<p>ff, I believe some members of Congress know the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq, while others were misled by the Iraq WMD disinformation coming out of the Bush administration.</p>
<p>I’ve found that if I keep my ears open, those “in the know” often let things slip out. John McCain did so earlier this month in Denver, when he said:</p>
<p>"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will – that will then prevent us – that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.</p>
<p>1) The War was fought for ideological reasons that are about the political landscape in the Middle East and not about direct security threats to Americans on American soil – i.e. to install a democracy in the Middle East that would be friendly to our nation and spur democratization in that part of the world. This was argued by Wolfowitz and others. Bush bought into this vision and this is why we went to war. Other reasons were thrown into the mix to justify the war publicly.
2) The threat Iraq posed was trumped up by the Administration. The Administration stampeded Congress – both Dems and Republicans – into supporting their position, and Congress let itself be stampeded. Blame sits with all those who let themselves be stampeded without being skeptical; however, the vast preponderance of blame sits with Bush, Cheney and the rest of his Administration for pursuing an unnecessary war and doing so for false reasons.
4) Iraq under Saddam did not collaborate to any important degree at all with the Al Qaeda forces that were responsible for 9/11. Saddam did pay off suicide bombers prior to our invasion, but these were to attack Israel and they were not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda’s rise in Iraq was purely a function of our invading there. People who suggest fighting in Iraq was motivated by an effort to take the fight against the 9/11 to the terrorists to the enemy are either lying or misunderstand entirely what is going on in that country.
3) Over time, the goal of achieving a peaceful, democratic govt in Iraq – the stated objective of the original military mission – changed into a much less ambitious effort to have a government capable of governing a unified Iraq. At the same time that greatly reduced aims and ambitions of this war were posited, the Administration was selling the notion that this did not represent a failure, that important results from our noble effort could still be achieved and that Iraq would require patience and fortitude.
4) This “dumbed down” objective of installing a government capable of governing a unified Iraq is what we are aiming for now, but it is not an objective we can reach through military means alone. The surge was justified by the effort to provide a security envelope in which this government could take shape. This has still not happened.
5) It is by no means clear that we will have Iraq repair itself by staying there for the same reasons that invading was a dumb idea in the first place. Nations, as a very solid general rule, don’t want outsiders deciding their fate or imposing their solutions even if those solutions are as laudable as supporting democracy. The presence of outsiders tends to breed resentment and spur insurgent violence.</p>
<p>When people suggest that we need to stay to fix Iraq, they don’t realize that our presence alone is one of the reasons why Iraq remains broken in the first place. When people argue for staying the course, they tend not to acknowledge that the course we adopted is one we have already failed at – we are no longer trying to install democracy. We are not staying the course at all. We have chosen a different course which is to limit the damage caused by our initial stupidity of invading the country. We are hoping for an outcome that will involve a unified Iraqi government and that will enable us to declare some kind of a victory.</p>
<p>The first step to resolving a problem is to squarely face past mistakes, problems, and yes lies. We can’t count on the President or his Administration to do this. So we the people must move forward and make sure to vote for Obama and set the stage so this can happen. McCain might garner more votes if he were honest, but he refuses to acknowledge the truth of what has really happened in Iraq and he suggests we just need to hold out for more of the so-called “success” that has been taking shape. Iraq is on its face already a huge failure in the sense that when you set out to do something and are unable to achieve that and have to drastically alter your objectives, you have failed by any real definition.</p>
<p>It should be no surprise that the Middle East is of strategic importance for its oil. It has been US policy since Jimmy Carter (The Carter Doctrine) that the US would become militarily involved in the Middle East if someone would threaten the ability of the oil-rich countries to sell their oil to the world at market prices. Saddam, clearly presented such a threat.</p>
<p>However, this was but one of many reasons that tipped the scales in favor of the war. The rationale for getting rid of Saddam existed across two administrations and was seen by many countries. It was Al Gore who, in early 2002 was pushing for the “final solution” in Iraq by getting rid of Saddam militarily. </p>
<p>Many Democrats saw the raw intelligence and all saw the NIE which clearly showed areas of disagreement between the various agencies. They too were as adament (or more) about the war than the Bush administration. At some point you have to be open to the possibility that all who saw the evidence and advocated war were acting on what they thought was in the best interest of the country. You may have disagreed with them, but that’s how democracies work.</p>
<p>Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not a democratic shill. As a matter of fact, I was a registered Republican until a few years ago (although I’m closer to a liberal Democrat on social issues.) I switched to Independent when I became disgusted with the deception and fiscal irresponsibility of my party.</p>
<p>Also, I’m with Bullet. This conversation is pointless. Can we just agree to disagree? I’d really like to start a meaningful discussion of possible paths forward in Iraq and reasons–pro and con–for them.</p>
<p>Sorry if I misinterpretted your post 81. It seemed to smack of the “no blood for oil” mantra that definitely does not resonate with theme of doing what’s best for the country.</p>
<p>Agreed. For me, the place to start this discussion is looking at what we had intended, and failed, to achieve in Iraq. And now, in light of our current objectives, figuring out the best strategy to achieve those…</p>
<p>I agree with you, Bedhead. I don’t think we can plan a good strategy by just looking at the 2008 situation. We have to understand where and how we went wrong in order to avoid repeating our mistakes.</p>
<p>I’d say that a good place to start the discussion of what we do next is look at what we’ve done lately. This may be politically unappealing since it is indicative of Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Dems being wrong, but as of now, the trajectory is correct.</p>
<p>Well, if you note, in my post I tied failure very specifically to the fact that we have significantly lowered expectations – and the overriding objective driving the war – from installing a democratic govt. to installing a government capable of governing. Again, this is failure on its face.</p>
<p>If you don’t acknowledge this failure, you are going to keep looking for opportunities to pin the “loss of Iraq” on anyone but George Bush.</p>
<p>My point is we will have to move beyond this. But judging from your rhetoric in the above post about the “defeat party” and from what I know about your posts, you won’t be ready to move on. I read this Washington Post article and what it fails to acknowledge is that it will be a political, not military, solution that puts Iraq back together. It’s one they need to piece together on their own. The other thing is it’s one month and the last time there was a lot of noise about things getting better we proceeded to have several months of higher amounts of deaths.</p>
<p>If you want to talk about the “defeat party,” look in the mirror. A terribly misguided war, a precipitous decline in the dollar, failure in the housing market, the economy teetering on the brink of a possible deep recession, runaway oil prices. Let’s not go down that road, shall we?</p>
<p>I read about this. Interesting. I don’t see how this would do anything to change the situation much – except perhaps make matters worse. If we shove such an accord down the throats of unwilling Iraqis, they will cut loose from their “pawnish” govt. and intensify an insurgency.</p>
<p>Just as writing a constitution doesn’t mean much if the country doesn’t observe it inking a deal with the Iraqi govt. doesn’t accomplish anything if said agreement delegitamizes said government in the eyes of its people.</p>
<p>It does seem to be signature Cheney, though, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>Oh, and this will be the quickest way we can guarantee more USS Cole and 9/11 attacks…</p>
<p>Reminds me of Bill Clinton’s “it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is”:</p>
<p>“The US had previously denied it wanted permanent bases in Iraq, but American negotiators argue that so long as there is an Iraqi perimeter fence, even if it is manned by only one Iraqi soldier, around a US installation, then Iraq and not the US is in charge.”</p>
<p>FundingFather is right: The “hot war” against Iraq (as opposed to the Clinton genocide) started in 1998 with the most massive aerial bombing of a sovereign nation by the United States since Viet Nam. All the “experienced Democrats” signed on to the Clinton/Tenet big lie, all supported military action, all backed the illegal “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998”. The ground invasion and hostile, aggressive occupation by Bush was merely an extension of Clinton’s war, sold as a “slam-dunk” by Tenet because it in fact had already been sold. In fact, it had been sold so well that Hillary Clinton didn’t even think it necessary to read the classified NIE report in her possession before voting to continue her husband’s war.</p>
<p>But let’s not confuse this with intelligence. ALL the intelligence - held by all countries - prior to the Bush invasion - came from a single source - Curveball - who had already been discredited by the time the invasion took place. Tenet knew it, as did everyone else, though it may turn out to be true that Iranian nationals played Dick Cheney for the fool that he is in order to aid Iran’s national interests in overthrowing Saddam.</p>
<p>As usual, there’s more to the story. On January 16, 1998, the neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power:</p>
<p>Many members of the PNAC, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton, went on to hold key positions in the Bush administration. One has to wonder how much influence this powerful neo-conservative group had on Clinton’s decision to engage in the 1998 aerial bombardment of Iraq.</p>
<p>Probably none at all. Clinton had already attempted two coups against Saddam, had killed a million Iraqis, half of them children, and had tried to make a deal with Chemical Ali to oust Saddam Hussein and allow the Americans to march in. All ended in failure. The letters to Clinton probably came at the his own urging, so as to present a bipartisan front to the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie.</p>
<p>You make some credible points, mini…but I have to put some of this blame on Republicans in Congress as well. They had access to at least some of this intelligence. They could have blown the whistle on at least some of this, but perhaps did not comprehend what was going on or were too timid to make it an issue.</p>
<p>I seldom find placing total blame on one political party the complete answer.</p>