Bryon Daly wrote: > Sorry this is a *long* reply, as I've tried to include links to back > up some of what I say, and have included excerpts of some relevant > parts...
That's fine with me. My apologies for the delay but I have been busy and unwell. And the weekend was dedicated to the two 'A Storm of Sword' books. :) > I wasn't basing my statement on just Dan Rather's comment. I just > thought it interesting he felt compelled to tone down/qualify > the previous > report. > > Here are some recent articles about Iraq that show it isn't > all bad in Iraq. But I'm not claiming that it is all bad in Iraq. Just that things *are* bad, in many places, in many ways and that even after six months, the security situation is worsening instead of improving. 'Shambles' after all just means a condition of great disorder... Unless the security improves, the reconstruction efforts would go slower and cost more. The slower the reconstruction, the larger the number of disgruntled Iraqis... > For some reason, these type stories don't seem to get > much/any coverage from > mainstream media. Well, most of the links you give below are all mainstream media. :) > Some links, with some excerpts: > > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,1056138,00.html > ********** > "In the summer I spent more than a month in Iraq. What I found did not > correspond to what was being reported - most crucially, that > the liberators > were already widely denounced as occupiers. As a rule, that > simply wasn't > true." > ********** Yes, I have read this report. However, a day before this report came out, there was another report in the same paper. Suzzanne Goldberg, an Iraqi exile went back to Iraq and wrote an article, 'A Land Ruled By Chaos': http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1055766,00.html ****** Iraq under the US-led occupation is a fearful, lawless and broken place, where murder rates have rocketed, 80% of workers are idle and hospital managers despair at shortages of IV sets and basic antibiotics. Police are seen as thugs and thieves, and the American and British forces as distant rulers, more concerned with protecting their troops than providing security to ordinary Iraqis. The governing council they created is simply irrelevant. A mile away from one of the richest oilfields on earth, the queues at petrol stations stretch for hours. Gratitude at having been freed from Saddam has given way to resentment and mistrust in a part of Iraq that could never remotely be considered as Ba'ath country. Compared with Baghdad, the south is an occupation success story. [She then writes about the reasons why Saddam was hated so much in the south, mentions how there have been very few attacks on the Coalition troops and then goes on to mention why the gratitude has given way to resentment and mistrust] Saddam's Republic of Fear, the mechanism of iron controls that held the state together, was gone, but its replacement is a violent chaos. The void created by the defeat of Saddam's highly centralised one-party regime has empowered religious extremists, political gangs, tribal chieftains, criminals and speculators, the venal and the corrupt. These are the men profiting in the new Iraq. The knock at the door at night is no longer a member of Saddam's secret police, but it could very well be an armed robber, an enforcer from a political faction, or an enemy intent on revenge. ********* > http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm > ********** > If the future in Iraq looks dismal, someone forgot to tell > the Iraqis. A > poll > by the Gallup Organization found Iraqis saying, by a 2-to-1 > ratio, that > Saddam > Hussein's ouster was worth the subsequent hardships. A > plurality told Gallup > (a > month ago, when the poll was taken) that Iraq was worse off > than before the > invasion, but two-thirds expected Iraq to be better off in > five years than > before the invasion, and only 8 percent expected it to be worse off. Now the poll mentioned here has disappeared from the site. So I am not sure which poll they are talking about. However, a Washington Post article [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14545-2003Sep28.html] seems to be talking about the same poll. It mentions Bremer and Wolfowitz quoting the above figures to the Congress and goes on to say: "That same poll, however, found that, countrywide, only 33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the invasion and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Baghdad was a more dangerous place for them to live, a finding the administration officials did not discuss. " Juan Cole Comments on the same polls here: http://www.juancole.com/2003_09_01_juancole_archive.html#106481492484952 052 > The Bush administration reports that "virtually all" major > Iraqi hospitals > and > universities have been reopened, and hundreds of schools have > been rebuilt. Yes, I have read these reports but then we have Iraqis reporting that schools are in a pretty bad shape, doctors talking about the lack of medicines and equipment [less in the post-rioting period than in the sanctions era] and university students marching to protest against the lack of security which makes the students and the faculties easy targets for the fundamentalists. > The bad reasons for viewing this mixed but by no means > disastrous situation > as > a nightmare, a quagmire, or a failure No I find this sentence very interesting. Surely the kind of conditions that he describes somewhere in the article as "incessant attacks, porous borders, Sunni hostility, spotty electricity, high Iraqi unemployment" qualifies as a 'nightmare' at the very least - at least for the people who live it. And if, as he states elsewhere, 'normalcy in Iraq is abnormal', then somebody forgot to tell the Iraqis. Or else their poll results wouldn't show a vast majority of Iraqis finding Iraq far more unsafe after the occupation. Then a 'quagmire', a difficult or precarious situation - what is wrong with this description? Oh, it's certainly too soon to declare a failure [and no need to do so right now either] but given that the army is stretched too thin and the Generals there need more troops, that the reconstruction costs are mounting up and that the public support is falling at home, that there isn't much of an international support to speak of and the Iraqis are getting impatient, that the troops morale seems to be low...given all that, surely, it isn't a stretch to define the situation as difficult? > have to do with the > fact that a lot of > people -- some Europeans, some doves, some partisans -- want > President Bush > or > America or both to fail. Partly that is a result of rancor > and opportunism, > but > it also inheres in a pre-emptive engagement. A war to prevent > war is bound > to > be controversial, and this one created a constituency against itself." > ********** Now this is a valid point. This war *had* created a constituency against itself before it was even launched and the part of the reason was the manner in which it was launched. Sharp scrutiny and criticism should have been expected by the US administration. After all, in the months leading up to the war, almost the entire globe was dismissed as 'irrelevant'. And that was one of the kindest words used by the Bush administration to describe those who disagreed with their Iraq policy. :) Raunch gives a couple of other reasons why he finds the criticism over-blown and premature: Hindsight bias is one - I disagree with the specific examples he gives to prove hindsight bias. The pre-war intelligence was questioned by many people before the war was launched, General Shinseki told the Congress in February that in order to win the peace, the US would need troops to the order of several hundred thousand in Iraq. The CSIS stated that the Iraqi Oil profits couldn't even begin to cover the costs of reconstruction, that the Iraqi army would have a very important role to play in the post -war scenario. So what hindsight bias is Raunch claiming? And then what was perhaps the best bit: he holds that planning is not what is needed in Iraq. The best strategy for the US led Coalition in Iraq is muddling through.... Muddling through? At these costs? After alienating most of the planet? And then he is surprised at the amount of criticsm? Doesn't it stand to reason that when you try to establish a new precedent in international relations, in the teeth of near-global opposition, you need to have 'plans' that translate as something more efficient that 'muddling through'? > http://www.statesman.com/nation/content/auto/epaper/editions/s > aturday/news_f3e717ef1296707d002b.html > http://makeashorterlink.com/?P17462226 > ********** > "There's just an incredible amount of productive stuff going > on over there, > with a lot of Iraqi participation," he said. "To come here and see it > portrayed > as a failure in the making -- it's very superficial and inaccurate." > > It's Lucke's job to get the lights on, the water clean and > running, the > phones > working, the trash picked up, roads and bridges repaired, and > schools and > hospitals fully operating. He has a staff of 90 in a > second-floor office in > the > Baghdad Convention Center, 500 independent contractors such > as Save the > Children spread around the country, and a preliminary budget > of more than $1 > billion. > > He said the job certainly isn't finished after only five > months of effort, > but > much more of it is progressing than many Americans realize. Justin Alexander, a British national working for Jubilee Iraq in Baghdad, writes in his blog: http://justinalexander.net.hosting.domaindirect.com/2003_10_01_archive.h tm#106546679409047056 " I've visted 5 ministries today, and only one had working phones and email, indeed only one (the Ministery of Oil) had a contactable Minister (who i'm meeting next monday, inshallah). The really frightening thing is that in November the UN Oil-for-Food program ends and somehow the CPA and the Ministries (most squatting in temporary building since their offices were largely looted and burnt) are going to have to manage food distribution for the 16 million people who are dependant on the ration for survival." If even the Ministries don't have working phones, how well do you suppose the phones work for normal Iraqis? Lucke expects to normalise the phone system by the end of November - the Iraqis would be thinking in terms of, 'We had working phones until March/April'. > "Seven-eighths of the country is calm," he said. "Certainly > functional. I've > traveled all over. We don't see chaos around us, but a > tremendous amount of > change, with a large number of Iraqis doing a lot of the work and the > planning. We try to use Iraqi firms to create employment and > put money in > the > economy." " > ********** Lucke answers directly to Bremer, travels in armed convoys : of course, he has travelled safely all over Iraq. :) Maybe he doesn't see chaos around him but the US State Department does. So which statement do we take as the real indicator of the ground situation in Iraq : the State Dept.'s travel advisory to US citizens or the views of a man who travels with full military escort? And which view do you think that the Iraqi citizens agree with? Representative Henry A Waxman (D-Calif), US House of Representatives, writes about the reconstruction efforts, its costs and the Iraqi involvement in the same. It is worth a read but it is very long, so I'll quote only one bit, a positive bit actually, involving the ever efficient General Petraeus. The sad thing is General Petraeus' way of administration is a rarity in Iraq today: http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n40d02.htm "The general in charge of northern Iraq, Major General David Petraeus, told a congressional delegation that included my staff that US engineers estimated that it would cost $15mn to bring a cement plant in northern Iraq back to Western production standards. Because this estimate far exceeded the funds available to General Petraeus, he gave the project to local Iraqis, who were able to get the cement plant running again for just $80,000." Then there are many complaints regarding the lack of transparency in the awarding of contracts: http://www.forbes.com/work/newswire/2003/10/07/rtr1101978.html Sam Kubba, chairman of the American Iraqi Chamber of Commerce, said he was getting complaints from members about a lack of transparency in the tender process. "Sometimes we feel that they are just going through the motions and that a decision has already been made." However, it is this particular posting of Cole's which I find the most disturbing: http://www.juancole.com/2003_10_01_juancole_archive.html#106533720028971 373 "[Some] American subcontractors here . . . who are working for . . . US contractors . . . are prohibited from using Iraqi labor, contractors, or equipment for some US military jobs. Iraqi nationals are considered a security risk at some sites, so Indian and Sri Lankan laborers are brought in from Kuwait. I don't know how extensive this is, or what percentage of military projects it applies to. Iraqi equipment (such as trucks and cranes) are also considered a risk, so some companies are bring in equipment from Kuwait " He has links to further stories about the process of awarding of contracts. > http://www.ajc.com/monday/content/epaper/editions/monday/opini > on_f3e6393975d4906b00ea.html > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y24441226 > This article, by Democrat US Rep Jim Marshall, makes my > point. He believes > the > media is only portraying the bad and ignoring the good, which > hurts the US's > goals to reconstruct Iraq: I had read this article earlier and I had one area of disagreement with what he said: > "The falsely bleak picture weakens > our national > resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy." >From all the accounts which I have read, the damping of Iraqi co-operation has less to do with the reports in the Western media and more to do with the ground situations: the lack of security, the daily discomforts, the continuing raids, the massive unemployment, the feeling of being excluded from the reconstruction of their country, increasing theism in some areas, increased targetting of the Iraqi police and other 'US collaboraters' by the guerillas/terrorists, etc., etc. As for emboldening the enemy, I am not sure just who he is refering to here. If he is talking of the people who are shooting at the US troops in Iraq or blowing up buildings and people over there, I think he is giving too much importance to the role the Western media plays in their world view. If he talking of the domestic opposition, then they are not the enemy and labelling them thus won't win their co-operation. > At the height of the conventional > conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with > U.S. troops (out > of a > total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded > journalists from all media combined. This reminds of something I read a few days ago. No direct relevance to our discussion but Goldberg, in another article [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1058867,00.html], mentions that the second in command in Saddam's Information Ministry has been hired by Fox News. For some reason, I find the notion rather amusing. :) > Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can > do" attitude and > ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small > reconstruction > projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. > Through decentralized > decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne > Division alone has > spent > nearly $23 million in just the past few months. Oh, the 101st Airborne has been doing a wonderful job in northern Iraq. The NYT had an excellent article giving all the details but they seem to have archived it now. General Petraeus had established an Iraqi governing council for Mosul city and Nineveh province even before Bremer had arrived in Iraq, they had trained the Iraqi police, opened up trade with Syria, found grain silos for local farmers...he seems to be an incredibly efficient administrator. Then there is the 308th Brigade in Balad: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0310090353oct09,1,3515613.s tory?coll=chi-news-hed > No one (especially not me) is saying things are perfect in > Iraq, or even > great, > but I do think that the perception that Iraq is an utter > failure of chaos, > quagmire, and US resentment as some seem to be hoping it is, is false. If that is the perception, then it certainly is false. It is a difficult situation, there is chaos but it is not an utter failure. It is not even necessarily headed that way yet. However, there are enough valid grounds of criticism of the current CPA administration policy in Iraq and the fact is, the US has neither infinite resources, nor infinite time to get things right over there. There was a bit you quoted from Raunch's article, about how certain people want Bush and/or America to fail. That is certainly true and it is the case with almost every endeavour anyone ever undertakes. However, when the chorus of criticism reaches above a certain point, it is sometimes wiser to take a moment to think if the points being presented are valid or if there nothing more than partisan cribbing to them. Partisan cribbing can be ignored [it is also easier on the nerves] but if valid points of criticism are ignored because they are lumped with partisan criticism, then the resultant policy is faulty. > >I am not assuming that only the clueless/duped were pro-war. > What I *am* > >assuming is that a vast majority of the pro-war group was *not* > >well-informed. > > I see only a small difference in degree between what I said > and what you > said: > I said "only", you said "vast majority". I said > "clueless/tricked", and you > said "*not* well-informed". Sounds pretty similar, to me. :-) Merely the difference between 'all' and 'most'. :) I find that most people are not too active politically and whenever there is mass mobilisation on any political issue, I find it safe to assume that most people on all sides of the argument wouldn't be well informed about all the aspects of the said issue. Besides, people have many different motives for making political decisions and, unfortunately, the efficacy of a particular policy/politician is usually not a criterion which comes above partisan ties, media appeal or media blitz. > >Do you know why they believe it was for the best? > > Well, I'll put myself in the "they" category. I really don't > want to get > into > re-debating the whole war justification, post-facto, as I > really don't have > the > time, energy, or desire to do that, but I'll supply my > opinion since you > asked... Well, I don't disagree with your first three reasons: I just wasn't sure that war was the best option at that time. However, it is done now and there is no point quibbling over it anymore. I have a few more comments/ questions for some of the other reasons: > 4) According to David Kay, Iraqi *was* still working on WMD: > http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/7396.htm > ********** > "October 6, 2003 -- The head of the weapons hunt in Iraq > yesterday said his > teams are hot on the trail of anthrax and Scud missiles, and > he's "amazed" > that > anyone could think the search so far is a failure. Let them find these stores and missiles first. Then they can claim it is not a failure. > David Kay also said, "We're going to find remarkable things" > about Iraq's > weapons program. 'going to'..... > His teams have already found a vial of botulinum toxin - "one > of the most > toxic > elements known" - in the refrigerator of an Iraqi scientist > who'd hidden it > since 1993." > ********** But that is not what they found. From Kay's statements to the Congress: "One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced." http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.h tml Kay did say that they found the botulinum toxin to the media but his testimony in front of the Congress only claims that they found a vial of live C. Botulinum Okra B. C. Botulinum is a bacteria found in common soil and live C. Botulinum is used as a teaching tool in undergraduate micro-biology labs. The biological toxin which *can* be produced from it is undoubtedly one of the most toxic elements known but they haven't found this toxic element in Iraq yet. Nor have they uncovered any evidence to suggest that there were attempts to produce the toxin. > Read the rest for more details. I did and most of them were projections/ wishful thinking. And the bits I found relevant are buried deep beneath a lot of things which are 'suspected' or 'suggested'. Like this: "Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material." > 5) I think that even if Saddam's nuke research program was on > hold because > of > sanctions and inspections, that it was only a matter of time > before France, > Russia and the other anti-sanctions nations got the sanctions > lifted, or > began > cheating on them, and I think that as soon as the heat and > scrutiny was off > Saddam, he'd have their nuke program back in full gear. I am not sure why you are so sure that the sanctions would have been lifted. The US and UK were quick to veto any relaxation of the sanctions in the years preceeding the war. Given the increased threat perception by both these govts., why would they suddenly withhold the veto the next time the subject came up? > 6) Saddam was *paying* the families of Palestinian suicide > bombers to kill > Israelis in terrorist attacks. I think peace there can only > happen through > reasoned compromise by both sides, and as long as Saddam was feeding > terrorists > money, that wasn't going to happen. A lot of govts. in the world pay terrorists to kill people [well not just that, they train them and arm them too]. Saddam's removal wouldn't make much of a difference in the number of Palestinian suicide bombers. There are still enough people who would be paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. > 7) I think that Al Queda and other middle eastern terrorist > groups are > largely > fed members by the disaffected poor of countries like Saudi > Arabia, where a > tiny minority basks in vast wealth, while the vast majority > live in poverty, > and are told that the US is to blame for their misery. If we > can transform > Iraq into a stable democracy, it will provide a > counter-example and put > pressure on the governments of Saudi, etc to provide reform. I am not sure that the democratisation of Iraq would have a dominoes effect on the Mid-East governments but it ought to at least provide some comfort/inspiration to the people who are struggling for democracy in the area. And if a stable, democratic Iraq is established, it would definitely be good for the Iraqi people. > >I don't think I said anything about it on this list, but > yes, it *was* > >rather difficult to keep up with the all the many > justifications which > >were offered for the war. The way it looked then was that > they *wanted* > >to go to war and they kept on grasping around for whichever > reason would > >'sell' the war to the public. So there were visions of > mushroom clouds > >over Merkin cities, links between Saddam and Al-qaeda, > enforcing the UN > >resolutions in face of the opposition of the UN members, a dominoes > >theory for democratisation of the middle east.....frankly, I > still don't > >know *why* this war was launched at the time it was, in the manner it > >was launched. > > I think Bush did a crappy job selling the war to the American > people, the > UN, > and the world. I think part of it was that he felt it was > the right thing > to > do, already had Congress's OK (which was all he really > needed), and didn't > feel > compelled to really get better world buy-in, unfortunately. > I also think > that > all the assorted reasons they were giving had at least some level of > validity > to them. The mushroom clouds over the Merkin cities didn't, the connection between Saddam and Al-quaeda didn't and very few countries actually agreed that the US was in the right by flouting to the will of the UNSC to enforce the resolutions of the UNSC. > I didn't really see a need to have only one single > focus point > reason, but I agree that it did come across poorly. Lastly, > I think Bush > would > have been reluctant to spell out some of his reasoning, since > it would put > off > some arab nations we needed the cooperation of, like Qatar > and UAE. I mean > things like my points 6 & 7 above. (To explain why 7 would > anger arab > nations: > if we had stated our goal as reducing terrorism in Israel, > that would have > played very poorly to the arab world, where it would be > "proof" that the US > was > serving Israel's needs.) *g* The Mid-East already believes that the US serves Israel's needs. Stating that the US would like to see democracy in the Mid-East could have hardly had more disastrous an effect than the adminstration's reactions to, say, the bombing of Syria by Israel. > >Well, let's see, when people objected to the US's right/plan to > >unilaterally enforce the UN resolutions in face of world-wide > >opposition, USA's right to defend itself against the mushroom clouds > >Saddam was *just about* to unleash on US cities was given as > the major > >reason for a unilateral action. Add to that the carefully crafted > >statements about Saddam and 9/11 and Wolfowitz's admission that WMDs > >were used only a bureaucratic tool to garner > support....well, it appears > >to me that the war *was* sold to the American public on the basis of > >WMDs and Saddam-9/11 links. Since neither of these panned > out [Kay did > >mention that no links were found to Al-qaeda], surely the > matter needs > >to be looked into. > > I'm not sure which carefully crafted Saddam/9-11 statements > you refer to, Here are some: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7 in his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida members." ----- "Prior to Sept. 11, we thought two oceans would protect us," President Bush said about Iraq in an Oct. 14 speech in Michigan. "After Sept. 11, we've entered into a new era in a new war. This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida," he continued, referring to Saddam. "This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace." ----- "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country," Bush said March 6 in a White House news conference. "The attacks of Sept. 11 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction." "Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror," he said at the same press conference. "Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home." In that press conference, Bush mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine times, Saddam 40 times, and Osama zero times. ----- > but I > interpreted Wolfowitz's statement in terms of what I just > said above: they > had > assorted reasons for the war, some would be politically > offensive to needed > allies, and WMD was the easiest to focus on. But did he > really say WMDs > were > *only* a bureaucratic tool? ... No, he didn't. That turned out to be *my* misperception. :) I checked the mail which I had posted when I had first read the interview and what he had said was that the decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", as it was the one reason everyone could agree on. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm > OK, I just went out and > googled on this > and > found the actual transcript of what Wolfowitz said. Thanks for that link. I tried looking for that interview when it first came out but couldn't find it and then forgot about it. > Their presence there over the last 12 years has been > a source of > enormous > difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge > recruiting device for > al > Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle > grievances was > the > presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca > and Medina. I > think > just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to > open the door to > other > positive things. This is a one of the 'huge' reasons Wolfie mentions and I am still not sure that he believes this. If he does believe this, I am not sure why. The first thought I had upon reading this was that Laden would just replace 'troops in Saudi Arabia' with 'troops in Iraq' as his grievance and he seems to have already done that. Appeasement by aggression doesn't usually work.... And one of the new doors which has been opened is a growing threat perception in the Muslims around the world. > Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental > concerns. One is > weapons of > mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the > third is the > criminal > treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say > there's a > fourth > overriding one which is the connection between the first two. > Sorry, hold on > again. <snippage of the phone conversation/extraneous comments> > The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a > reason to help the > Iraqis but > it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, > certainly not on the > scale we > did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one > about which > there's > the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I > think everyone > agrees > that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern > Iraq in this > recent > go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was > connected to > this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation. Now let's see, he mentions three prime concerns: WMDs, support to terrorism [al-qaeda this time, not the Palestinian bombers] and the treatment of the Iraqi people. He considers the last to be an insufficient reason to put American lives on risk at such a scale and that is the only reason which has been borne out by the post-war findings. > As for the WMD hunt, read the full text of my link to the NY > Post interview > with Kay > above for some more comments from Kay about the WMD hunt. > The situation is > not as cut > and dried as you might think. What I think is this: after 6 months of occupaton and 1 billion dollars spent on the search, Kay etc. have not found even *one* 'beyond-reasonable-doubt' kind of evidence to prove that Saddam Hussein was an immediate and imminent threat to the US of A. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Now I am not sure of the point at which the absence of evidence becomes the evidence of absence but this much is clear: there is *no* evidence of WMD presence yet. > >A few points here: > > > >There is no way Bush could have *known* that there were no > WMDs in Iraq. > >But similarly, he couldn't have *known* that they were there > either. As > >for which way his suspicions were ranged, I guess only he > would know. As > >for his public stance on the issue, this is the way it seems > to me: that > >he *believed* he knew they were there and didn't seem willing to look > >at/consider any information which pointed in the opposite direction. > >I don't know if that can be called a forgivable mistake. > > You say evidence in the opposite direction, but I don't think > there was > any evidence that Iraq had *no* WMD. His son-in-law who defected and told the US that the WMDs had been destroyed. Blix and his team who kept on reporting co-operation from the Iraqis and progress on the ground in the weeks leading upto the war. > The facts still lead to > the conclusion > they should: the inspectors *knew* as a certainty Iraq had > WMDs in 1998 when > they were kicked out. What happened to them? Can we > honestly believe > Saddam > would have destroyed them on his own *after* kicking the > weapons inspectors > out, and then would he have destroyed all evidence of his > having destroyed > them? Well, that is precisely what seems to have happened. Otherwise, where are the weapons or the evidence of their destruction? > The legitimate question as I see it is that Bush might have distorted > certain > facts and overhyped certain intelligence, but in the overall > big picture, > it's > not a crushing expose that illegitimizes the whole war. Well, he knew that the Niger documents were a fraud and his own intelligence agencies told him that Saddam was not a direct threat to the US - either on his own or due to co-operation with Laden. If the US public and Congress knew both these facts, would they have supported the war? > >As for what the rest of the world/UN believed prior to the war, well, > >everyone was open to the idea that there *might* have been > some WMDs but > >no one really considered it a serious enough threat to think > war was a > >good idea at that particular moment. The widely accepted > view was that > >containment was effective enough to ensure that Saddam > wasn't a threat > >to anyone other than his own people. > > Yes, but the rest of the world was not at the top of Saddam's > enemies list. Now I wouldn't try to claim that Saddam loved the US but *why* was there such a major threat perception with regards to him? When did he threaten to attack the US? And when and why did the US govt. start believing that he could carry his threat out? Most countries in the world are at the top of somebody's enemies list. India used to be at the top of Pakistan's enemy list until recently. Pakistan is a nuclear power, they finance and support terrorists. They *can* carry out their frequent threats of attacking India and historical precedents show their willingness to do the same. None of these seem to be reasons enough for India to pre-emptively attack Paksitan today. Wouldn't you agree? > And many of those same nations that were saying right before > the war to > give containment a chance were the same ones that were trying > to get the > Iraq > sanctions reduced before the war talk started, so my guess is > that if the US > backed down, withdrew its troops, and took the pressure off, > the "sanctions > are killing millions of Iraqi babies" talk would start up > again, and the > inspectors would get kicked out again, etc. Why couldn't the US have kept the troops there until Blix and his men finished the inspections they were carrying out? Further decisions could have been made after taking Blix's report into consideration. See, that has been the most puzzling aspect of this war for me: just what *was* the hurry? It was a matter of weeks, not months or years. *Why* was there such a huge and immediate threat perception that it was considered necessary to alienate so many people/countries, and attack Iraq at that particular moment? I know why a majority of the US citizens felt so threatened [a combination of the pshychological fall-outs of 9/11 and the war rhetoric launched by the US administration] but why did the administration feel so very threatened by Saddam Hussein? Especially in view of the National Intelligence Council report submitted to them last October: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4922.htm "But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad: had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America, was not operating in concert with al-Qaida, and was not a terrorist threat to America. "We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated. However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct." Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime," the report explained. " ----- > Phew that took wayyyyy longer than I expected! Tell me about it! :) Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
