Iraq: The inevitable war

[Garbarsardar]

What? Another Iraq thread?

I'm afraid so. You see one main issue with this war or any war were the justifications presented and the manner those were presented in.
Yesterday the New York Times published a very interesting memo.

What? another memo?

Well not exactly. This time it is a memo based on the transcript of a meeting between Blair and Bush. This time it is not "unnamed sources" or "high ranking officials" it is the leaders themselves.

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

January 31 2003. Let us first insert this date on the war timeline.

February 5 2003
Colin Powell uses satellite photographs, tapes of intercepted conversations and newly opened CIA files to make the United States case against Iraq in a determined attempt to win over international opinion.

February 9 2003
The US reacts furiously to a Franco-German peace initiative to triple the number of arms inspectors in Iraq and back them up with surveillance flights. The Bush administration sees it as a thinly-disguised attempt to derail the US timetable for war.

February 14 2003
Hans Blix gives his latest report on Iraqi compliance with resolution 1441 to the UN security council, surprising the members with a more upbeat assessment of the pace of Iraq's disarmament than had been expected. The report, which lists examples of Iraqi compliance with the inspectors, thus failing to provide any clear casus belli, throws into confusion British and American plans to draft a new resolution mandating military action. It severely embarrasses Colin Powell by questioning the US intelligence on Iraqi munitions that he presented to the council earlier in the month.

February 27 2003
Saddam Hussein agrees 'in principle' to destroy his Samoud 2 missiles, discovered by weapons inspectors to break range limits set down by the UN. The US and Britain dismiss the concession as game-playing by the Iraqi leader.

March 6 2003
In a nationwide television address, the US president, George Bush, indicates that war is very close.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/...793802,00.html

So what do they say in this memo?

Bush:
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

"The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D,"

Blair
"If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Bush:
"The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten,"

"The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians." (Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime.) "Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."

And many more like this.

According to NY Times:

The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.

Great deal of work indeed.

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/in...ewanted=1&_r=1 (registration is free)

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Well, there's been speculation that this was the case for a while now. I guess this goes a long way to indicating that suspicions were indeed correct.

Unfortunately, this memo doesn't change the present conditions in Iraq, or make our future any more clear. I wish it did. There'll be plenty of time to blame those responsible when it's all over, but I think for now this memo will for the most part be ignored (and maybe because most people already assumed this was the case anyways).

Either way, I'd be pretty ashamed of both US and UK leadership at this point...

[Rhah]

The problem is, because its a "memo", no one will take it as established fact (even if the truth is staring them in the face).
One day, things like this will be used as evidence to bring those responsible for this mess to justice, but that could be a long way off.
Just look how long it took for the US to admit that the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" was a complete fabrication/misunderstanding! (which ever way you want to look at it.), and by the time they admitted it, no one cared anyway.

[IamthePope]

The problem is, because its a "memo", no one will take it as established fact (even if the truth is staring them in the face).
One day, things like this will be used as evidence to bring those responsible for this mess to justice

Wow, this really is a non-issue. The only thing future historians will glean from this document is the preparedness and foresight of the Bush Administration. Iraq will be seen as an Anglo-American triumph with a profound impact on the future of the Middle east.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Wow, this really is a non-issue. The only thing future historians will glean from this document is the preparedness and foresight of the Bush Administration. Iraq will be seen as an Anglo-American triumph with a profound impact on the future of the Middle east.

Man, that must be some good weed you have there. I don't mean to be offensive, but how can one person be so naive?

The man (Bush) was openly suggesting manufacturing a cause to go to war with Iraq in case a REAL one could not be found (or the American people didn't buy into the line they were toting). So hey, let's put some U2 pilots at risk by having them get shot at, then we can invade on that pretext. Support the military, my ass...

[Tom Paine]

Wow, this really is a non-issue. The only thing future historians will glean from this document is the preparedness and foresight of the Bush Administration. Iraq will be seen as an Anglo-American triumph with a profound impact on the future of the Middle east.

Right, of course.... they'll glean that from it will they? Only if they aren't... what's that word... analysing it at all!

[Ahlerich]

Wow, this really is a non-issue. The only thing future historians will glean from this document is the preparedness and foresight of the Bush Administration. Iraq will be seen as an Anglo-American triumph with a profound impact on the future of the Middle east.

you know i really think that could be true. not historians in the world of course but historians in amercia and history teachers in america might even refer to it like that.
i mean most americans view of the world ends at amercias boarders so this view of the war might even be accepted in america after a little more brainwash

[Sidus Preclarum]

Wow, this really is a non-issue. The only thing future historians will glean from this document is the preparedness and foresight of the Bush Administration. Iraq will be seen as an Anglo-American triumph with a profound impact on the future of the Middle east.

I'll take the presence of the smiley at the end as an indication of the use of heavy sarcasm. It's better be, for your sake ...
After Ho Chi Minh (let's give him weapons, he's not really a communist, he'll help us against the Japanese), Ossama (Ditto, he'll help us against the COmmunists), what the future historians will see, will *yet again* an occasion to quote Goethe about the foreign strategy of the USA:
"Die ich rief, die Geister werd ich nun nicht los."

[Garbarsardar]

I'll take the presence of the smiley at the end as an indication of the use of heavy sarcasm. It's better be, for your sake ...
After Ho Chi Minh (let's give him weapons, he's not really a communist, he'll help us against the Japanese), Ossama (Ditto, he'll help us against the COmmunists), what the future historians will see, will *yet again* an occasion to quote Goethe about the foreign strategy of the USA:
"Die ich rief, die Geister werd ich nun nicht los."

"The ghosts I called, I can't get rid of now"

[Denny Crane!]

Does the USA have a freedom of information act like Britain?

Edit: .->?

Peter

[The Fish]

It's terrible that nearly 2,400 American troops have been killed in Iraq, not to mention the thousands of Americans injured and countless Iraqis killed, for what is essentially an experiment meant to test neo-conservative theories about the Middle East. That's why I don't understand the "support our troops" bunch who think questioning the war is tantamount to treason. What greater disrespect for the military is there than sending soldiers to die without an airtight, clear imperative? I think the soldiers, sailors, and Marines are too valuable to simply send to Iraq in the absence of a clear threat, and without a clear plan of action.

[PacSubCom]

Everybody around here knew that the Iraq War was bogus the minute Colin Powell started speaking before the United Nations. It was so pathetic. You could see it in the faces of the assembly. He won over nobody with that show.

How could Powell get down so low? Because he's a *****. In every sense of the word, a *****. I know I do real prostitutes a disservice with that statement.

[crazyj]

I'd like to think that Bush didn't decide to invade Iraq on a whim made moments before the actual invasion. In fact, for all the talk about how "unprepared" we were and how there was no plan, it seems the opposite is true. Much deliberation went on, over a year, as to what we should do. The consesus was Iraq. And I'd also prefer having a leader who is making decisions based on the the intel he gets every day, and is unwilling to let corrupt European economic ties with Iraq (of an illegal nature) undermine a decision he felt was just.

So go ahead and pretend that awareness in the administration that we might have to act without a billionth UN resolution, three months before the invasion, is proof of some evil conspiracy.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

In fact, for all the talk about how "unprepared" we were and how there was no plan, it seems the opposite is true.

There was plenty of planning for the invasion. It was the aftermath and occupation that was woefully planned.

Much deliberation went on, over a year, as to what we should do. The consesus was Iraq.

There was a pretence at 'deliberation'. As this and plenty of other evidence indicates, the decision had been made long before. That year was partially spent preparing militarially and partially spent softening the American public up with the 'WMDs' hysteria and desperate attempts to link an invasion of Iraq with the 'War on Terror' by all means necessary.

And I'd also prefer having a leader who is making decisions based on the the intel he gets every day,

Yes, that would be good. Unfortunately, what you had in 2002-03 was a President who was being fed information that fitted with what he wanted to hear, with inconvenient counter-information being carefully filtered out. Do some searches on 'cherry picking' or 'politicization of intelligence' for details.

and is unwilling to let corrupt European economic ties with Iraq (of an illegal nature) undermine a decision he felt was just.

I hope you aren't going to try to fly that 'the French sold arms to Saddam in breach of the UN embargo' nonsense. Several Bushwhackers have tried that garbage over the last 18 months and it gets a bit tiring having to shoot them down in flames every time.

So go ahead and pretend that awareness in the administration that we might have to act without a billionth UN resolution, three months before the invasion, is proof of some evil conspiracy.

How about the evidence that Bush wanted to 'make this happen' about a year before 9/11? This is just another piece of a whole pile of evidence that the tap-dancing show the Bush Administration put on the lead up to the invasion was a total charade.

[crazyj]

There was plenty of planning for the invasion. It was the aftermath and occupation that was woefully planned.

Right, like the bloody bushwhacking in Missouri and in the South in general for decades following the Civil War, with groups like the KKK being no more than ex Confeds who were taken out of power and didn't want blacks to vote, could have been prevented if the Republicans hadn't "woefully planned" Reconstruction eh?

There was a pretence at 'deliberation'. As this and plenty of other evidence indicates, the decision had been made long before. That year was partially spent preparing militarially and partially spent softening the American public up with the 'WMDs' hysteria and desperate attempts to link an invasion of Iraq with the 'War on Terror' by all means necessary.

No, there WAS deliberation. You see, when government officials debate a course of action, some in favor of hitting Pakistan, some Saudi Arabia, some Iraq, some Iran, and then they reach a mutual decision by choosing the least worst out of a list of horrible options, you can call it a pretense. Thats why you'll never make a useful public official. WMD hysteria?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...9/133526.shtml
http://www.plastic.com/article.html;...1090845;cmt=87 --- even Jon Stewart got it
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/Iraq/060221a.asp

Yes, that would be good. Unfortunately, what you had in 2002-03 was a President who was being fed information that fitted with what he wanted to hear, with inconvenient counter-information being carefully filtered out. Do some searches on 'cherry picking' or 'politicization of intelligence' for details.

He was being fed the same information as every other world leader going back over a decade. Call that cherry picking if you want. Must be in a cherry orchard.

I hope you aren't going to try to fly that 'the French sold arms to Saddam in breach of the UN embargo' nonsense. Several Bushwhackers have tried that garbage over the last 18 months and it gets a bit tiring having to shoot them down in flames every time.

Well, there is the illegal arms sales. More important, the corrupt Oil for Food scandal. http://www.slate.com/id/2111195/ and various other oil deals http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...323967,00.html

How about the evidence that Bush wanted to 'make this happen' about a year before 9/11? This is just another piece of a whole pile of evidence that the tap-dancing show the Bush Administration put on the lead up to the invasion was a total charade.

This "whole pile of evidence" exists in your fevered imagination. And to be frank, I couldn't care if Clinton wanted to "make it happen" a decade before 9/11. Why shouldn't we depose Saddam? He was openly hostile and a danger to the region and his own people.

Please, if this was about oil it would have taken one phone call "Hey Saddam, turn on the oil spigots are the sanctions are lifted" "Really? You got it buddy" And its funny that you don't consider Saddams attempted assassination of GHWB (as a former president) as indicative of his hostility towards the U.S. Or, that all those tapes talking where Saddam talks about hiding his WMDs, terrorism hitting America, and essentially how the U.S. can't blame anyone because "anyone can build these weapons" isn't indicative of his thoughtful consideration for ways to support terrorists while being able to claim non complicity. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Inve...ory?id=1616996
Go ahead and think that Saddam saying ""In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it." "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

Funny, you take the same interpretation as other dunderheads. You think "nukes are coming" but "not from us of course" means he'd "never do such a thing" rather than mean any number of possible other scenarios. You think they'd sit there talking about how they have perfect deniability because the weapons in question can be, arguably, made by random folks? That is spending a lot of time worrying about something that in theory they shouldn't even be considering. Why would Saddam dwell on terrorist attacks against American and its allies if they would be "news to him" considering that he'd never plan or be behind them? Some people think that means he'd hand off precisely those weapons, because he's already worked on his alibi and thought through different consequential scenarios.

Oh well, no point reasoning with you, you are immune. It wouldn't matter at this point if we found Osama saying "I got weapons from Saddam" you'd simply say its just another part of the conspiracy, we forced him to, he's working for us, etc.

[Sher Khan]

Right, like the bloody bushwhacking in Missouri and in the South in general for decades following the Civil War, with groups like the KKK being no more than ex Confeds who were taken out of power and didn't want blacks to vote, could have been prevented if the Republicans hadn't "woefully planned" Reconstruction eh?

Who knows. Maybe? Doesn't matter either way. In both cases, there was a lack of a totally successful plan to restabilize the country.

No, there WAS deliberation. You see, when government officials debate a course of action, some in favor of hitting Pakistan, some Saudi Arabia, some Iraq, some Iran, and then they reach a mutual decision by choosing the least worst out of a list of horrible options, you can call it a pretense. Thats why you'll never make a useful public official. WMD hysteria?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...9/133526.shtml
http://www.plastic.com/article.html;...1090845;cmt=87 --- even Jon Stewart got it
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/Iraq/060221a.asp

You should have a source to support the argument you just made about government officials debating on a course of action, or this kind of arguing back and forth is fruitless.

Also, please refrain from attacking your fellow TWC member like that.

As for the url links, the chemical link to Iraq from Amman, Jordan is speculative for now, Georges Sada's testimonial is second-hand unverified information, and it'd be great to see the arguments made in the last url to be used in a good debate.

Please, if this was about oil it would have taken one phone call "Hey Saddam, turn on the oil spigots are the sanctions are lifted" "Really? You got it buddy" And its funny that you don't consider Saddams attempted assassination of GHWB (as a former president) as indicative of his hostility towards the U.S. Or, that all those tapes talking where Saddam talks about hiding his WMDs, terrorism hitting America, and essentially how the U.S. can't blame anyone because "anyone can build these weapons" isn't indicative of his thoughtful consideration for ways to support terrorists while being able to claim non complicity. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Inve...ory?id=1616996

They're more indicative of his hostility to American only. He only supports terrorism as long as they hit his political enemies and not him or his allies. His talks about terrorism hitting America isn't something unnatural for the Middle East.

He has no love for terrorists (they're like Kurds to him, a menace to his rule), but nothing against seeing two enemies duke it out.

Go ahead and think that Saddam saying ""In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it." "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

Every self-respecting dictator, fanatical cleric, mujahideen guerrilla, and his mother knows this. This is Saddam and his crew speculating on the weaknesses of an enemy state much to powerful to confront outright. It's not indicative of any action, however. I don't trust the word of Saddam, but that's just me.

Funny, you take the same interpretation as other dunderheads. You think "nukes are coming" but "not from us of course" means he'd "never do such a thing" rather than mean any number of possible other scenarios. You think they'd sit there talking about how they have perfect deniability because the weapons in question can be, arguably, made by random folks? That is spending a lot of time worrying about something that in theory they shouldn't even be considering. Why would Saddam dwell on terrorist attacks against American and its allies if they would be "news to him" considering that he'd never plan or be behind them? Some people think that means he'd hand off precisely those weapons, because he's already worked on his alibi and thought through different consequential scenarios.

Or that he enjoys the idea of seeing America writhe in pain after an attack. He also knows that he's not the only gunrunner in the desert who'd like to see the U.S. take a hit like that. Interpret what he says however you'd like. It's only indicative of intent and malice, but not action.

Oh well, no point reasoning with you, you are immune. It wouldn't matter at this point if we found Osama saying "I got weapons from Saddam" you'd simply say its just another part of the conspiracy, we forced him to, he's working for us, etc.

Saddam wouldn't openly give bin Laden anything. It'll only happen in a roundabout exchange, such as the current thought of Iraq --> Syria --> Al Qaeda.

The two are not on friendly terms whatsoever.

[crazyj]

Who knows. Maybe? Doesn't matter either way. In both cases, there was a lack of a totally successful plan to restabilize the country.

Nothing is ever totally successful. Ever hear the phrase that the best laid plans don't survive contact with the enemy?

You should have a source to support the argument you just made about government officials debating on a course of action, or this kind of arguing back and forth is fruitless.

I suggest you read "America's Secret War" by the founder of Stratfor. Good book. Or read others written by members of the intelligence community. The nature of that debate was no different than the one over troop numbers, invasion strategies, etc. In real life, it isn't Bush saying "GO" and everyone dragging their heels but rather actual professionals deciding what is the best, or least worst, option to take. Just as Eric Shinseki (hidebound conventional Army anti-Spec ops type)wanted an insane number of troops in Iraq, most of the Joint Chiefs were in favor of a "small footprint" approach believing that the fewer troops the fewer targets, fewer outrages, etc. Yet all that gets put on one man. Same thing for Iraq itself.

Besides, governments always debate on courses of action. Its why the Prez picks a Cabinet, and is the nature of democracy itself. Can't please everybody all the time, just some people some of the time.

As for the url links, the chemical link to Iraq from Amman, Jordan is speculative for now, Georges Sada's testimonial is second-hand unverified information, and it'd be great to see the arguments made in the last url to be used in a good debate.

The chemical link IS speculative of course (without WMDs saying "made by Saddam" on them in our hands) but has been reaffirmed by David Kay, Charles Duelfler (sp?), and others including several generals and ex KGB agents. How many need to say it before it becomes fact and not speculation? Or is that only possible if we find the aforementioned labels or Saddam 'fesses up?

They're more indicative of his hostility to American only. He only supports terrorism as long as they hit his political enemies and not him or his allies. His talks about terrorism hitting America isn't something unnatural for the Middle East. He has no love for terrorists (they're like Kurds to him, a menace to his rule), but nothing against seeing two enemies duke it out.

Indeed, they ARE indicative of his hostility to Americans. And you are right, he supports terrorism so long as they hit his enemies. Just like how the Sauds, Assad, etc. have all been at different times both financiers of and enemies of terrorists. That was the worrisome situation with Saddam, and he'd be very happy to cripple the U.S. via supplying al-Qaeda with WMDs. Why? Because if he can diminish our power, and ability to project it, he becomes a lot more secure and can THEN slaughter as many terrorists, innocents, enemies, etc. as he likes free of any "meddling."

And they aren't a menace to his rule provided they have a mutual understanding. Saddam didn't add "God is Great" in Arabic to the Iraqi flag in the mid 90's for nothing. He was a canny political player. And it is PRECISELY because he has nothing against seeing two enemies duke it out that U.S. security feared his arming of proxies, namely al-Qaeda or others, so as to create that very scenario.

Every self-respecting dictator, fanatical cleric, mujahideen guerrilla, and his mother knows this. This is Saddam and his crew speculating on the weaknesses of an enemy state much to powerful to confront outright. It's not indicative of any action, however. I don't trust the word of Saddam, but that's just me.

If they are too powerful to confront outright, what then? Maybe use third party proxies whose ideologies make the perfect alibi for him? I don't trust him either, and neither did GWB.

Or that he enjoys the idea of seeing America writhe in pain after an attack. He also knows that he's not the only gunrunner in the desert who'd like to see the U.S. take a hit like that. Interpret what he says however you'd like. It's only indicative of intent and malice, but not action.

So we should blindly hope someone who has made his intent and malice quite clear won't resort to action? Does attempting the assassination of GWHB count as action? But more precisely, action is exactly what GWB sought to prevent by attacking first, so that (as Condi said) our first warning wasn't a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.

Saddam wouldn't openly give bin Laden anything. It'll only happen in a roundabout exchange, such as the current thought of Iraq --> Syria --> Al Qaeda.

Indeed, like through ansar al Islam to al-Qaeda, or through the Sudanese, or through the Taliban, or through Abu Sayeff? These are the scenarios of GWB's nightmares.

The two are not on friendly terms whatsoever.

Friendship has nothing to do with it. Saddam wasn't on friendly terms with anyone, he was paranoid monster who idolized Josef Stalin and who executed members of his own family. And I am on a loop track I realize, but neither Stalin nor Hitler were friends with each other when they divvied up Poland, and we certainly weren't friends with Stalin when we made a devil's bargain in order to save Europe from Germany. Friendship is the least of all their currencies; its about opportunity, timing, and deception to these guys.

[IamthePope]

one of the interesting things about long military build-ups in preparation for a large war is that at a certain point it becomes politically and economically inconveinient to "cancel the war".

[Ahiga]

""The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.""

Would this be true. I ask if it's so much a trait of balony for someone to question the given nature of 9-11.

Regardless, it is sadly not a great suprise. War's have been since the dawn of civilization fought for less than obvious reasons of threat or invasion.

Roman's used the Carthaginian's acting in Spain as context for a second punic war.
Saladin used a conflict of Muslim and Christian civilians as a context for invasion.
And quite possibly, Bush and Blair follow in this footstep with the concept of using the U-2 Spyplane as context for an invasion.
And to some, 9-11 was a context for which two invasions, potentially more, could be mounted, a Government could pass a the Patriot Act, and could commit actions for years to come in the name of a cause which will never, ever, be finished.

Do not debate the conspiracy itself here. Place that debate in the topic desigend for it, if it hasn't been locked already.

[crazyj]

Wouldn't say that makes them friends, just classic military strategy of divide and conquer, or of playing two enemies off one another. We kept "helping" whoever seemed closest to losing, because we wanted neither to win. Also, Saddam was a relative unknown in 1982, but the fact that he was the opposite of the hard line clerics in Tehran encouraged the State Dept. to think that he may become one of the "better" dictators who would eventually help civilize/democratize Iraq.

Is it necessary for me to post the Yalta pic? The world is a messy place my friend.

Good post tho.