----- Original Message ----- From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:50 PM Subject: Re: Brin: some thoughts and quotes.
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The latter - perpetrated by the exact same moronic > > fools WHO LEFT SADDAM IN POWER IN 91 (Does anyone need > > a scintilla more proof of their low IQ?) > > Dr. Brin, surely you can't be serious. > Are you on record in favor of conquering Iraq in 1991? > Are all those who agreed with the decision of not invading Iraq, > proven to be unintelligent? > How is it that it was so obvious to take out Iraq in 1991, but it was > not obvious after 12 years of Iraq's failure to comply with > inspections? That was not obvious. What isn't always clearly defined was the price Bush I payed for the international cooperation with Desert Storm. An agreement to not take out Iraq was a pre-requesite for the cooperation he received. Without it, Saudi cooperation was very unlikely. Without Saudi cooperation, the logistics would be much much harder. We don't know how the UN would have voted without this assurance, but it is not clear that the mandate for Desert Storm would have been there. James Baker gave clear reasons for not taking out Iraq. In many ways, he forsaw the potential for it to turn into a path into a nightmare scenario...a path we have now traveled partway down. I certainly do not share Dr. Brins optimism in our ability to force a solution on the world. Bush II is trying that; and not being extremely sucessful. If Bush Sr. is to be faulted, it should be for not playing the edges as well as he could have. Letting the war go on just one day more might have allowed the US to punish the Republican Guard sufficiently to allow a sucessful uprising against Hussein. I think such an analysis belongs as part of a plus-delta evaluation, but I also think that real time mistakes of this nature are easier to see in hindsite than in real time. I do think Bush Sr. made a mistake in where he drew the line in a grey area, but that is the type of mistake capable intelligent people do make in real time. Bush Sr. strikes me as bright, and I think he had some very capable people working for him. Bush Jr. has some very bright people working for him, but I think most of them suffer from groupthink. I think Bush Sr. is brighter than average, and that Bush Jr. is not. (There is also evidence that Gore wasn't brighter than average, so I don't think this is a partisan comment.) Bush Jr. seems to work more from his gut than his head. Thus, he doesn't make as effective a use of the talent available to him as his father did. This can be seen in the difference in the approaches. Bush Sr. treated Iraq as a difficult nuanced problem; while Bush Jr. treated it as a no-brainer slam dunk operation. That's my long answer to your question. The short answer is that it wasn't obvious either in '91 or in '03. Two different President Bushes chose two different paths when faced with this question, with two very different results. It looks to me that, for all the problems with Iraq in the '90s, Bush Sr. chose the better path. Finally, as with my arguing with Gautam instead of Alberto on the value of private drug companies, I found it easier to lay out my position by arguing with the person who has a position closer to mine, than one further from mine. I don't think Iraq was a slam dunk in '91, any more than I think it was one in '03. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
