
being a US Administration.
Furthermore, Bob, you're much too smart to believe
something as dumb as that the world of intelligence is
quite as clear ...
It is not a question of clarity: it is a question of whether the US
president thought the vague and obviously murky stories of the
British were more or less likely to be true than the stories of the
US intelligence services.
The most harsh interpretation of the facts available is that the
Administration honestly made a claim that has now been called into
question.
No, that is not the `most harsh interpretation'. A more harsh
interpretation is that the Administration entered the war for other
reasons, such as intimidating other Arab dictatorships, decided not to
spell out the strategic purpose of the war to US voters, and were
incompetent at putting together an alternative, public story.
Put another way, the interpretation is that before the war the
Administration decided that Abraham Maslow was correct in this
description of a "needs hierarchy" and decided to emphasize the
primary motivators, which are survival and security rather than
anything else, but did not follow through appropriately after the
middle of April.
Even worse, I have heard it said that the US Administration did not
have proper back up plans for handling the loss of their first
proposed Iraqi government and for handling the guerilla war. Now, an
Iraqi group has been appointed by the US occupation forces, and the US
army may be getting a handle on the guerilla war, but both should have
been in place more than 6 weeks ago.
Personally, I think it was a good idea to enter a war to intimidate
other Arab dictatorships. And, it was wonderful to gain the side
effects of doing so, such as getting rid of the then current Iraqi
government and enforcing UN Chapter 7 resolutions. But has the action
also brought to Iraqis the degree of security and freedom, including a
better and more tolerant education for both girls and boys, that many
understood the US Administration to suggest would be the case three
months after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in Bagdad? And has
the actions of the US Administration told everyone that it has done as
good job as possible of keeping chemical, biological, and kept
radiological or nuclear weapons out of the hands of US enemies?
My question is, why didn't the Administration put a huge effort into
looking for Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the
latter half of April?
They did not make a huge effort then. Consequently, I will not be
surprised if Bagdad International Airport, or people in the US, get
dusted by a radiological bomb.
Perhaps (as you or John suggested) the Administration really thought
it better to leave residents and workers in Washington, DC and New
York, NY, and other places, feeling more frightened than need be. The
administration would have done so in order to allocate US resources in
other ways. I don't think that was the trade-off, but if it was, the
Administration should have explained it.
On the 15th of April, Bush should have said in a speech to the nation
that he intended to make all Americans feel less secure and more
likely to die of chemical, biological, or radiological war than they
might have expected. He should have said that in his judgement it
would be better, for example, for US troops to protect important Iraqi
export structures, like pipelines. He should have said that such an
allocation of resources would be better than to search for weapons of
mass destruction in the sites on the then current list. (Obviously,
as I wrote earlier, the then listed sites would not be exhaustive.
Equally obviously, soldiers can only find some obvious things: but
still a major search in late April would have done more than leaving,
as of 30 May, some 700 sites in the US list still uninvestigated by
the US, but available to enemy guerilla soldiers and others.)
Personally, I do not think the US Administration made a trade-off
between security in the US and resource allocation in Iraq. Perhaps I
am wrong. Did Bush make a major speech that I missed in which he said
he was ordering the troops to do other things than search for weapons
of mass destruction?
I don't know of such a speech, and for that reason I think the late
April inaction was some sort of incompetence. What has not been clear
is whether it indicates a general incompetence or whether it was the
result of incompetence in lying. This Niger story suggests the
latter.
(This is good news for security, because it means that the US
Administration does not think the uninvestigated sites had any serious
dangers in them. But it is bad news for anyone hoping the current US
Administration are truthful. Worse, it suggested that they are not
good at lying, because they did not follow through their pre-war
claims that Iraq had nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. A
follow-through would have been searches that found nothing, which
would have `surprised' an Administration that actually expected that
result.)
There is a pervasive dishonesty that has crept into this issue
where we have people actively crippling American war efforts for
short-term partisan advantage ...
Yes, and the question is who is doing this? Did the Bush
Administration attempt to mislead the US public by claiming that the
British learned of something that US intelligence said was more likely
wrong than right? That is what many are asking.
I know you are saying the opposite, that the Bush Administration told
the truth as they believed it before the war. If that is the case,
then, if they were right, or even partially right, their failure to
search for nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons in
the latter part of April introduces a serious question of competence.
>From a security point of view, we will feel safer if people come to
believe the Bush Administration is incompetently lying rather than if
people come to believe the Bush Administration is generally
incompetent.
To me, this alternative question is more significant: is the current
administration competent enough to do the job? This is a key
question, since if they lack sufficient general competence -- if they
are not into `nation building', among other capabilities -- then they
are crippling the American war effort, not because they intend to, but
because they cannot do well enough.
We know that the Bush Administration did not have good plans two
months ago to handle the guerilla war that has occurred. (I am hoping
the US Army is doing better now than they were two weeks ago.)
Maybe nothing could be done about the guerillas. But something could
have been done for the Americans. For example, until recently, the
Administration told US soldiers they would return home `soon'. As
part of their revamping of the Iraqi occupation, the Bush
Administration is now telling soldiers their return home will be
delayed. That is poor `command psychology'.
Another issue: we know that the Bush Administration lacked a good
backup plan when it failed at its first attempts at setting up an
Iraqi administration. The new council looks OK, but as I said above,
weeks have gone by. That is poor `nation building'.
For success, the US Administration needs to show both good `command
psychology' and good `nation building'.
Can this administration learn quickly enough? Would a different
Republican adminstration do better? Could one or other possible
Democratic administration do better?
The problem the US faces is that a combination of this story about
uranium from Niger, plus the current guerilla war in Iraq, plus the
slow pace of `nation building' might, to turn an old saying on its
head, `snatch defeat from the jaws of victory'.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
