The secret memo was first published by The Times in London on Sunday. If the timing was designed to affect the British election it didn't seem to stop the Labour Party from getting re-elected (although, their loses are widely predicted to mean Blair won't serve out the full term as PM). But why it's taken the US press so long to pick up the story is a mystery. Finally, though, it seems to be:
A highly classified British memo, leaked during Britain's just-concluded election campaign, claims President Bush decided by summer 2002 to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.
The memo, in which British foreign-policy aide Matthew Rycroft summarized a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair with top security advisers, reports on a U.S. visit by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.
The visit took place while the Bush administration was declaring to Americans that no decision had been made to go to war. While the memo makes observations about U.S. intentions toward Iraq, the document does not specify which Bush administration officials met with Dearlove.
The MI-6 chief's account of his U.S. visit was paraphrased by the memo: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
I've argued forever it seems that what we know now indicates that Bush lied about several of his intentions leading up the invasion (including the repeated assertion that the decision to invade was only made after all alternatives had been exhausted). Perhaps that's how wars are waged. Perhaps lies are an essential part of it. That doesn't mean we can't call a "lie" a "lie" however.
In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."
But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."
Congress is now starting to get involved too. On Kos, Congressman John Conyers links to a letter to Bush that 88 members of Congress have signed demanding answers about the revelations contained in the memo. You can see that letter here and the press release about it which states that the minutes of the meeting noted in the memo reveal:
- British official offered an assessment of the case for war as "thin." The British Foreign Secretary at the time also stated that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
- The Foreign Secretary indicated a plan was being hatched with Bush Administration officials to create justification to go to war, where no legal basis currently existed. The United States and Great Britain "should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
- British officials indicated that Bush administration officials had already decided to go to war in the summer of 2002 despite contemporaneous, and apparently false, statements by Bush Administration officials that the President had not yet made such statement. One official stated that "[m]ilitary action was now seen as inevitable" and the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." Yet, in August of 2002, within a month of this meeting, the President claimed that he was willing to "look at all options" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flatly stated that "[t]he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq." (NYT, 8/22/02).
- A high ranking British official acknowledged the deliberate manipulation of intelligence, indicating that, while the President "wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
- The same official warned that the Bush Administration had no plan for post-war Iraq, stating that "[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Most of these items were suspected as true during the lead-up to the war and those supporting the war insisted that without any proof, those opposing the war should shut up. Now that there is proof, I wonder if they still feel that way? Or do they feel used? Lied to? Betrayed?
Now that there is proof, I wonder if they still feel that way? Or do they feel used? Lied to? Betrayed?
aw come on, you know the answer. this is probably going to be a debate over the meaning of the word "lie". but maybe some of the Tacitus regulars can stop by and tell us how we need to be lied to, for our own good, because we just can't understand the big picture plans that W had to implement. yadayadayada.
it's been clear for years that Bush didn't level with the public. his supporters have a multitude of ways to rationalize it.
my only hope is that they've come up with some new ones, cause the old ones are getting a little tattered.
Posted by: cleek | May 06, 2005 at 05:00 PM
The cognitive de-dissonators, in no particular order:
1: The ends justify the means ("The world is better off without Saddam." Democracy must be spread across the globe." "We have to fight terrorism in their part of the world, not ours.")
2: The Realpolitik ("I knew all along the WMD's were a bunch of hooey, but I was for the war anyway because: A) Saddam's rule was intolerable; B) The US needs bases C) The US needs Oil D) China is scary, we need to scare them first E)Currency speculation F) All of the above")
3: The willfully... obtuse ("Everybody assumed Iraq had WMDs." "Blix was a dupe." "The CIA Effed up.")
That's all I got at the moment (and boy, am I enoying all the consonance). Any others?
Posted by: notyou | May 06, 2005 at 05:07 PM
enjoying, even
Posted by: notyou | May 06, 2005 at 05:11 PM
There's the US-as-super-hero-creating-democracy and its semi-secret corrolary and-make-everybody Christian.
Posted by: LK | May 06, 2005 at 05:12 PM
There's the US-as-super-hero-creating-democracy
That one has been thoroughly debunked as well, at least as a motivation rather than an excuse.
Pretty much all that is left is, "If it was up to you Saddam would still be in power and why do you hate America and those Iraqis that aren't dead yet"?
Posted by: felixrayman | May 06, 2005 at 05:17 PM
Add to 3: The willfully... obtuse ("The WMDs are in Syria."
Posted by: notyou | May 06, 2005 at 05:23 PM
notyou, you're confusing the lie. It's whether or not Bush had already planned to invade Iraq before the marketing campaign for it started (personally, I think the question is ridiculous. Obviously a marketing campaign has to be preceded by a goal to market). The question of whether the WMD claims were lies is important, but separate and easily sidetracked by 'everyone thought so, if you don't count all the people that didn't!' countermeasures.
Posted by: sidereal | May 06, 2005 at 05:28 PM
If it was up to me Saddam *would* still be in power and...BFD.
Posted by: xanax | May 06, 2005 at 05:29 PM
No one in my neighborhood, especially the Bush supporters, think this is new news. "Water under the bridge."
The press certainly seems to agree.
Sad but true. Still I can't help but scream WTF!
Posted by: carsick | May 06, 2005 at 05:30 PM
On the otherside, wasn't it Richard Clark who said the first reaction after 9/11 was "now we can invade Iraq" even though they knew Osama was responsible. Proof Shmoof, let's not revisit those contentious times....right?
Fog of war and all that.
Posted by: carsick | May 06, 2005 at 05:35 PM
I'm still interested if those who supported the war care that they were lied to?
Posted by: Edward_ | May 06, 2005 at 05:37 PM
crickets...
Posted by: felixrayman | May 06, 2005 at 05:48 PM
Exactly felix!....
are those crickets I hear just the howling wind rustling the branches?
Posted by: carsick | May 06, 2005 at 06:06 PM
notyou:
2A is a particularly unique hybrid. Think about it - normally, realpolitikal arguments has been deployed in the service of cynical ends such as those described in 2B-2D; "We had to get our hands dirty because here in the real world, the U.S. needs basing rights/can't get pushed around by he soviets/runs on oil, etc. In the case of 2A, though - ahh, the dissonance reasserts itself in splendor! I knew the WMDs were bulls**t, but they were necessary to trick the US population into...protecting freedom! Makes the head hurt.
Posted by: st | May 06, 2005 at 06:06 PM
"arguments has"...? Ugh.
Posted by: st | May 06, 2005 at 06:06 PM
I'm still interested if those who supported the war care that they were lied to?
Yeah, I do.
Posted by: crionna | May 06, 2005 at 06:10 PM
sidereal: the UK memos reveal two, related lies, I think. The early, "we're not planning anything" lie and the later, "it's really the WMDs" lie (to make it look "legal").
The de-dissonators work for both.
st: That's the essence of the neo-con argument, isn't it? Realpolitik to advance democracy and Americanism thereby transforming enemies into supporters.
Posted by: notyou | May 06, 2005 at 06:22 PM
:::crickets:::
:::crickets:::
Posted by: Opus | May 06, 2005 at 06:53 PM
Iraq Liberation Act Findings and Policy recommendation:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Passed unamimously by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1998.
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 06:57 PM
I'm puzzled why this memo seems such a shock to everyone. There has been considerable evidence of this intent all along, from Richard Clark to the fuss made about the supposed contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda in Eastern Europe shortly after 9/11, to the well-known arm-twisting in the intelligence community. We haven't learned anything new; it's only confirmed what should have been perfectly plain years ago.
But if it's the catalyst that gets people to act, then great. It's about time.
Posted by: Jason Kuznicki | May 06, 2005 at 07:01 PM
It's not a shock. When I wrote about it it was just because, at the time, people on the right were calling us crazed Bush-haters for thinking what this memo makes clear. And while the 1998 resolution called for regime change as a policy goal, I do not think it called for the use of military force.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 06, 2005 at 07:09 PM
I'm still interested if those who supported the war care that they were lied to?
not really
Posted by: blah | May 06, 2005 at 07:11 PM
hey dave, you forgot the important part.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
an honest mistake, i'm sure.
Posted by: cleek | May 06, 2005 at 07:13 PM
And while the 1998 resolution called for regime change as a policy goal, I do not think it called for the use of military force.
True hilzoy, but 1998 was also before Hussein started making payments for suicide bombers in Israel, which I for one take as solid evidence of support for terrorism.
The point I'm making is that the regime change policy was already in effect, and the emerging events in 2001 and 2002 changed the method required for achieving that policy goal.
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 07:14 PM
(personally, I think the question is ridiculous. Obviously a marketing campaign has to be preceded by a goal to market).
A goal, however, should itself be preceded by a study of whether or not that goal is a) worthy, b) attainable, c) cost-effective for the various notions of "cost" under consideration. That, to me, is the importance of what was revealed: the Bush Administration skipped straight to the marketing campaign without ever once stopping to (meaningfully) consider the worthiness of what they were marketing.
Posted by: Anarch | May 06, 2005 at 07:17 PM
From
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
----
By not enforcing their resolutions, the UN made us do it!
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 07:21 PM
Yeah, Dave quoted that at me too, and I had about the same reaction. Why he seems so hung up on the Iraq Liberation Act is beyond me, since it really has absolutely zero relevance to the questions of whether or not the Bush administration sold the war dishonestly, planned it on the cheap, and conducted it incompetently.
But hey, shipwrecks and clinging to driftwood, and all that.
Posted by: Catsy | May 06, 2005 at 07:22 PM
By not enforcing their resolutions, the UN made us do it!
Don't take this the wrong way, Dave, because I really want to know: is this an honest position you're arguing, or have you been parodying a war supporter, Moby-style?
(And tangentially, do you write for The Onion?)
Posted by: Catsy | May 06, 2005 at 07:26 PM
"an honest mistake, i'm sure."
Yo, cleek, play nice.
"crickets"
Hey cricket people, you're talking (or not talking) to, what, four or five regular commenters at this point? I counsel easing up before it's zero or fewer...
Posted by: rilkefan | May 06, 2005 at 07:30 PM
A goal, however, should itself be preceded by a study of whether or not that goal is a) worthy, b) attainable, c) cost-effective for the various notions of "cost" under consideration. That, to me, is the importance of what was revealed: the Bush Administration skipped straight to the marketing campaign without ever once stopping to (meaningfully) consider the worthiness of what they were marketing.
1. I haven't seen any proof that those 3 things were not considered.
2. History tends to look at the worthiness, attainability and cost-effectiveness of wars a bit differently than the actors involved.
Posted by: blah | May 06, 2005 at 07:31 PM
Well, I'll step in, here: Way back at the beginning, I very hesitantly, but publicly, supported the war. I was not sure it was the logical next step to proceed to after 9/11, but I was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. (Despite the fact that I had not voted for him. But I defended him quite vociferously in many places online, both regarding his actions on and right after 9/11, and about other things as well.) But so many things since then have caused me to doubt the man's competence, honesty and trustworthiness to the point of disgust; this memo tells me nothing I didn't already suspect, but yeah, it pisses me off
Posted by: Phil | May 06, 2005 at 07:32 PM
By not enforcing their resolutions, the UN made us do it!
Don't take this the wrong way, Dave, because I really want to know: is this an honest position you're arguing, or have you been parodying a war supporter, Moby-style?
No, I actually believe the policy for removing Hussein had been set for years, and the US gave Hussein a choice to either comply with ALL the UN resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf War or to the face the consequences of the US using military force.
Of course if Hussein complied with all the resolutions his regime would collapse. And technically the US was still at war with Hussein as a continuation of the Gulf War including the enforcement of the no-fly zones, safe haven for the Kurds, etc.
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 07:39 PM
The fact that Congress authorized military action if diplomacy did not result in compliance with UN resolutions was a feature of the Joint Resolution, not a bug.
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 07:43 PM
If it was up to me Saddam *would* still be in power and...BFD.
Now, I don't think that ALL of you feel this way. I think you are reacting to the fact that war is a brutal, horrible thing, which is quite natural. But I think getting rid of Hussein was necessary, and I don't think there was any other way to do this. It would have been nice if Hussein had taken a powder in Feb 2003. That is really what I wanted and I stated as much on Salam Pax's blog at the time. I was too pessimistic in March 2003, was worried that gas attacks would kill large numbers of US troops. And I was too optimistic after Baghdad fell, and again after Hussein was captured. But honestly I felt then and still feel now it was the right thing to do, even though I feel badly about the human suffering involved.
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 07:54 PM
Brian Tiemann notes the possibility that the US may have done FAR more brutal things than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, if 9/11 had gone down just a little differntly.
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 08:08 PM
No, I actually believe the policy for removing Hussein had been set for years, and the US gave Hussein a choice to either comply with ALL the UN resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf War or to the face the consequences of the US using military force.
Once again: nothing you've said addresses whether the Bush administration sold the war dishonestly, planned it on the cheap, or conducted it incompetently.
You also simply have your facts wrong. Let me explain why. First of all, as noted above by others, the Iraq Liberation Act you're so fond of quoting explicitly does /not/ condone the use of military force against Iraq. It essentially says, "Saddam blows donkeys, and the official stance of the US is that it'd be great if someone else were in charge."
It does not condone force because following the Gulf War, the US no longer had the legal authority to use force against Iraq. That authority terminated with the cease-fire declared in S/RES 687. The language contained in 687 specifically refers the question of enforcement back to the Security Council, terminating the authority of member states to act militarily against Iraq under the umbrella of S/RES 660, 678 and 687.
Of course, if you wish to argue that we don't require UN authority to go to war with Iraq, please, feel free to make that argument. Just realize that it sounds profoundly silly to argue that we must defy the UN in order to punish Hussein for defying the UN.
Of course if Hussein complied with all the resolutions his regime would collapse. And technically the US was still at war with Hussein as a continuation of the Gulf War including the enforcement of the no-fly zones, safe haven for the Kurds, etc.
The no-fly zones have long been considered by everyone but us to have been illegal and in violation of S/RES 687. Just thought you might want to know that. And "technically", as you put it, the US was not at war with Iraq, as the US was a party to the cease-fire defined in S/RES 687. If you'd like to argue that the US was routinely in material breach of that cease-fire, however, you'll not find me dissenting.
In short, you simply don't have your facts straight. That's okay, because the Bush administration and its supporters have spread so much disinformation about the subject that it's tough for anyone who's bought into their lies to know that. But now you know, and--well, you know the rest.
I still, however, doesn't address the central points raised anew by this memo: namely, whether Bush was dishonest in selling the war, et al.
I expect you'll get around to addressing them any time now.
Posted by: Catsy | May 06, 2005 at 08:09 PM
The secret memo was first published by The Times in London on Sunday.
The publishing of the "highly classified" memo (not so secret anymore) was aimed at hurting Blair's electoral chances, not Bush. I know it may be cold comfort, but President Bush will never run for public office again. And by the way, isn't publishing classified documents a crime?
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 08:32 PM
Not only will supporters of Bush's War continue to defend Bush and the war, they will eagerly fall for his next invented cassus belli.
They will again call people who point out that Bush is lying "naive and unserious," they will again make credulity and obedience a litmus test of patriotism...
The one thing they won't do, as they haven't done so far, is join the armed forces and "support our troops" by being one.
Posted by: CaseyL | May 06, 2005 at 08:51 PM
Not only will supporters of Bush's War continue... blah blah blah
It would save a lot of time if you would just cut to the chase and say "Bush is teh suck!"
Posted by: blah | May 06, 2005 at 08:57 PM
Blah--
"It would save a lot of time if ..."
No, that would not be a shorter way of saying the same thing.
Because to say it that way would feed into the myth that we are just irrationally irritated by some superficial aspect of Bush's personality (merely "bashing Bush" as the phrase has it).
Whereas, the point of examining the evidence as it comes to light, is to show that our distrust of Bush was well-grounded all along, and is being vindicated by every new fact that comes out.
"Bush is teh suck" might be what irrational haters say.
"Here is the evidence of Bush's bad faith, here are the records of his distortions, here is what we suspected all along, here is why no one should trust him in the future" is what we are saying. And that's not just a longer way of saying the same thing.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 06, 2005 at 09:02 PM
It would save a lot of time if you would just cut to the chase and say "Bush is teh suck!"
No it wouldn't blah, because you can't insult an entire group of people by targeting The President with a slur. You have to target them, as CaseyL did.
Posted by: crionna | May 06, 2005 at 09:06 PM
blah: 1. I haven't seen any proof that those 3 things were not considered.
The secret memo says almost explicitly that such things were not considered. "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"; that is, the policy had already been decided upon before the intelligence-gathering stage had achieved any kind of completion.
I don't doubt that someone probably did some navel-gazing and pondered what this all might mean, nor do I believe that the Pentagon or the White House spent precisely zero thought pondering the ramifications of this policy. I included the disclaimer "meaningfully" for a reason, though: without adequate intelligence, one cannot consider such navel-gazing as true considerations of the worthiness of their (already-decided) policy.
History tends to look at the worthiness, attainability and cost-effectiveness of wars a bit differently than the actors involved.
True but irrelevant. History isn't going to be getting in on the action for several decades at least, contemporary hagiography/demonization aside; the issue at hand is whether the Bush Administration deceived the country into war (confirmed: yes), whether they had properly planned for the aftermath (confirmed: no), and whether they should be taken to task for these failings.
[Apologies from those who derided those of us who claimed that the Bush Administration was guilty of both of those failings would also be nice but, pace the crickets, I'm not going to hold my breath.]
Phil: Well, I'll step in, here: Way back at the beginning, I very hesitantly, but publicly, supported the war.
It's never come up on ObWi before but so did I, to the consternation of my friends here in Madison. When I rescinded that support -- I can't remember exactly when that was, but it was around October/November 2002 -- someone asked me what had changed my mind. I said that I'd heard too many excuses from the Administration, too much hyperbole and too much certainty for too little evidence, and that they were no longer credible; they sounded, to my TA's ears, exactly like a student flagrantly BSing their way through an exam. History, to steal from blah, seems to have proven me correct.
Posted by: Anarch | May 06, 2005 at 09:07 PM
the point of examining the evidence as it comes to light, is to show that our distrust of Bush was well-grounded all along
so you're looking at the evidence hoping it will justify your prejudices?
here is why no one should trust him in the future
I'm not sure why I should "trust" any politician, so that's not much of a bar.
Posted by: blah | May 06, 2005 at 09:16 PM
And by the way--
I, like Phil above, was a hesitant supporter of the war. I never trusted Bush, and I was very surprised by how weak Powell's presentation to the UN was.
But I really bought that whole line about the "smoking gun/mushroom cloud". And I had *totally* bought the defectors' lies about the extensive network of WMD labs some of them hidden underneath the Baghdad children's hospitals. (It sounded so diabolically clever--like something out of James Bond.) And those parts were certainly at least consistent with Hussein's earlier behavior.
But as it turns out, we were systematically misled. By the eve of the war, the WH had enough information that it should have been able to come right out and say "you know what? We're still not sure about the Chem/Bio picture, but the picture on the nuke level is quite clear: he's got *nothing*. So we take back that mushroom cloud stuff."
Instead, more lies and distortions. So, yeah, I supported the war, and, yeah, I'm mad.
Did we do a good thing in deposing SH? Sure. But that never has been, and never will be, the only question to ask in assessing a course of action. You have to think about *opportunity costs*.
Like: were there other, better things we could have done? Could we have achieved that good thing by other means?
We could have had Bin Laden by now if the WH had not been obsessed with an irrelevance. We could have given every citizen of Iraq a cash grant of $15,000. (if I have divided 300 billion by 20 million correctly). We could have focused on the states that really had nuke programs--as the Brit memo says, Libya, Iran, and NK.
We could have done a lot of things. But if we had been allowed to have an honest, democratic debate, with full access to the information, and a full account of the Administration's motives, this country *never* would have voted to go to war against Iraq. So they lied instead.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 06, 2005 at 09:18 PM
I'm still interested if those who supported the war care that they were lied to?
Those who thought that Iraq had WMDs and was going to hand them off to Al’Qaeda obviously don't grasp the nuances of history... what makes you think those same people are going to be able to look at a dated document and grasp (in their gut) that the date means they have been lied to?
Posted by: foo | May 06, 2005 at 09:23 PM
DaveC, I'd take Tiemann a lot more seriously if he didn't repeatedly mention the phrase "little Eichmanns", which has zero relevance in analyzing the reaction of anyone other than Ward Churchill and a handful of other loons.
Posted by: KCinDC | May 06, 2005 at 09:24 PM
Others have said it better. But "lie" is right. Some Bush supporters support the lying because they believe I need to be lied to so that I'm late in stopping their actions or inactions.
Lying is O.K. We live in a Luntzian world now. Sound science is "sound science", don't you know? There is a language they share, constructed only for them. But we're working on a translation.
Have I generalized? Maybe, but those conservatives who didn't receive the codebook ought to feel a little put out. Don't worry, the pods are in the basement.
Posted by: John Thullen | May 06, 2005 at 09:27 PM
The secret memo says almost explicitly that such things were not considered.
The secret memo was written by a policy aide, some of it seems like speculation. What is it about this memo that makes its contents fact, other than it appears to confirm what some already believed?
...without adequate intelligence, one cannot consider such navel-gazing as true considerations of the worthiness of their (already-decided) policy...
The intelligence that was used to support going to war was inadequate but the intelligence in this memo is somehow spot on?
True but irrelevant. History isn't going to be getting in on the action for several decades at least...
I don't view history as irrelevant. History tells me that most of the wars involving the US didn't have public support until they were "sold" to the public, they were not properly planned, the funding was sketchy (isn't that why we have any income tax now?), and quite a few mistakes were made both during the wars and in their aftermath. However, you are right that it will be at least several decades before history gets involved, which tells me it will be quite some time before the war is viewed objectively.
Posted by: blah | May 06, 2005 at 09:32 PM
I included the disclaimer "meaningfully" for a reason, though: without adequate intelligence, one cannot consider such navel-gazing as true considerations of the worthiness of their (already-decided) policy.
Or more concisely, there is no need to consider options when playing with a stacked deck.
Posted by: Fledermaus | May 06, 2005 at 09:35 PM
I think it's important to note, further, that there were doubts about the pro-war intel during the run-up to the war. Rumsfeld's stove-pipe operation was a "known known," complaints from the intelligence services that their data were being ignored or manipulated was covered (minimally) in the news at the time; and Powell's presentation to the UN was debunked immediately.
There was also a report (in Vanity Fair, ignored by all other news outlets) that, at the same time Bush was doing his "war is a last resort" routine for American news cameras, he told Jordan's King Abdullah that the decision to go to war with Iraq was already made and cast in stone.
This isn't a case of lies being revealed after the fact. This is a case of lies and manipulated intel being known at the time; that is, before the war started.
This is also a case where the flawed preparation for war, esp. as regarding troop strength, was also known and argued about - not by anti-war protestors, but by military professionals in the Pentagon - at the time; that is, before the war started.
If going to war is the most serious duty a President has; if the decision to spend American lives is the heaviest a President makes; if the President therefore has a sacred duty to be clear, honest and forthright about a decision to go to war, why we're going to war, how we intend to fight it and what we intend to do afterwards... then Bush failed on all counts.
If, however, the decision to go to war is about as momentous as the decision to play a video game; and if the lives of American soldiers are about as valued as the lives of video game characters; and if the whole point of war is to be able to pump one's fists and go "Woo hoo! Top score, baby!"... then Bush is certainly playing at his level.
Posted by: CaseyL | May 06, 2005 at 09:41 PM
KCinDC,
I thought the repeated use of of that phrase was not really good.
At the risk of having folks say I am certifiable, I think one reason that the WTC was targeted is that the terrorists seriously thought that the majority of people working in the the towers were Jews. For this reason I find that phrase especially offensive (coming from the original source, not from Brian.)
Posted by: DaveC | May 06, 2005 at 09:43 PM
The secret memo was written by a policy aide, some of it seems like speculation. What is it about this memo that makes its contents fact, other than it appears to confirm what some already believed?
It is a "highly classified document" cc'ed to the upper echelons of the government of Great Britain, including several (John Scarlett, "C") who actually participated in the events described. On what basis do you doubt its veracity?
The intelligence that was used to support going to war was inadequate but the intelligence in this memo is somehow spot on?
What on earth are you talking about? In what possible way are a mundane recounting of a meeting of one's colleagues -- albeit a vitally important meeting concerning extremely sensitive matters -- and intelligence estimates concerning WMD in a totalitarian despotism even remotely comparable?
I don't view history as irrelevant.
I didn't say history was irrelevant, I said that the judgment of history was irrelevant to considerations of whether the Bush Administration should be taken to task for its manifold, and now manifest, failings. And it is: I don't accept that the ends justify the means, nor do I accept that dumb luck and an eventual strategic readjustment should somehow palliate the responsibility to make decent plans from the start.
However, you are right that it will be at least several decades before history gets involved, which tells me it will be quite some time before the war is viewed objectively.
With all due respect, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Posted by: Anarch | May 06, 2005 at 09:46 PM
What is it about this memo that makes its contents fact, other than it appears to confirm what some already believed?
The memo doesn't have (I think) a veracity. The guy who wrote it had to interpret and analyze data and turn his opinion into words - a process fraught with peril.
The above comes from a position of little doubt in the accuracy of the memo.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 06, 2005 at 09:51 PM
rilkefan--
you think Anarch used "veracity" in a way that different from your "accuracy"?
The question is, when the memo says (e.g.) "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy", can we infer that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy?
Well, given that the author was superbly well-placed to make that assessment, had every possible security clearance, was an old hand at tracing the interrelations between policy and intelligence, and had no reason to distort the picture--
yes; we can infer that things were as the memo says they were. We can rely on its veracity, and its accuracy. (Unless I'm missing some crucial distinction?)
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 06, 2005 at 10:05 PM
DaveC--
"Hussein started making payments for suicide bombers in Israel, which I for one take as solid evidence of support for terrorism."
Yes; and supporting Palestinian terrorists was solid evidence that he was an utter scum--though its worth remembering that they got much more money from Bush's best friends, the Saudis.
Big problem here, though: whatever Hussein did in relation to Israel shows *nothing* about whether he was supporting Al Qaeda, or any other terrorists who had any designs on the U.S.
To talk about "supporting terrorists" as though all terrorists belong to one group just confuses issues. What the Bush administration did was to try to convince Americans that Hussein supported Al Qaeda, i.e. the very terrorists that had attacked the U.S. For this they had less than no evidence. Evidence that Hussein supported some *other* terrorists, in some *other* part of the world, is no more relevant to 9/11 than the fact that Negroponte supported terrorists in Central America.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 06, 2005 at 10:41 PM
The memo doesn't have (I think) a veracity. The guy who wrote it had to interpret and analyze data and turn his opinion into words - a process fraught with peril.
Yet we killed, at a best estimate, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on such analysis.
Wow.
Posted by: felixrayman | May 06, 2005 at 10:52 PM
The memo is an account of a meeting, distributed to the people who were at that meeting. I can't imagine why anyone would think that, as an account of the meeting, it's inaccurate. What was said in that meeting was said by senior members of the British government, who had much better reasons for saying what they did about American decision makers than they did for saying things about Iraqi weapons. For instance, the passage about the decision having already been taken, and about facts and intel being shaped to fit it, is here:
C is (not John Scarlett, but) the head of MI6. He has just been to Washington, meeting with US officials. He is now reporting what they told him. I think that this is about as un-fraught a report as one is likely to find, frankly.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 06, 2005 at 11:03 PM
The memo shows, quite definitively, that US and UK decision makers had genuinely concluded that Iraq had battlefield-deployable WMDs.
Which drills a damn great hole in a lot of the "Bush/Blair lied!!" mythologizing.
Funny how you glossed over that bit.
Posted by: a | May 06, 2005 at 11:16 PM
a -- huh? Who has been denying that Bush and Blair believed that Saddam had WMDs?
And noting that they didn't lie about that does not answer the point, made by all sorts of people above, that they seem to have lied about other things.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 06, 2005 at 11:31 PM
Which drills a damn great hole in a lot of the "Bush/Blair lied!!" mythologizing.
Right. Except the part where it doesn't.
Funny how you glossed over that bit.
Try again. This time with reading comprehension.
Posted by: Catsy | May 06, 2005 at 11:32 PM
a, I don't know which memo you're reading, but the one published in the Times doesn't say that at all:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Bush wanted to justify removing Saddam by claiming a conjunction of 'terrorism and WMD theme. That 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy' makes a lie of that claim.
"Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
That Saddam's WMD capability was 'less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran,' makes a lie of claims that his WMD capability represented a gathering/growing/grave threat to the US that could only be answered by war right now.
And, very damningly:
"The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option."
"[The Defense Secretary] thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."
The US had two options; a slower build-up, of more troops (the number, 250,000, much closer to Shinseiki's estimate of the troop strength that would be needed); and a hurry-up option considered to be very hazardous.
Why would Bush choose the second, more hazardous, option?
The reason wasn't WMD, wasn't terrorism, and wasn't any grave threat to the US.
The reason was partisan politics. He wanted the war to be an election issue.
Posted by: CaseyL | May 06, 2005 at 11:41 PM
Dunno - it's a memo, written by a human being (maybe one in perfect faith, maybe one with an axe to grind), possibly sent to influence policy - a memo about a meeting in which group A was trying to influence group B, possibly by overstating the degree to which policy F was a fait accompli. That's in part what I meant with my subliterate "veracity"/"accuracy" distinction. I was also wondering if the memo describes the actual state of Bush's, Cheney's, and Rumsfeld's minds, or instead the perception the Brits had of B/C/R's subordinates' views? Were there other, non-leaked memos with different takes?
I think the memo is strong evidence that Blair's govt went into the war knowing enough to have expected a mess with respect to the WMDs and US readiness for the after-war. And I think it strengthens my view that my govt. went into the war by way of a reckless, irresponsible process. (Well, and I find the electoral strategy it describes repugnant, but that's of a piece with the general hubris of the admin. - and if a Dem president wanted to make a humanitarian action I supported an election issue, I might well find ways to justify that to myself.) But it isn't a memo from Cheney to Rumsfeld saying, "We've resolved to invade, now it's only a question of finding an excuse. We'll probably just make up something about WMDs, maybe by leaning on the CIA." Frankly, I doubt that that part of the memo is in fact accurate from the American perspective, as I find the hubris theory more likely - or rather, I read the "fit the data to the theory" as coming from someone who [rightly] dislikes the theory and hence thinks the guys in the other lab are bump-hunting.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 07, 2005 at 12:37 AM
Here is how I think the Iraq war deal went down. This has to do with the "flypaper strategy", and how it really is part of the War on Terror:
The US military decided against commiting large numbers of troops to Afganistan. There is a lot of historical precedence against fighting a war there in a country where there are huge logistical problems. So the idea is not to use conventional military there. However, it was decided that there still must be a shooting war, so the overt WOT must be fought in another country.
The Pakistani govt helped the US in Afganistan, so large-scale military intervention there is out of the question, even though a large number of Al Qaeda are in Pakistan.
Most other publicized terrorists were in Israel and Palestine (remember the spike in suicide bombings in spring of 2002, I certainly do.) Military action there is politically impossible. It would poison the entire WOT and unify the world against Israel, as if Israel doesn't have enough problems already. The 2003 UN conference on racism in South Africa basically agreed on one issue, and that is that Israel is the only country in the world that is condemned for racism. Notwithstanding the many different colors of skin that Israelis have, that 1/3 of Israelis are refugees from Arab countries, and that Bahais, Druze, and Sunni Muslims are citizens of Israel. Really,I could go on and on about this, but in 1948 the countries of Israel and Pakistan were brought into the world as refuges from religious persecution. Now many Arab countries are devoid of Jews, but well over 3,000,000 Muslims live in India, and I think that they have a Muslim president. Also compare the news coverage of the Jenin "massacre" to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Bengalis in Bangladesh in the early 70's. Publicity of Israel is totally bad, so that option is out as a theatre of war.
Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of funding for terrorists, but if we remove their rulers, then it is very likely that the hardline Wahhabis will completely take over and control both Mecca and the oil fields. This by the way is the strategy of Al Qaeda, who want control of both the oil and the religion.
Egypt is our "friend". Yeah, right, but if Mubarak goes down then the Muslim Brotherhood, which for all intents and purposes, will take over.
The rest of the terrorist supporting countries are Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya.
Now, Sudan has just signed the Sudan Peace Act, ostensibly ending the hostilities in the south. So that's out.
There is chance that Syria might reform, that Bashir Assad is a rational actor (by the way I'm still hoping for this), so Syria is out.
Libya is the farthest away from the actual origins of the terrorists. They are somewhat cooperating with the Lockerbie investigation, and Khaddafi is somewhat rational, so they're out.
So the basic decision is whether we invade Iraq or Iran. Remember, the theatre of operations absolutely must be moved out of Afganistan.
It's late, will try to write the rest tommorow
Posted by: DaveC | May 07, 2005 at 02:05 AM
But it isn't a memo from Cheney to Rumsfeld saying, "We've resolved to invade, now it's only a question of finding an excuse. We'll probably just make up something about WMDs, maybe by leaning on the CIA."
The funny (sad) thing is, even such a memo wouldn't convince some. They would just make up excuses for that, too, none of them any more convincing than yours. What'd the kids die for?
Nothing. Not a god damn thing.
It makes me f****** sick. Pretty classy the way the cheerleaders for the war all disappear when responsibility for being a sucker is about to be doled out, though. Class acts, all of them.
Posted by: felixrayman | May 07, 2005 at 03:04 AM
rilkefan: FWIW, Knight Ridder [courtesy Kevin Drum] disagrees with your assessment.
Posted by: Anarch | May 07, 2005 at 03:12 AM
This has to do with the "flypaper strategy", and how it really is part of the War on Terror
even that wasn't a major thrust of the sales job we all sat through. best i can tell, the "flypaper" theory is something conservative pundits thought up as a post-hoc justification when the WMDs started looking scarce.
Posted by: cleek | May 07, 2005 at 07:18 AM
DaveC: Even given my tentative support for the war in the beginning, I do not feel comfortable with a historical judgement in which I must tell thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis, "Sorry, chums, but, well, your country was the easiest one to invade!" No effing way.
Posted by: Phil | May 07, 2005 at 08:22 AM
I was never convinced of the flypaper strategy either (and wrote a few posts discussing the theory), but lately, as I think about why we invaded Iraq, that's been striking me as perhaps the most forgivable reason. It's not brave or in a unverisal sense honorable, but if you're responsible for protecting the lives of 260 million Americans and it's one of the options open to you, perhaps it strikes those of weaker moral standing as the best path to ensuring the fight happens outside your shores. It requires a severe lack of regard for the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians, but it makes logical sense.
Posted by: Edward | May 07, 2005 at 09:04 AM
It requires a severe lack of regard for the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians, but it makes logical sense
it also kinda defecates on the idea that we care so much about the plight of the Iraqis. insisting they play host to our war is a strange way to tell them we love them.
Posted by: cleek | May 07, 2005 at 09:40 AM
Well, one advantage of the "flypaper strategy" is that you can discuss it, and weigh its pros and cons, just as we are doing now. And in fact, it does have some pros as well as cons.
So if the leaders of a democracy ever want to take their citizens into a war in pursuit of a "flypaper strategy", they can make the case to the citizens who elected them, instead of lying about their plans and motives. And then we won't have to sit around making up excuses afterwards.
But honestly, can anyone imagine a future history of this period *not* mentioning the fact that the US was led into this war by the son of the man who had led it into the previous Iraq war? Do you think future history books will find it utterly irrelevant that the father failed to gain re-election, and that many people in his party thought he had made a mistake in not "finishing the war"?
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
You probably all know about Herskowitz, hired by Bush to write his "autobiography". And most of you have probably made up your minds about his testimony. But is there any point in discussing antiseptic geopolitical "fly-paper strategies" without discussing the elephant in the room, i.e. the standing Bush family obsession with Iraq?
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 07, 2005 at 09:52 AM
Honestly, I don't know why people bother with a thread like this. It's already apparent that there are no limits to what people "of the Faith" will accept from the leadership of their cult of personality.
This memo doesn't tell us anything at all that we hadn't learned in 2003 (or thereabouts) when Wolfowitz said that WMD was chosen as the principal casus belli because it was a common denominator. Indeed, it doesn't tell us anything that wasn't apparent in February 2003 when, as we all know, you had (a) the inspectors finding out that our WMD intelligence was seriously flawed and (b) Canada and Mexico trying to get us to agree to a defined extension of the inspections, as a way of winning at least a UNSC majority for a second resolution. (Canada wasn't on the SC, but when your best friend tells you you're blowing it, you ought to pay attention. Instead of saying 'Get lost, I have a new best friend now.') That we couldn't even entertain this suggestion made it perfectly clear to all that WMD was an excuse, not a reason.
None of this actually matters now. People "of the Faith" are going to believe their Leader if/when he starts on the next phase in the WOT. Sorry, WOE. And while many in the middle won't believe the excuses given, who can argue that the Syrian regime, or whoever the target ends of being, is worthy of defending? And once again that's how the thing is going to go down. The Admin will overcommit first, and then tell people in the middle that we have to either follow through, or back down with tremendous (and dangerous) loss of American prestige (and attendant gain in prestige for the odious enemy).
It's always the guy's preferred style: put all the chips in the pot, and then argue that we can't afford not to play the hand all the way out. To paraphrase Bill Maher, whatever you say about this reckless methodology, you can't call it cowardice.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 07, 2005 at 10:13 AM
"It's always the guy's preferred style: put all the chips in the pot, and then argue that we can't afford not to play the hand all the way out. "
Oh really? Actually, Bush's method has always reminded me of something else.
He's the wimpy little brother who picks playground fights he can't possibly win, and then needs his big brother to bail him out.
That's the thing about him--he *never* does the fighting himself. They aren't even his own chips--he would never risk those. No, he puts *our* prestige on the line; he holds America's safety and reputation hostage for the sake of his own reputation. We have to bail him out, over and over again, so that our whole country doesn't get a black eye. *Our* soldiers have to die; never him or his relations.
And all for a fight that he picked, a quarrel he provoked.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 07, 2005 at 10:22 AM
In other words: I *do* call it cowardice, cowardice of the most despicable kind.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 07, 2005 at 10:24 AM
Tad, I think Bush dishonest (shockingly so), reckless, and wildly irresponsible. I guess "timid" is a better word for the concept I meant than "cowardly."
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 07, 2005 at 12:09 PM
Anarch, I don't disagree with that article. The point is whether they were distorting the data to fit a hypothesis (what the author and I think) or using a theory to interpret the data (what I think Cheney and Rumsfeld thought they were doing). Powell wanted to believe the latter.
Tad, I think that without the Iraq war, Bush would now be a popular president instead of an unpopular one. I suspect that he was told that doing nothing would leave him very popular, while announcing a plan to invade had a clear short-term upside and either a large negative or positive effect longer term, politically speaking. It seems to me the wrong decision he made showed a lack of cowardice. I don't even think it showed a lack of intelligence on his part - there I fault Cheney et al., and Bush's management style (which does indicate a lack of intelligence).
However, for the most part I do think he's driven by expediency and ideological faith.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 07, 2005 at 12:15 PM
Rilkefan--
I don't see where he ever put anything on the line other than his own ego--unlike the thousands of lives he put on the line. If things went right, he'd get to prance around on an aircraft carrier. If things went wrong--well, that's what *did* happen, and we saw the result. The fruits of his own incompetence in planning for a post-war period became an extra reason why we had to "stay the course", "not change horses in midstream", "show resolve", and so on. He could count on one fact about the American people: the worse things go for us overseas, the more we are likely to rally around the CiC. Without the Iraq war, he would not be a popular president right now, he'd be an ex-president.
But this is not a large disagreement between us, and I don't want to derail the thread with it. If his lying to the American public, his "fixing the intelligence to fit the policy", and his inability to plan for the post-war period are just as consistent with a lack of cowardice as with cowardice, then I'll be happy to return to the original point.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 07, 2005 at 12:32 PM
Moving the shooting war against terrorists away from Afganistan was not the only reason that the US decided to put military pressure on Iraq. Pakistan was and is a hotbed of terrorism and the US persuaded or coerced Musharref into joining our side and fight AQ and the Taliban. To be effective in the broader world, the war on terror had to also be fought farther west, at or near the other sources of terror.
Now the choices had come down to Iran and Iraq. North Korea was also put on notice for proliferating nuclear weapon technology, but an attack on NK would seem to do very little against the Islamist terrorists. Iraq is a much smaller country, we already had military in the area, and the Kurds and Shiites were already opposed to Hussein. So militarily the Hussein regime in Iraq made more sense as a target than the mullahs in Iran.
This does not mean that the shooting war necessarily had to take place. Bush warned Iran Iraq and NK in his January 2002 SOTU speech, but my guess is that they did not settle on Iraq until later in the spring or summer of that year. As an aside I think that the military brass has plans for invading all kinds of countries if the contingency arises. If they do not or did not, then they would be negligent and should be removed from their positions.
If Hussein could be convince to capitulate without fighting, it would be almost as big a win as a military victory. But in order to do this, the US had to demonstrate that it actually would invade. The Joint Resolution and the movement of troops to the Middle East did just that. A more reasonable leader than Hussein may have decided to give in. I think that the Bush administration gave Hussein until the middle of December 2002 to show some positive cooperation with US and that the decision to actually proceed with the war came in late December.
The reason for the timing of the troop movements was not for political purposes, but because we had to know whether the war was actually going to happen, and if the war did start it had to be in the winter rather than in the summer. Hussein understood that it would be highly unlikely for the US to attack in the summer so he resorted to stalling tactics, which almost worked.
So by December, Hussein had not complied, and I believe that the war would have begun in January had not Tony Blair convinced Bush to go to the UN one last time to try to force Hussein to concede to a diplomatic solution. The attempt failed, I think in large part because France, Germany, and Russia had financial agreements with the Hussein regime.
So while I agree that the US was planning a war, and that there were and are good strategic reasons to have a shooting war in Iraq, ultimately it was up to Saddam Hussein as to whether or not he would cooperate or be attacked.
I agree with Den Beste's take on flypaper and overall strategy.
Posted by: DaveC | May 07, 2005 at 01:08 PM
An attempt is being made by Bush supporters to justify the fact that Bush sold the war--which is progress, I guess, since a year ago no one would have agreed to call it a sell. They would have insisted that Bush was telling the truth. At least that delusion is now off the table.
Now the rationalization seems to be that all wars are sold, that it is OK to sell wars to the public to get their support, and the implicatin is that decades later the use of a salepitch will be justified. I don't thnk that is the lesson of history at all.
The American wars that have stood up to the test of time weren't sold. The reasons were explained and accepted because the reasons were valid. We were defending ourselves and others from aggression in WW2, we were fighting to keep the country whole in the Civil War. (Northern point of view) The Revolutionary War claimed to be and was a war for independence. The wars that were sold on an exaggerated, jingoistic or mistaken salespitch have not stood up to the test of time. The Spanish American War was, like this one, sold on the basis of a lie, and supported mostly by war fever. The aggression was ours. Viet Nam was sold on the basis of the domino theory and "defending democracy". The domino theory was an honest misunderstanding and the "defending democracy" was a lie. If we had never fought the war, things would now be more or less the same in Southeast Asia or possibly better. No one has ever given a valid reason for the suicidal cataclism of WW1 and our participation was not necessary for our defense. Yes, I know about the Lusitania. That doesn't justify killing a whole bunch more people. It wasn't the war to end wars.
I don't know very much about the Korean War, the War of 1812, or the French and Indian War.
Of course every war has its inflated rhetoric. But the reason for the war, as understood by the man or woman on the street, should match the reasons given by the political leaders. The wars in which there was a match are the ones which time has prove to be justified. The others were mistakes.
It is not OK for the leaders of the country to decide for their own reasons that they want a war, and then concoct a salespitch, based on misinformation, exaggerations, and misconceptions to sell the idea to the public. This is supposed to be a democracy. That and simple decency should be enough to convince politicians that the reasons given for a war should be the real reasons.
When this war started it was widely understood to be a war against terrorism in defense against the 911 attacks. It was not. It was widely understood to be a war to get WMDs away from Saddam Hussein. That also wasn't true. Bush can pile on ratinalizations and justifications all he likes, but the fact remains that people died for his salespitch, not for his current party line. People have a right to be told the truth about the cause for which they lay down their lives.
Posted by: lily | May 07, 2005 at 01:23 PM
I will readily admit that the blood is more on my hands than those who opposed the war. My son is in college while my next door neighbor's kids were in Iraq, and that seems really unfair. But it was my son who made the decision to go to college, and it was my neighbors' sons' decision to join the miltary. If I recall correctly, their mother/stepmother was against the idea. But on the subject of kids, the Chicago Tribune regularly dedicates their Sunday opinion pages to displaying the pictures, names and hometowns of the servicemen and women who died for me. I do spend some Sunday afternoons looking at those pictures and reading the names. Many of those killed were in their 30's and late 20's and probably had children of their own. I think it is instructive to me to own up to the fact that this is partially my fault. I realize that I am a horribly wretched human being compared to an Amish person, for instance. But in the war on terror, I think that we have to force ourselves to choose from a list of bad and worse courses of action or inaction. May God have mercy on my soul. I am not asking for your approval.
Posted by: DaveC | May 07, 2005 at 01:29 PM
DaveC, your a priori fantasy is nice and all, but read the original post. The data falsifies your timeline.
Posted by: carpeicthus | May 07, 2005 at 01:44 PM
"well over 3,000,000 Muslims live in India, and I think that they have a Muslim president"
Oh?
Posted by: praktike | May 07, 2005 at 02:03 PM
DaveC--
"But in the war on terror, I think that we have to force ourselves to choose from a list of bad and worse courses of action or inaction. May God have mercy on my soul."
Dave, I agree with this, sincerely (i.e. no jokes about your soul vs. mine). There can be no clean hands in all of this.
But that's exactly why the administration's withholding of the truth is so especially egregious. We had, and still have, horrible choices to make as a country. The idea used to be that we made them democratically. Instead, they have been made for us, through deception, in a deeply undemocratic way.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 07, 2005 at 02:09 PM
Wow! Speaking of delusion:
I guess if you discount all historical fact that statement might be true.
I guess the people that opposed our entry into WW2 don't really count in your mind. If FDR hadn't taken the actions he did we might not have had to get involved in WW2 at all. Much of America had to be dragged into WW2 by FDR. Or is that fact not relevant to your point.
Many people in the North didn't want to fight with the South. The North was so divided Lincoln barely won the election. Is that fact not relevant either?
Many Americans didn't want to be independant from Great Britian. Some even fought for the other side! I guess that's not relevant to your point either.
Delusional? Yes, I think so. This one really takes the cake:
Posted by: Tinker | May 07, 2005 at 02:53 PM
well over 3,000,000 Muslims live in India
300,000,000, which is well over the 3 mill. duh.
Posted by: DaveC | May 07, 2005 at 03:09 PM
But is there any point in discussing antiseptic geopolitical "fly-paper strategies" without discussing the elephant in the room, i.e. the standing Bush family obsession with Iraq?
good point. it should be much higher on the list of things we talk about.
Posted by: cleek | May 07, 2005 at 04:33 PM
Tinker, You haven't refuted any of my points. I never claimed that all of our wars were univerally supported. I said that the wars which have stood the test of time were the ones that had congruence between the reasons for the war as stated by the political leaders and the reasons for the war understood by the citizens. Northern soldiers understood that they were fighting to maintain the union, for example. Maybe they didn't want to fight, or they didn't want to maintain the union, but they had an accurate understanding of the purpose of the war. Opposition to WW2 nearly vanished after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese made FDR's point for him. Viet Nam, however, was not a war to defend democracy since our democracy wasn't at stake and the government of South Viet Nam wasn't a democracy.
I maintain that it is bad policy for leaders to misrepresent the reasons for a war. Not only is that not small d democratic thinking and ,disrespectful of the the soldiers, but it has, in our history, led us into wars which we did not need to fight.
Posted by: lily | May 07, 2005 at 08:47 PM
"I guess the people that opposed our entry into WW2 don't really count in your mind. If FDR hadn't taken the actions he did we might not have had to get involved in WW2 at all. Much of America had to be dragged into WW2 by FDR. Or is that fact not relevant to your point.
Many people in the North didn't want to fight with the South. The North was so divided Lincoln barely won the election. Is that fact not relevant either?"
I think I'd be a little slower off the mark calling people delusional. WWII wasn't "sold" by FDR -- if he was trying to sell it prior to 12/7/41, he was failing. Entry in the war was because, and solely because, of the Japanese attack. I've never heard anyone even hint that we had to be "dragged" into WWII after Pearl Harbor, and still can't believe I'm hearing it now. Can you back this up with anything at all?
Lincoln won re-election handily in 1864. Did a whole lot better than the current guy, in fact: 91% in the electoral college, 55% of the popular vote. (The war wasn't an issue in 1860, so you couldn't have meant that election).
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 07, 2005 at 11:20 PM
"Entry in the war was because, and solely because, of the Japanese attack."
Wasn't the attack in some ways a response to FDR's policies? I seem to recall that we were threatening Japan's supply lines - in particular oil access. And wasn't FDR strongly inclined to take America to war despite the public? Wasn't the Lend-Lease Program conceived in part with that goal?
Posted by: rilkefan | May 07, 2005 at 11:46 PM
Wasn't the attack in some ways a response to FDR's policies? I seem to recall that we were threatening Japan's supply lines - in particular oil access. And wasn't FDR strongly inclined to take America to war despite the public? Wasn't the Lend-Lease Program conceived in part with that goal?
Staccato responses: not that I've heard but I'd be interested to hear the case; yes; and yes. That doesn't undermine the point, though.
Posted by: Anarch | May 07, 2005 at 11:50 PM
Wasn't the attack in some ways a response to FDR's policies?
I thought we stopped selling them steel.
Ya know, I took a number of WWII history classes in college and took away that point as well as the main point that HItler would've been stopped cold in Czechoslovakia had Europe supported them. Having ridden the route between Dresden and Prague, I'd say that those mountains would've been pretty tough to get past if dotted with weaponry.
Posted by: crionna | May 07, 2005 at 11:57 PM
Wasn't the attack in some ways a response to FDR's policies?
That's what a lot of Japanese historians would tell you.
I find it food for thought to realize that our approaches to Germany and Japan were completely opposite (appeasement for the former and no compromise for the latter) and often wonder what would have happened had we been able to invert that. However, the constant of racism against Japan and the strong identification with China as the hapless victim of the Japanese (which is not to deny Japanese aggression, I should add) probably would have made that impossible.
I think Akira Iriye's _Origins of the Second World War in Asia and in the Pacific_ is a good book, as it avoids the problem of most historians writing from a US point of view, which has everything leading up to Pearl Harbor.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | May 08, 2005 at 02:40 AM
Lincoln won re-election handily in 1864. Did a whole lot better than the current guy, in fact: 91% in the electoral college, 55% of the popular vote.
Well, to be fair, 11 states didn't vote in that election. It would have been a closer election if they had, although Lincoln certainly still would have won.
Posted by: Phil | May 08, 2005 at 07:35 AM
Lily,
So are you now claiming that the only reason understood by the citizens was WMD? I'll acknowledge that half the country ignored Bush's many stated reasons, but half understood.
Based on your own logic you can't support your own thesis. History is the only thing that can.
Again, based on your own logic, I maintain that many citizens in this country understood the reasons for the Iraq war. Your picking and chosing what is convenient to support your political ideology and "make" your own history won't stand the test of time.
CharleyCap,
Thanks for telling me what I mean. But, according to myself I was speaking to how divided the nation was during that time in our countries history.
I guess I do look delusional if you chose to ignore the 1860 election were Lincoln only had 39% of the popular vote and Douglas has 30%. It's really difficult not look delusional to someone if one choses to ignore the facts and make up what you think they mean.
From Lily:
"They would have insisted that Bush was telling the truth. At least that delusion is now off the table."
Lily is the one who implied that people held delusions. I guess she should take your advice about being a little slower of the mark.
From Charley:
"I've never heard anyone even hint that we had to be "dragged" into WWII after Pearl Harbor, and still can't believe I'm hearing it now."
I can only assume that you are intentionally being difficult. Can you tell me were someone said that after Pearl Harbor we had to be "dragged" into WW 2? Do you know nothing about the run-up to WW2? If you don't know enough to know that the U.S. was dealing with strong isolationist sentiments post WW 1, then we can't even have an intelligent conversation about the topic.
What in the heck are they teaching in schools these days? Do none of you here know anything about WW2. I hope you guys posting are from other countries.
Here's just a quick google of decent articles to help some of you get started on American history.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43468
http://homepage.gallaudet.edu/David.Penna/WWII.htm
For crying out loud try this link also to do some research:
http://www.google.com
An excerpt:
"Still, many in the US favored neutrality and saw benefits in staying out of the war: for example, a US Senator from Missouri named Harry Truman once said, after Germany attacked the USSR," when Germany is winning, we should help Stalin, when the USSR is winning, we should help Hitler," with the idea being that Americans opposed both ideologies, Nazism and Communism, and therefore we should hope that both countries weaken themselves.
In 1940, Japan attacked French Indochina; the US established an embargo that stopped US iron & steel exports to Japan.
FDR's response to Germany was slower. The Lend-Lease Act was passed in 1940 that allowed the US to lend ships to England who agreed to return them after the war. Both the President and Congress felt that the public would accept this better than giving financial loans or actually entering the war."
Posted by: Tinker | May 08, 2005 at 10:12 AM
Tinker, I'm sorry to have misunderstood your point. There's no disagreement between us on the facts about WWII: FDR worked the US towards involvement in WWII, but could not -- and in my view could never -- close the deal. Try as he might, we would never have gone into the war without Pearl Harbor. Once that came, the country was all for it. Now if you think this means that FDR dragged the US into WWII, we'll just have to disagree. He was dragging, and we weren't going. The Japanese pushed us over. Did they do so in reaction to our policies? Absolutely. Was this the purpose of the policies? I think there's little or no evidence, really, for this.
That you would use the 1860 election to make a point about the popularity of the Civil War is baffling to me. Of course the country was divided: half was in arms against the other half. Again, though, the election wasn't about the war, or the advisability of secession. And while Lincoln beat Douglas nationally by 39.9% to 29.5%, in the North -- and this is what your comment was based on -- it wasn't nearly so close. Lincoln got no votes at all in a number of Southern states. There were only 5 states where one beat the other by 5% or less -- surely a decent measure for a close election: in CA Lincoln won by .6%, and IL he won by 3.5%. Put them both in the Douglas column -- he was the Senator from IL, for God's sake -- and Lincoln still wins going away in the electoral college. Also, in the other states Lincoln won -- all in the north -- the margins were large. Douglas beat Lincoln in Florida (1.7% to 0!), in Maryland (6.4% to 2.7%), and in NJ by 3.8%. The last was one of only two states won by Douglas -- the other was Missouri (35.5 to 10.3). If you want to use the 1860 election as support for the proposition that "[t]he North was so divided Lincoln barely won the election," I think it is I, not you, who needs to be worried what schools are teaching people nowadays.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 08, 2005 at 11:20 AM
"That you would use the 1860 election to make a point about the popularity of the Civil War is baffling to me"
Yeah, me too since that wasn't my point. You don't think there was any talk of war with the South in 1860?
November 6, 1860 - Abraham Lincoln, who had declared "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free..." is elected president, the first Republican, receiving 180 of 303 possible electoral votes and 40 percent of the popular vote.
Yes, he won the electoral college, but he had no where near a majority of the popular vote. Even, in the convention he lost the first round of voting. The second round of voting he won by 3 votes. Lincoln was not a popularly elected president.
If you combine the Democratic vote that got split it would have received 48% of the vote.
The election was really two elections. One between Douglas and Lincoln in the North and West and between Brekinridge and Bell in the South.
The North was divided amongst itself, hence Douglass and Lincoln being 9 points apart and from the South. That is the only reason Lincoln won the election.
Posted by: Tinker | May 08, 2005 at 12:18 PM
In 1940, Japan attacked French Indochina; the US established an embargo that stopped US iron & steel exports to Japan.
On which note, my understanding was that Pearl Harbor had been on the books for some time in Japan; anyone know when the strategic planning was first carried out?
Posted by: Anarch | May 08, 2005 at 01:06 PM
My understanding is that Pearl Harbor was always on the books.
http://www.hooverdigest.org/982/peattie.html
"At least some of those conceptual precedents may have stimulated Admiral Yamamoto's thinking on the subject (1941). At furthest remove are the civilian writings of the 1920s and 1930s--Japanese, American, and British--on the possible course of a Japan-U.S. war in the Pacific."
Posted by: Tinker | May 08, 2005 at 01:15 PM
That's what I had remembered, Tinker, which is why I'm not particularly convinced that Japan attacked the US "in response to" FDR's policies so much as FDR's policies provided a convenient excuse to engage in a war they'd already accepted. The presence of the Philippines (for the US), Indochina (for the French) and Singapore and Burma (for Britain) within the desired radius of the Co-Prosperity Sphere meant, IMO, that Japan was on a collision course with all those powers as far back as the mid-30s. For the European powers it might have remained a colonial brushfire fought only in the colonies; the presence of the American fleet in the Pacific, however, meant a major conflict between Japan and the US was inevitable given the nascent Japanese imperialism.*
* American imperialism having already been born at that time ;)
Posted by: Anarch | May 08, 2005 at 01:21 PM
Anarch,
I see what you mean and that's a valid point. Maybe, it would have been more accurate to say a response to "American" policies. But the original context I made that comment in is important.
Lily said:
The American wars that have stood up to the test of time weren't sold. The reasons were explained and accepted because the reasons were valid. We were defending ourselves and others from aggression in WW2
I think that statement and the ones following it are 100% false. In every major war there has been an vocal opposition in this country that didn't accept the justifications for the war. Whether we are talking about Tories, Southerners, Yankees, Democrats or Republicans it is always there. I was only trying to comment on that particular statement. We can't say what effect his policies did have for sure. Maybe, the aggression would have never materialized.
My comment was a response to someone up thread was talking about pre-war support. My point is that WW2 was not widely supported in the beginning. Only hindsight allowed us to see that it was the right thing to do. That and getting punched in the eye.
Posted by: Tinker | May 08, 2005 at 01:43 PM
Anarch,
What bothered me about Lily's comment is that she is trying to set a new standard for what is acceptable before we go to war and trying to show how the Bush administration falls short.
Her standard that... The reasons were explained and accepted because the reasons were valid... is false.
For example, many people out there believe that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen knowing that such an attack would allow him to build greater support for entry into WW2. I'm not saying that I support that belief... just saying that some do.
I imagine that someone with that mentality would have been likely to say the same thing about Bush had we found out that at some future time Hussein provided some kind of support to a terrorist that attacked the U.S. I can hear them know claiming... Bush knew about the attack and did nothing to muster support for the WOT.
Oh heck... Michael Moore already made a movie suggesting at much.
Posted by: Tinker | May 08, 2005 at 01:56 PM