Hagel on the Iraq War

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Pure insanity.

For all of his bluster, Saddam was the area's sole secular strongman.

Taking him out allowed free reign for the dangerous Muslim extremists in the region.

Mubarak is feeling pretty damn secular as we look back from the perspective of Egypt under control of a slobbering radical Islamist. So "only", eh...

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Pure insanity.

For all of his bluster, Saddam was the area's sole secular strongman.

Taking him out allowed free reign for the dangerous Muslim extremists in the region.

Deep thoughts as usual, fred.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I am not sure I would characterize what we did in Iraq as...nothing.

Oh, no doubt we "did' something. What we really got out of it is the debatable part for me. I think we could have accomplished what we did without the loss of lives, not to mention the money, by other means.

[MichiGator2002]

We did something and then spent several years either not perfecting it or simply undoing it, depending on how you frame the question.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Good points all. But I still think it would have been worth a shot to at least offer him a chance to get on the right side of 9/11 (Jesus, even the f-ing Iranians were our "buddies" then). I think, his power preserved, he might have bitten. Hell, I might have used his "little shop of horrors" as a final destination for the worst of the worst that we captured.

As for Stalin, where am I wrong? I guess we could look at his attitudes toward the Allies pre 1941 (while he was carving up 1/2 of Poland) vs. post-Barbarossa. Certainly, with the Nazi knife to his balls, he was a lot more . . . ahem, plyable. And yet, as his troops mount up victory after victory, he becomes a lot less so, even confrontational by 1945.

CHFG8R, regarding Stalin I would urge you to resist the temptation to rationalize him as a figure with a robust streak of reasonableness which could serve as a diplomatic handle, as though his acts in furtherance of the revolution were mere cynicism with only a patina of ideology. In fact Stalin was a committed communist revolutionary who very energetically forced through many draconian measures to implement the communist ideology regardless of the human cost. I think you probably already know that, though, but it is so tempting to hold that seminal fact about Stalin at arm's length. He didn't order the death of millions because he didn't believe in what he was doing and found it personally convenient. The extent to which Stalin seems more reasonable than, say, Hitler or perhaps even Mao (to a small degree and from certain angles) is rooted in apparently pragmatic steps such as the Nonaggression Pact with Hitler's Germany and subsequent partition of Poland, and in his subsequent stolid and ironically humanizing refusal to believe the Nazi invasion was imminent until it happened.

Of course these facts prove nothing of the kind, except that Stalin felt that the Soviet Union was not economically or militarily prepared to confront Germany at that time, and was more than willing to expand Soviet rule with a diplomatic accommodation. And of course an aversion to unwelcome facts is not at all unique to Stalin as an autocrat. His refusal to believe facts for which he has no answer is a human trait, but it is a human trait in an inhuman man, a man of steel, who much like Lenin had a tendency to liquidate those who represented facts with which he was averse. Indeed the subsequent mauling the Soviets took at the hands of the Wehrmacht over the next year proves that his sub-textual concerns about the prospects for the Soviet state in the face of a German invasion were well founded and more than simply personal. He refused to believe in that which he was powerless to prevent, especially in view of the possibility that a shift in his attitude along with open Soviet preparations could trigger the very war that absolutely had to be avoided or at least postponed. You can compare this tack to a cod caught up in a swimming pattern of a shark, prolonging the pattern in homes something changes before the jaws snap shut. Stalin may have identified himself personally with the Soviet Empire, but that is not to say that he became a kind of pasha living a deluded and opulent life like the Czars before him. In fact, like Hitler, he was an ascetic, and a man of the proletariat who was quick to cull whatever bourgeois indulgences crept up within his coterie.

Saddam's ideological sincerity too should not be doubted, though his state ambitions were no doubt likewise entangled with personal ego gratification. Yes, he thought he was the strong man that was supposed to stand up to the West -- or if necessary outmanuever them -- so that the Pan-Arab Empire could be reborn. And I don't think he ever accepted even internally that this ambition was futile or idle, and his actions bear this out I think. Like Stalin, ultimately Saddam's only currency and language was force. He lived by it, and he died by it.

[Minister_of_Information]

Iraq: The Failure of Containment and the Strategic Necessity of War

Saddam's Delusions: A View From The Inside

Iraq Perspectives Project Report

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Deep thoughts as usual, fred.

Pithy truth beats wrong word salad every time.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Pithy truth beats wrong word salad every time.

Well, pithy something. I find liberal arguments turn to pith as a tool very quickly. Surely not a commentary on how well their detailed arguments would hold up to scrutiny.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Pithy truth beats wrong word salad every time.

I've said this before, but it applies to you as well: your opprobrium is a sublime and subtle perfume.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Oh, no doubt we "did' something. What we really got out of it is the debatable part for me. I think we could have accomplished what we did without the loss of lives, not to mention the money, by other means.

I think this is a fair debate to undertake. One key accomplishment of the Iraqi war is something that is not widely discussed. Iraq was part of the original Caliphate, and as such is very sacred to Islam. Up until the Iraqi invasion, the Islamic extremists were waging asymmetrical warfare against the west in general and the USA in particular. And by most accounts, fairly successfully. They struck when they wanted and where they wanted. No particular country was responsible for any of these attacks.That made retaliation very problematical.

This meant we were faced with several choices, none good. One was to continue along the same trajectory of defense. This was largely unsatisfying, as we were fighting them on their terms. They were attacking civilians and we had few targets to attack. When they bombed the US Cole, who could we attack? Same with many, many attacks against US targets.

Another option was to try and smoke them out. Make them show themselves and force them to attack our military in a foreign country, rather than continue to suffer attacks against civilians on our own soil and against civilian targets. Make them fight us on our terms rather than on their terms. We knew we could win those conflicts.

I think the Iraq war was waged to accomplish a lot of things, and one of them was to force Islamic terrorists to defend an original member of the Caliphate. Thye were forced to show themselves. They had to wage a ground war against the full might of the US military. And in doing so, they got their collective asses kicked, especially after the Anbar Awakening allowed the USA forces to to team up with various Iraqi tribes to form a coalition against the terrorists.. And I think the Iraq war was largely successful in this regard.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The Palestinians were not forced to leave.

If that's what you believe, you're completely detached from any and all reality of what took place.

[jack]

The Iraq war was unfunded and damaged the U.S. economy with the deficits in later years. Politically it was a disaster not to mention the lives lost and other collateral damage to all sides.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

If that's what you believe, you're completely detached from any and all reality of what took place.

Then how does one explain 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs that are Israeli citizens and currently live in Israel.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I think this is a fair debate to undertake. One key accomplishment of the Iraqi war is something that is not widely discussed. Iraq was part of the original Caliphate, and as such is very sacred to Islam. Up until the Iraqi invasion, the Islamic extremists were waging asymmetrical warfare against the west in general and the USA in particular. And by most accounts, fairly successfully. They struck when they wanted and where they wanted. No particular country was responsible for any of these attacks.That made retaliation very problematical.

This meant we were faced with several choices, none good. One was to continue along the same trajectory of defense. This was largely unsatisfying, as we were fighting them on their terms. They were attacking civilians and we had few targets to attack. When they bombed the US Cole, who could we attack? Same with many, many attacks against US targets.

Another option was to try and smoke them out. Make them show themselves and force them to attack our military in a foreign country, rather than continue to suffer attacks against civilians on our own soil and against civilian targets. Make them fight us on our terms rather than on their terms. We knew we could win those conflicts.

I think the Iraq war was waged to accomplish a lot of things, and one of them was to force Islamic terrorists to defend an original member of the Caliphate. Thye were forced to show themselves. They had to wage a ground war against the full might of the US military. And in doing so, they got their collective asses kicked, especially after the Anbar Awakening allowed the USA forces to to team up with various Iraqi tribes to form a coalition against the terrorists.. And I think the Iraq war was largely successful in this regard.

Sorry, but I don't agree with your connection to reduced chance of attacks due to an invasion of Iraq. For every Jihadist we eliminated there is a good chance we created 3 more. I also don't agree with the "flypaper theory" that was espoused at the time and see it as just another justification for an unnecessary invasion. These terrorists were not then nor are they now grouped in any one area. We can see that by the countries the 9/11 hijackers originated from. Heck, 15 of them were from a country we are supposed to be friendly with. Add that to various countries where they are still operating and any claim to having reduced their numbers by an invasion of Iraq does not have a solid enough basis to be provable.

Here's the real bottom line to the invasion. We invaded under certain pretexts such as WMDs and Sadaam being an imminent threat to the region along with his support for terrorism. When the weapons were not found and we found out how fast his military crumbled it was necessary to run damage control. This was accomplished by coming up with any number of viable sounding alternative reasons we invaded. His giving money to those who attacked Israel would never have been enough in itself to sell the war to the American people. The ties to terrorism were lumped into the original reasons but once again this would not have been enough on its own unless there had been a clearly established link that he funded, or helped train, the 9/11 hijackers.

I believe we could make an equally strong claim that the downfall of Gadaffi lent nearly as strong a blow to terrorist since it was well documented there were training camps throughout Libya and he was providing funding for them. However compare the loss of lives and cost of defeating Gadaffi to what we it cost us to depose Sadaam and there is really no comparison.

Politicians by nature do what is necessary to cover their butts and this is not limited to either party.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Sorry, but I don't agree with your connection to reduced chance of attacks due to an invasion of Iraq. For every Jihadist we eliminated there is a good chance we created 3 more.

Lots of people thought that might happen in Iraq. Josh Marshall at TPM was a chief proponent of it at the time. There is not much evidence that it happened though

I also don't agree with the "flypaper theory" that was espoused at the time and see it as just another justification for an unnecessary invasion. These terrorists were not then nor are they now grouped in any one area. We can see that by the countries the 9/11 hijackers originated from. Heck, 15 of them were from a country we are supposed to be friendly with. Add that to various countries where they are still operating and any claim to having reduced their numbers by an invasion of Iraq does not have a solid enough basis to be provable.

Not being "from" a country is not the same thing as going to a country to try and defend it from westerners.

The terrorists that were killed in Iraq were from all parts of the Islamic world. Hence the "flypaper" strategy.

Here's the real bottom line to the invasion. We invaded under certain pretexts such as WMDs and Sadaam being an imminent threat to the region along with his support for terrorism.

WMDs was only one of many,many reasons given in the joint resolution to invade Iraq that Congress passed.

When the weapons were not found and we found out how fast his military crumbled it was necessary to run damage control. This was accomplished by coming up with any number of viable sounding alternative reasons we invaded.

Again, go back and review the joint resolution that passed in the fall of 2003, several months before the attacks. WMDs were most certainly NOT the only reason for the invasion codified there.

[HALLGATOR]

I respect the opinion of you and others who post on this but I've argued this thing too many times to have a change of heart on how I see it. As I said earlier it is in the past and no amount of discussion will ever bring any of our soldiers back nor will it restore any of the money we spent. I just hope that we are not so fast to mount an invasion of Iran although I do believe we have many in this country who would be in favor of it. I, however, am not one of those.

[Minister_of_Information]

There's a reason the historians wait about 50 years before they rewrite history into something more objective.

One other observation: the intuitive sense, or really hope, that the status quo hasn't killed us yet and therefore isn't likely to kill us in the future leads us to prefer complacency and inaction over foresight and prevention, and this is the precise attitude that prefigured 9-11. Hope is not a plan.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Then how does one explain 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs that are Israeli citizens and currently live in Israel.

A huge number of them are essentially dislocated and living as almost permanent refugees after having been forced out of their homes and villages to make way for Israeli settlements and security perimeters. They've been ethnically cleansed from many areas as well and pushed into smaller and smaller pockets surrounded by walls and armed guards.

You're free to spin it any way you, but the facts won't change. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced off their land and out of their homes to make way for the State of Israel. Those who resisted were killed outright or put into camps.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

A huge number of them are essentially dislocated and living as almost permanent refugees after having been forced out of their homes and villages to make way for Israeli settlements and security perimeters. They've been ethnically cleansed from many areas as well and pushed into smaller and smaller pockets surrounded by walls and armed guards.

You're free to spin it any way you, but the facts won't change. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced off their land and out of their homes to make way for the State of Israel. Those who resisted were killed outright or put into camps.

This is false.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

There's a reason the historians wait about 50 years before they rewrite history into something more objective.

One other observation: the intuitive sense, or really hope, that the status quo hasn't killed us yet and therefore isn't likely to kill us in the future leads us to prefer complacency and inaction over foresight and prevention, and this is the precise attitude that prefigured 9-11. Hope is not a plan.

In other words, forgo the non-aggression principle and just make aggressive, "preventive" warfare the foundation of your foreign policy. Or something like that.