October 14, 2003
Notable Read
George W Bush decided (or perhaps it is fairer to say the neocons decided for him) to wage war on Iraq right after 9/11. In the lead up to the war, the anti-war movement went from almost nothing to an incredible force that spanned the globe. Many people that opposed the war warned that the consequences of this preemptive war would be dangerous for American in two significant ways:
- The idea of America would be seriously hurt -- a country founded on the rule of law which by waging war preemptively would seriously damage the rule of law so carefully crafted during the last century.
- Americans would be more endangered by terrorism since we would bogged down in a country that had not been associated with fundamentalist Islamic terrorism but now might become the talisman for terrorism against Americans for generations.
Well, a mere six months after George W Bush declared war, we find that both of these predictions have come true.
Here is a powerful piece about the consequences of the war by Professor George Hunsinger, an eloquent anti-war writer, with some recommendations about what we can do now.
Posted by Mary at October 14, 2003 02:38 AM | TrackBackThe good professor is not alone. Andy Rooney tends to agree:
When the president spoke at the United Nations, he came off as arrogant and it made all of us seem arrogant. We are a little arrogant, of course, and we ought to watch that.The United States can't force its ideas on the whole world. We have great military power and a store of nuclear and biological weapons that would send us running to the U.N. for help if any other country had as many.
The trouble with our weapons is they don't work against one terrorist with a jar of anthrax or a religious nut with a truckload of dynamite. We're wasting our money on weapons we can't use.
The president made the mistake though of deciding to attack anyway and now we have to live with that mistake. We're living with it and too many of our guys are dying with it.
I hope we remain the strongest country in the world but it isn't a sure thing that we'll always be what we are today. Look what's happened to Great Britain, France, and Germany. They aren't what they were. Things change in the world. It could happen to us - may be happening.
Amen to this!
Posted by: pessimist on October 14, 2003 12:42 PMAt the BBC today, this report on forged letters from US troops:
A series of letters supposedly written by US troops in Iraq detailing their successes in the country were all written by their commander, it has emerged.What I find amazing is that anyone was stupid enough to think this claptrap was convincing. Posted by: James R MacLean on October 14, 2003 03:32 PMThe publication of the letters, in several US newspapers, comes as the Bush administration has stepped up efforts to win over an American public increasingly sceptical of its handling of the situation in Iraq.
[...]
Editors became suspicious when they noticed the letters had identical phrases even though they were signed by different soldiers.
"After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, into the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city," read one line.
If you look at the times that Clinton attacked Iraq, you will find that to some extent, they came in the aftermath of Al Qaeda attacks. I think your government has suspected that Iraq was behind Al Qaeda from the beginning, but for whatever reasons, chose not to advertise this. So I doubt that Gore would have been very different to Bush on this score.
Posted by: mitch on October 14, 2003 09:06 PMThe likelihood that a Democrat would have gone into Iraq with nearly the whole world against us and a pack of Republicans sniffing for any signs of political opportunism are slim indeed.
Also, if Clinton had proof that Iraq was connected in any way, he'd have no doubt pulled it out to protect himself from the charges that he was only focused an Al-Qaida to distract people from the Starr circus. A charge that Republicans made repeatedly, and must have taken seriously enough to completely ignore the organization until 9-11.
In short, and to sum up, that's the most improbable thing I've heard all week. OTOH, I haven't been spending much time at the Corner. This is just the latest PNAC cover for what they wanted to do all along, invade Iraq, come hell or high water. The Republicans in the White House messed up big time, because they let themselves believe all the BS think-tank PR they cobbled up to sell this to the public, end of story.
Posted by: natasha on October 15, 2003 01:41 AMI think partisan politics is epiphenomenal here, although the impeachment cannot have helped things. And this isn't an NRO talking point, it's just little ol' me guessing at the big picture. But here are the striking facts:
1) The 1993 attempt to bomb the WTC was understood as a conspiracy within NYC's Islamist milieu. Using an informant, the FBI ran a sting, engineering a second conspiracy, then publicly busting it (it was on the front page of the New York Times). Two *days* afterwards, Clinton bombed Iraqi intelligence headquarters, citing an attempt to assassinate Bush Sr in Kuwait two months earlier.
2) In February 1995, the WTC93 mastermind Ramzi Yousef is apprehended in Pakistan, having attempted to run a massive new plot ("Bojinka") from the Philippines. One month later, the CIA is in northern Iraq, trying to run a rebellion (as reported in Robert Baer's book).
3) The African embassies were bombed in August 1998, two days after Iraq announced the suspension of cooperation with UNSCOM weapons inspectors. A few months later they were allowed to operate again, then they were withdrawn again, and Clinton ran "Operation Desert Fox".
4) September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda manages to destroy the WTC. September 12, 2002, Bush uses the first anniversary to give a speech at the UN focusing on ... Iraq, a speech which begins the process ending in the war.
These are the outstanding occasions in which an Al Qaeda attack on the USA was followed by a US attack on Iraq. There may have been others.
Posted by: mitch on October 15, 2003 04:45 AMNo, Mitch, it's not partisan politics. Most of us--certainly Natasha, Mary and I--have condemned American use of force in previous administrations (including Democrat ones). We recognize there is a tradition in our foreign policy of very widespread, systemic abuse of power.
Add to that the fact that the POTUS is heavily dependent upon a huge bureacracy to supply him with information. They can indeed feed him complete rubbish, and under normal circumstances he'll never be the wiser. Yes, I would agree that the president should spend more energy fixing this, but I have to make do with presidents who are likely to be elected.
But Mitch, the invasion of Iraq was something different. The operation was almost eclipsed in magnitude by the highly coordinated scheme to delude tens of millions of Americans, to bribe foreign leaders with billions, and so on. This was the overriding concern of all White House officials, possibly before the 9/11/01 attacks.
So whereas Clinton might at worst have been a passive recipient of insidiously motivated advice, this group has been entirely dedicated to turning the entire civil service upside down get its war. They have staked everything, such as fiscal sanity, our alliances, or personal freedom--on this grand design. No Mitch, there is no way you will convince me that Al Gore would have done such a thing.
Posted by: James R MacLean on October 15, 2003 05:44 AM