On Iraq, Hitchens Spells Out the Obvious
Iraq
| May 22, 2005
| Tim
Before the Iraq war, I was swayed by claims of Iraqi suffering brought by sanctions from the left. My own reasoning, as I recounted recently, was that there were two ways out of that situation:
Noam Chomsky argued the sanctions killed 50,000 children a month. I don't know whether to believe old Noam or not, but the left does, and if so, then the sanctions were incredibly immoral (I opposed them too), and resuming the conflict was the only way out, and even more of a life-saver than I suggest above -- unless we wanted to go back to "life as usual" with an unfettered Saddam.
[Correction: I should have written "50,000 a children a year." Wrong unit.]
As an aside to his verbal wrestling with George Galloway, "trotskyite" Christopher Hitchens makes the same (obvious) point, but goes further, talking about it's moral implications for "the left" -- who were his peers and fellow travellers at the time:
It was said during the time of sanctions on that long-suffering country that the embargo was killing, or had killed, as many as a million people, many of them infants. Give credit to the accusers here. Some of the gravamen of the charge must be true. Add the parasitic regime to the sanctions, over 12 years, and it is clear that the suffering of average Iraqis must have been inordinate.
There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded, or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a price to pay for relief from sanctions.
Let me phrase this another way: Those who had alleged that a million civilians were dying from sanctions were willing, nay eager, to keep those same murderous sanctions if it meant preserving Saddam! This is repellent enough in itself. If the Saddam regime was cheating its terrified people of food and medicine in order to finance its own propaganda, that would perhaps be in character. But if it were to be discovered that any third parties had profited from the persistence of "sanctions plus regime," prolonging the agony and misery thanks to personal connections, then one would have to become quite judgmental.
The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things (apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the life of a fascist government). First, the antiwar forces never asked the Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called internationalism. Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle East. Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the "war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism. Fourth, and as mentioned, their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most inexpensive hypocrisy.
It shocked me to hear "But the sanctions were working!" from the same crowd who had just finished selling me on their total immorality and inhumanity, -- making it clear that some other motivation had underlay such protests.
I don't know if you've had the chance to see McNamara's documentary. Unlike Hitch, he's been there done that.
After having a long time to reflect on the Vietnam War fiasco former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had a few lessons to share. He is still no peacenik, but today he realizes:
- We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
- We viewed the people and leaders of Vietnam[and I'd say Iraq - dk] in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
- We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
- Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
- We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
- We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.
- After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
- We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
- We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
- We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
It's not such a neat and tidy "yes" or "no" situation as Hitch would allude to. And when you do it, you've got to do it right.
Dave,
My impression about McNamara (and the Johnson administration as whole) is that he tended to interpret the current conflict in terms of older ones. You seem to be doing the same thing here.
For example, you write: "[W]e failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action."
To apply such a statement to the current Iraq conflict seems completely ludicrious to me. The topic was debated in public extensively throughout the 90's. And even if we imagine the clock started ticking at 9/11/2001, that's still over a year.
Johnson and company didn't fail to have a debate about whether Communism should be checked militarily in Asia -- that had been going on since the Korean war, and the idea had wide, wide public support (even in the final days of the war). What Johnson failed to do was explain what they were doing, why, and what the requirements were going to be. Instead, he constantly minimized the cost of the war as it was, apparently, a distraction from his "Great Society" programs.
In contrast, as I recall, Bush frequently explained it would be a long, hard war. Since then, a number of revisionists (yourself, perhaps?) seem to be trying to recast that as an underselling of the difficulty.
Take this statement of yours, also: "Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders."
On a superficial level, it sounds wise and knowing to say such things. And in Iraq, there may be some cultural issue we've missed (be specific, please). But what were the specifics in Vietnam?
Johnson was playing "for a draw", thus Johnson and McNamara's policy was to fight the war to not win it -- surely one of the stupidest military decisions in history, undoubtedly. Why was this wrong? Because Viet Cong leadership were quite prepared to fight to the death of the very last man. Yet Johnson and McNamara blithely kept imagining that if they'd just bomb a little, and go to the negotiating table, and then ask: "Ready to quit?" that they'd get a "Yes" at some point. A more sensible directive approach would have been to try to win, including to kill or decapitate the leadership, and not try to "negotiate" peace with an implacable foe.
Again, I don't see any parallel with Iraq -- where we appear to be doing our best to smash Zarakawi, hammer and tongs, and already have Saddam in captivity -- but you're more than welcomed to explain what on earth you mean by this.
And here's another statement I view has horribly misguided: "We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action... should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community."
First, this is wrong because it presumes the international community (i.e. the UN) is capable of offering something other than cosmetic support. If Vietnam, and intervening history, hasn't taught you a lesson to the contrary, I don't know what could. North Vietnam broke every single promise made, and the UN -- as it did in Korea, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan, and countless other examples -- did precisely nothing.
Second, the implication seems to be that if we only had more support, something more than "cosmetic", from the UN, we would have won Vietnam. If so, I must say: Are you out of your mind?
Here's another: "After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course... we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did."
Actions in every war get us "off course." Often war, even in modern times, is inherantly a matter of flying by the seat of one's pants. Care to explain where we went "off course", or is this just more content-free cheerleading for those who already agree with your general sentiment?
Again: Where did the Bush administration not explain what we were doing so and why we were doing it? Look at the current action: "Operation Lightning." Was that not explained? Do you not understand the reasons? I felt it was and feel I do. Did you feel it wasn't explained why we went into the Sunni triangle, before that, or what we were trying to do? Did you not feel it was not adequqtely explained, at the start, why we only could enter from Kuwait, and not from Turkey, as we'd hoped? Or is your argument entirely bereft of meaningful examples?
And this statement is just odd: "We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values." It sounds like you think Zarkawi (or Saddam, or the Baathists) represent the desires of the average Iraqi. As far as I can see, such people are instead loathed by them. Unless you can submit evidence to the contrary -- that the "insurgents" represent the majority view of Iraqis and are supported by them -- it sounds to me like you may be confused about Iraqi "beliefs and values."
Or perhaps you mean, not that Zarkawi represents the Iraqi people, but that we don't understand he and others are willing to fight to the death for his beliefs, or that his beliefs are Wahabbi. Again, I'm pretty sure that's been noted. (At least outside the extreme ends of the political left.)
Another bizarre statement: "We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient." So you're saying that nobody stood up and said Bush might be making a mistake? What planet are you on? Further, even Rumsfeld often spoke, in this conflict, about the "fog of war". Look, I'm someone who supported the general idea, but I never imagined anyone in particular was 'omniscient'. Are you alleging I'm either lying, or some unusual exception?
Here's another item which seems to be a straw man (talk about simplifying the other side's argument!) "We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose. This is so far out as to be nearly incomprehensible.
To me, it looks like we were faced with a set of very tough choices about what to do with a few rogue nations who have officially sponsored terrorism and (in one case) used military force to attack other countries.
To you, apparently, our leaders just have some outlandish notion that every country in the world -- Poland, France, Mexico, India, Denmark -- are all mere putty in their hands, and they simply chose Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of some whim, as though there were no other distinguishing factors (like having invaded other countries, or having brought down the WTC) which could explain the difference.
I believe the legitimate argument being offered by your opponents is whether any country ever needs to be forcefully "reshaped". If not, please explain. Or if not Iraq, please explain. Or will you instead retreat to your more comfortable forest of straw men, false opponents who will instead pose you no intellectual threat?
In general, I see two recurring problems with your list of implications:
(1) Many of the points are superficial. As "wise", "moral" statements, they look good from 22,000 feet, but when you examine what the details mean, no meaningful parallels appear.
(2) You're trying to learn from an individual (McNamara) who seems to have great difficulties in doing just that. It took him thirty or more (since he's still clueless about some of his mistakes, from what I've seen in interviews) to learn the last set of lessons -- for the basic obvious lessons of the conflict in front of him to sink through his internal model. Why are you convinced he's not making the exact same mistake again, and seeing the present again in terms only of the past?
(3) Like many of the critics who post here, your argument seems long on knowing sighs, but short on actual specifics. A general rule must stand upon many illustrations. Yet here you imply a whole set of general rules are valid, and apply, without suggesting even a single specific example.
Finally, regarding your closing statement: Your argument "It's not such a neat and tidy 'yes' or 'no' situation as Hitch would allude to" seems like bit of another straw man.
There are many arguments offered on both sides of the debate. Hitchens is merely exposing some of those offered by his peers as being hypocritical. I didn't assume he meant the debate was closed -- nor that it was impossible that mistakes were made -- simply that the left had boxed themselves into a corner with their particular set of arguments.
You seem to be claiming his argument is a "simple yes or no". To me, it seems as like you are putting words in his mouth he hasn't said -- in essence, that it is you who are trying to oversimplify things. (Perhaps in order to dismiss his points out of hand?)
There are, of course, many remaining argument which can be brought against the Iraq war. (For example, radical pacifism.) But you'd, you know, have to bring them. It doesn't do to simply dismiss one specific retort (to an earlier specific argument) as merely the product of an insufficiently nuanced, informed worldview. You must also join the argument with specifics.
Thank you for replying to my post. I see you made considerable effort and must have spent a good amount of time.
You raised many questions and counter-arguments even though they be the run-of-the-mill variety.
I would be very happy to respond but I am so inhibited by my experience on the nature of blogs to the extent that I nearly conclude it is an utter waste of time.
Blogs are more suited for birds of a feather. "Liberals are stupid!" "Yeah, you're right!" "I agree." ...type of posts.
This, as opposed to laying out the contrary aspects of the subject and debating the facts.
My recent experience over at 1754blog.com was that when I began to demonstrate that some of his assumptions were not supported by facts he promptly ended the discussion.
I'm not saying this is the sole fault of conservative bloggers. There are a host of liberals who do the same and I have no interest in their sort of chest thumping either.
Consequently, these days blogs are beginning to be more blah than a forum of debate and a measure of ideas. A lot of this is due to the blog owners all powerful command over the situation.
At any moment he can announce a conclusion to serious debate with an "Obviously you are an idiot and furthermore stupid!" and close the entire discussion on this note to any further posts or replies.
If that is not enough, if he feels his ideology took a public thumping at the hands of a guest he can simply delete the entire record and evidence of any exchange of ideas taking place have vanished!
Although blogs are a recent and significant phenomena in the universe of communication, they are quickly becoming sterile with inbred thought and “me too’s!”
So on that note, I must respectfully decline your generous invitation to contribute to your blog except to, in closing, thank you for the magnificent compliment in attributing those quotes of Vietnam lessons to me. I apologize for some lack of clarity in my post that must have caused the error but those all came from McNamara, not me. But again, thank you. I am humbled at your compliment.
Best wishes,
Dave
Dave,
Thank you for replying to my post. I see you made considerable effort and must have spent a good amount of time.
I thought several days on your comment, trying to see if I agreed or not, and thinking about cases where you could be right or wrong, before responding. I may (and do) disagree with what you seem to be saying by posting that here, but I also *do* try to take your remarks seriously, and give them a serious response.
I would be very happy to respond but I am so inhibited by my experience on the nature of blogs to the extent that I nearly conclude it is an utter waste of time.
Perhaps that's something worth considering *before* appearing to open a discussion in good faith? If you can't finish something, don't start it. If you presume your opponent will only act in bad faith, do that before trying to draw him into a discussion, eh?
I would be very happy to respond but I am so inhibited by my experience on the nature of blogs to the extent that I nearly conclude it is an utter waste of time.
You seemed to feel uninhibited enough to type a rather lengthy explanation as to why you won't be typing a rather lengthy explanation.
Blogs are more suited for birds of a feather. "Liberals are stupid!" "Yeah, you're right!" "I agree." ...type of posts.
Not this one. On most topics, I'm the only conservative poster. There are no "conservative gangs" around here to clobber any liberals which wander here. And I don't censor views I disagree with.
(Unpopularity has its benefits. :-))
This, as opposed to laying out the contrary aspects of the subject and debating the facts.
I tend to like references to facts. You'll note that's pretty much what I'm asking for in response to your post.
My recent experience over at 1754blog.com was that when I began to demonstrate that some of his assumptions were not supported by facts he promptly ended the discussion.
That's unfortunate.
I'm not saying this is the sole fault of conservative bloggers. There are a host of liberals who do the same and I have no interest in their sort of chest thumping either.
I tend to get a lot of that here. Someone will cut & paste some rabid anti-Bush diatribe or something, and I'll do research and try to address it point by point, and then they'll say: "I just wanted to open up a dialog!" and run away, never to return.
(I'm not fanatically pro-Bush, but then again, I'm not especially pro-most-politicians. My criticisms just happen to be different than most liberals.)
At any moment he can announce a conclusion to serious debate with an "Obviously you are an idiot and furthermore stupid!" and close the entire discussion on this note to any further posts or replies... [etc]
I don't do that, Dave.
Although blogs are a recent and significant phenomena in the universe of communication, they are quickly becoming sterile with inbred thought and “me too’s!”
Well, if that's the way you want it, that's the way it will be. Random Observations isn't like that. Other than some Quixtar IBOs who like to post arguments under false names (creating fake conversations, even) I don't generally delete posts which stay within the comment guidelines.
Even when I'm wrong or feel embarassed.
So on that note, I must respectfully decline your generous invitation to contribute to your blog except to, in closing, thank you for the magnificent compliment in attributing those quotes of Vietnam lessons to me.
No, I attributed their application to Iraq to you. I have no idea if McNamara meant them to be applied to Iraq. Either way, your quoting them in this context shows you own those ideas, and that analysis, and especially it's application to Iraq. If you weren't sure what he meant, or aren't sure how his words apply to Iraq, then you probably shouldn't be re-posting them.
I apologize for some lack of clarity in my post that must have caused the error but those all came from McNamara, not me. But again, thank you. I am humbled at your compliment.
Again, my policy is, unless presented in a clearly adversarial context: you quote it, you own it. I'm not going to phone McNamara and ask exactly how he meant it to be taken regarding Iraq. Since you put it here, it's up to you to explain the application and cite specifics.
Well, sorry you're wimping out. ;-)
- Tim
OK Tim, let's start talking about it.
In reference to the pre-911 period, I'm sure you wouldn't mind supplying some references to this "full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement" towards Iraq during the 90's.
As far as I know it was NOT seriously debated.
In fact, if there was anything there were assurances that there were no serious threats. I cannot read anything into the following statements by Powell and Rice that would indicate that our administration was advocating war and discussing this issue with the Congress and the American people.
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." - Colin Powell, 24 February 2001
"The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction... And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful." - Colin Powell, 15 May 2001
"We are able to keep arms from him [Hussein]. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice, 29 July 2001
So I don't see how there was a frank discussion of regime change in Iraq. I don't see how saying,
[W]e failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.'
is "completely ludicrious".
I'm waiting for your references to support your claim there was a "full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement" towards Iraq during the 90's and to claim otherwise is "completely ludicrious".
I will deal with the post-911 period next and I'm not finished going over each of your counter-points above; I'm just getting started.
There was no justification for Bush's rush to war.
Dave,
Well, welcome back. :-)
In reference to the pre-911 period, I'm sure you wouldn't mind supplying some references to this "full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement" towards Iraq during the 90's.
No problem.
Recall that the Gulf War did not end with a neat declaration stating the whole thing was over and done with. Since there had been tension regarding whether the allies should have moved large numbers of troops into Baghdad(they didn't) and whether Saddam should be left in power, the UN passed a series of resolutions demanding a number of conditions be met by Iraq, promising "severest consequences" if Iraq did not comply promptly and fully, and authorizing any of the allied nations, as long as it worked in agreement with Kuwait, to take all necessary measures to pursue these policies. The UN closed these documents by declaring itself "seized of the matter", meaning the issue was open and ongoing henceforth.
So when Iraq was declared to be in violation of several of these agreements, many in the American public expected the follow-up action to be, as demanded by UNR1441 and others, the resumption of military force, or at least a convincing threat of such. We learned that Clinton wasn't the kind of person to take such actions. So the issue remained open during the mid-1990s, with weapons inspections starting and stopping, occasional exchanges of weapons-fire between allies and Iraq, and intermittant public debate -- which intensified as the decade progressed.
By late 1997, there was a strong sense that we had dropped the ball on Iraq, and that we needed to pick it up again. At that time, there were plenty of talking heads discussing what we should do, how and whether to achieve "regime change" and whether or not there should be a military response, and on what scale.
For example, here is an opinion piece James Zogby -- no conservative -- about the current thinking regarding Iraq in February, 1998:
For several weeks now, the drums of war have been beating in the United States. It appeared inevitable that if the Iraqi government continued to refuse unconditional and unrestricted UNSCOM inspections, that country would be subjected to “massive and sustained” bombardment.
This view was fed not only by repeated ultimatums and pronouncements by various Administration leaders and spokespersons, but also in opinion columns appearing in the daily U.S. press.
As late as two weeks ago, the only debate apparent in the U.S. media was between those who argued that air power was sufficient to “do the job” and those who argued that such strikes must be followed by an invasion of ground forces.
Zogby clearly doesn't like that debate, but it was happening. Here is a PBS NewHour debate among four men, talking about whether to use ground troops and/or large-scale bombardment. And here is a reference in the same period to the Pentagon, discussing even whether nukes could be used against Iraq. (The answer, by the way, is "yes".)
(The left likes to rewrite history, but that doesn't work on those of us who were there, and have memories. No offense, but you're being suckered.)
Of course, even if none this had occurred, the point still stands: Iraq was still not like Vietnam in this regard. There was a massive debate between 9/11 and the start of the Iraq war, involving the public, the media, and Congress. Further, Bush did, at that time and continuously afterward, what Johnson (fatally) failed to do well at any time: Explain what we were doing, the rationales for doing so, and explain the likely level of commitment and sacrifice required, as best as could be judged.
I cannot read anything into the following statements by Powell and Rice that would indicate that our administration was advocating war and discussing this issue with the Congress and the American people [before 9/11]...
Interesting point that you make, since many on the left (including some close to me) repeatedly insist that Bush was spoiling for war with Iraq before 9/11. As you demonstrate, his adminstration was certainly not. In fact, Powell's desired policy in early 2001 was to even drop sanctions on Iraq. There was a significant internal debate within the administration, and Bush basicly let Powell run with that, and it became the official stance until 9/11.
So yes, Powell probably thought then, and even afterwards, that Saddam was no particular military threat, and certainly said so publicly. The Bush adminstration was not focused on the mideast, and, in fact, had initially even tried to largely withdraw from that part of the world.
And Condi's statement was also accurate and non-controversial: Nobody was arguing Saddam had rebuilt his "military forces." That would be obvious from the air, and involve big, visible things like tanks and airplanes. Certainly, Iraq wasn't a conventional military threat at that time, nor was I aware of anyone making that argument.
But recall: after 9/11, people understood that a large-scale military threat wasn't the issue any more. A small nation like Afghanistan, with nearly zero tech, attempted to kill 50,000 Americans (and still managed to get about 3,000). The issue was no longer whether enough WMD could be produced for military-scale use, or whether a country was an obvious military threat: The issue now became whether a country harbored, sponsored, and/or trained terrorists, and/or whether a single lab, operating somewhere with the support of a rogue government, could produce enough anthrax or VX to distribute through Congress's air ducts.
So I don't see how there was a frank discussion of regime change in Iraq.
Sigh. Dave, do you remember, or did you ever hear of a bill passed in 1998 called the "Iraq Liberation Act"? As early as 1998, regardless of what happened with the weapons inspections, we had agreed, as a Republic, with agreement from Congress (and unanimous agreement in the Senate) and the President, that our official policy was henceforth to enact regime change in Iraq. Again, regardless of what happened with weapons inspections.
I'm sorry, but such assertions are simply incorrect.
There was no justification for Bush's rush to war.
Forgive me, but I watched this issue drag on from the early 1990s, when the appropriate response would have been the "severest consequences", as demanded by UN resolutions for Iraq's breaches, until 2003. A large-scale military response was debated and advocated on and off throughout the 1990s. Even after 9/11, we waited and talked for over a year. So it's hard to convince me that sitting on an issue for 11+ years is a "rush".
Certainly, you're welcomed to believe what you'd like -- for some, the war itself was wrong, no matter what the time, so any amount of time would be a "rush". But some of us were concerned, as pointed out in the initial statement above, about the deteriorating conditions inside Iraq under sanctions. Perhaps that doesn't bother you, or you don't care to dabble in such details, or offer any alternative answer on that point. But for some of us, that meant things could not continue forever as they were. Something had to give, IMO, and you're more than welcomed to explain what it should have been, and how you would have done things differently.
Finally, regarding revisionism: again, the left's most recent talking points, which seem to be some sort of attempt to rewrite history, don't generally work on me, as I was there, concerned about what was happening, and taking mental notes -- I don't get my opinions or narrative off somebody's web page, as so many of those I talk with seem to.
And again, I'd caution you: It looks like you're dealing with people who are not playing straight with you. Take the Powell/Rice quotes above. It sounds like someone attempted to make you think the justification was presented as a conventional military threat: No, it wasn't, and trying to say so would be a deceptive act of historical revisionism.
Best regards,
- Tim
Reminds me of the old story about Wilber Mills. One day he wound up drunk in the Washington tidal basin with a stripper.
The police arrested him and, not believing his story, were compelled to call Wilber Mills' assistant to check it out. They explained that Mills said that Mrs. Mills had asked him to pick up Fannie Fox because Mrs. Mills leg was broken. She was a friend of Fanny and wanted her to come to help her. The assistant confirmed that it was all true. When the assistant hung up the phone he called Mrs. Mills right away.
"Mrs. Mills, I've got some good news and some bad news. What do you want to hear first?"
"You better give me the good news first," she said.
"The good news is that your husband was arrested for being drunk and found in the tidal basin with a famous stripper."
"Oh, God, you've got to be kidding! And that's the good news? What's the bad news?"
"Well, Mrs. Mills, now I've got to break your leg."
Tim, you didn't like my joke.
The point is that the administration was having to break legs to make reasons for this war.
If you want to talk about revisionists then look no further than Bush who has consistently revised the justification for the war.
It's like the old "bait and switch" strategy. They entice you to their shop with a great offer but when you get there the offer, you discover, didn't exist and they try to sell you something else.
That national debate was on the assumption that he had or was developing WMD and that he was hiding it.
It was not a "full and frank discussion and debate" by any terms.
The USA was building its WMD case, post 911, on liars and selling that to the public. They were hard at work at it as evidenced by the notorious Downing Street Memo.
Despite the phony WMD case built against Iraq, Europe, France, Germany, the UN, Blix, the vast majority of European people and a large percentage of American people, nearly half, wanted to see the outcome of further inspections.
As it turned out, all of America's WMD reasoning failed so they had to "break a leg" to create a new "truth" to justify the war. There was no "full and frank discussion and debate" about this reasoning amongst the public and Congress. It was a classic "bait and switch". A true revisionist strategy. We did not debate this war.
There was no justification for Bush's rush to war. We could have taken more time to check out our assumptions which, as it turned out, were based on lies.
I'll begin to go over your other counter-points next.
Regards,
Dave
Tim, you didn't like my joke.
I read and understood the joke. But I just had a bit of trouble seeing how you thought it might apply. I don't bother responding to vague, unspecified accusations, of the type so many liberals seem to favor. Too many interpretations to guess at, taking too much time, and there's no point in debating someone who is afraid to come out and simply state what they mean. Now that I read your claim of how this is supposed to match up, I see the wisdom of that approach.
The point is that the administration was having to break legs to make reasons for this war.
In your story, Mills knows full well that his wife's leg isn't broken when he says that. But as far as I can see, that isn't the case -- the copious evidence I offered you before and now shows it isn't, and you provide nothing to the contrary. I know -- you assume I ignored the evidence as you do. Sorry, I live in a world where you can't just engage in selective thinking.
I wondered what the hooker was supposed to represent. Well, now I know: nothing apparently, other than perhaps the manifestation of some psychologial need you have imply Bush is like a man who frequents prostitutes.
So again, I'm supposed to agree with you that the Bush administration convinced everyone Iraq was a threat, and nobody would have thought that otherwise? Apparently, they did this by doing time travel backwards into the 1990s, and producing events and discussions which I witnessed in that era, like these and this?
Now, I've given you link after link after link, as well as my own personal testimony from having living through that era, showing the debate which went on continually at that time. (It wasn't Bush who made me think Iraq was a threat -- it was William Jefferson Clinton and other national figures during the 1990s.)
So please explain: how could Bush have convinced me, and so many others, of this in the mid- or late-1990s? And please explain how you can say no debate was occuring in the face of such obvious evidence it was. Your narrative makes no sense at all, and you apparently keep trying to avoid this rather important question.
If you want to talk about revisionists then look no further than Bush who has consistently revised the justification for the war...
If you want a debate on this, you're going to have to be specific, since I don't feel like countering every possible variation on this charge you could make. Therefore, please cite specific evidence where Bush falsely claimed some justification had been presented before the war.
What I don't understand is, if this unspecified charge is so true and obvious, why don't you just make it? Say: "Bush now claims X was the reason we went in, but here is evidence he is lying about that." Yet you don't seem to even know what X is supposed to be here, yet, since you keep avoiding the specifics -- as though you've convicted a man, but are still working with the the detectives to figure how how best to find a crime to stick on him.
Ah. I see. That makes sense. This seems to be a classic case of projection: you think Bush works this way, because that is clearly how you work. You first choose the narrative and make general allegations, but later figure out the details and search for supporting evidence, and try to figure out what you must have meant.
For example, look at your first comment: you claimed many parallels with Iraq. I couldn't see them, explained why, and asked what they were supposed to represesent, in specific.
Five days later, you answered, and address only one of your original arguments. Yet all I did was to ask you to explain what you meant by each. That should have been trivial, if in fact you knew what specific parallels you meant when you posted them.
On the single point you did try to address, you claimed that no discussion ocurred because the specific topic of "regime change" was never discussed. You also seemed to think that the problem was that Bush was cooking up Iraq before 9/11 without telling people at the time.
I showed evidence your first allegation was untrue, and showed your own evidence for the second point disproved your apparent implication. So you now apparently wish to claim that the parallel you meant to draw was that our intel was bad, which somehow is supposed to mean that no discussion occurred.
Yet, again, you easily could have stated that the first time, rather than your original explanation as to what you meant: that Bush never discussed Iraq before 9/11.
Finally, here we are about a week later, and you still haven't elaborated on what those other parallels were supposed to represent, but instead apparently claim to still be "going over" my request for clarification. Clearly, you didn't know what each parallel was supposed to be, as even the shifting explanation on the one you answered demonstrates. You say Bush wants to retroactively claims he meant something that he didn't, but it appears that's a technique you actually use.
And you're doing the same kind of thing again: I showed the quotes were an attempt by someone at revisionism. So now -- viola! -- Bush is suddenly charged with being a revisionist, too.
And what case do you say Bush falsely claims to have made before the war? Well, we're not sure yet, apparently, but I am sure you'll now take some time to figure out which one you must have meant when you said that, as you have with each allegation you've made.
So I can see what's happening here. Thanks for making it all so clear:
Apparently, it's incomprehensible for you to consider that your opponent (Bush, seem to you feel) could be any better than you. He must share your faults. So if you make allegations up front, and later figure out what you must have meant, then Bush have the same problem. If you're caught using a revisionistic argument, then he must have done the same, somehow. If you were found guilty of listening to people who lied to you because they told you want you wanted hear, then Bush must have done it too. You can't consider, apparently, that Bush (like Kerry, Clinton, and so many others) was simply honestly mistaken, because, well, you yourself apparently aren't.
Congratulations. Even if your charges were true, you're apparently guilty of each thing you have accused Bush of doing.
That national debate was on the assumption that he had or was developing WMD and that he was hiding it.
I believe most parties involved, including even Democrats felt he had WMD. Again, they had access to the exact same reports Bush was reading.
But where I have an ever more serious problem here is that you seem to be trying to pretend this (WMD) was the only argument offered. In his speeches, Bush laid out a number of different arguments, including also the humanitarian argument, the argument about sponsoring terrorism, that Saddam could be a future threat if he was in power when sactions were lifted, etc.
Look, I lived through those speeches. I paid attention to them. This is why your narrative isn't working, when you try to imply WMD was the only selling point offered, or that that was the sole issue people were concerned about. That's demonstrably false to anyone who was paying attention at the time.
It was not a "full and frank discussion and debate" by any terms.
Look, "frank" means admitting what you know or believe. It doesn't mean being omniscient. If Bush was wrong about WMD, he was in good company. John Kerry, who had access to the exact same intelligence, had the same viewpoint, as did Bill Clinton, who appointed the entire CIA team Bush was working with.
The USA was building its WMD case, post 911, on liars and selling that to the public.
(... and therefore no "frank" debate occured.)
Look, even your own argument, if accepted at face value, doesn't make any sense: You imply that if someone lies to me, and I am fooled and pass that along as truth, that I am not being "frank". Of course I am, and you know it.
Second, again, you pretend this view came from and was exclusively held by the Bush administration. I've shown you plenty of evidence to the contrary. It was also held by his predecessor, and even his opponents.
Third, Saddam's own behavior wasn't helping: To many of us, a signficiant factor in making us think he might have had WMD was Saddam's refusal to cooperate.
Fourth, you overstate the reliance on INC. (a) The Robb-Silberman report, released in March, found INC had a "minimal impact" on WMD assessments. Yes, two INC members lied. But no, the CIA ignored them because they knew that at the time. (b) There were many other apparent sources of data too, like the source behind the UK's 45-minute WMD claim, and France's forgery (link below).
Fifth, we weren't even required by the UN resolutions prove Saddam had WMD, anyway. A mere refusal to co-operate was enough, just as a suspect who refuses to allow a search should be treated as though he is hiding a weapon.
Sixth, your argument makes no motivational sense. Just try to think for youself a minute, okay? If Bush KNEW for a fact there was no WMD, why would he (A) make that a strong part of the case, when the other angles worked just fine too, (B) send in a crew to do a completely independent investigation which couldn't find evidence of stockpiles? It makes NO SENSE at all, and even a child could see it. Why not fake the WMD? Or plant it (as my leftist friends predicted?) Or prevent the investigation? duh.
Seventh, what do you make of this? The NY Times also recently reported al Qaaqaa had been 'systematically looted' of WMD-making equipment. And this:
Just before the latest conflict between the United States and Iraq broke out in 2003, Pakistani intelligence reports were featured in an article by Secretary Raman (a former official in the Indian Government) stating that Dr. Khan had met with Iraqi officials in the UAE. The Iraqi officials asked Dr. Khan to help them smuggle Iraqi WMD out of Iraq into Syria and eventually to Pakistan in order to hinder the efforts of UN inspectors. According to these reports, Dr. Khan agreed to the request for help and in October 2002 a Pakistani aircraft on its way home to Pakistan stopped in Syria and picked up WMD material.
... which is a totally consistent explanation for how Syria got it's hands on the WMD for this.
Eighth: I completely agree much of WMD intelligence turned out to be questionable. (Good lesson on trusting the CIA. Of course deliberate deceptions like this, by the French, didn't help, either.) But the evidence seems to show the breakdown was within the CIA and other intel agencies. For example, George Tenet (a Clinton appointee, mind you) assured Bush the WMD case was a "slam dunk." For example:
"The fact is, the administration, at all levels and to some extent, us [Congress], used bad information to bolster its case for war," Rockefeller said. "And we in Congress would not have authorized that war — we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes — if we knew what we know now." ...
But the committee concluded that intelligence analysts were not pressured to change or tailor their views to support arguments for the invasion of Iraq.
"I think it's important to know that the intelligence they gave was under their judgment -- the right perception," Sen. John Corzine, D-N.J., told FOX News on Friday....
Outgoing CIA Director George Tenet has always maintained that, "no one told us what to say or how to say it."
The report was bi-partisan, with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.
Okay, there's eight reasons your argument is wrong. Looking forward to see if you respond.
They were hard at work at it as evidenced by the notorious Downing Street Memo.
I've read the memo, and all it says, vaguely, is that they were "fixing" the intelligence around those angles. The implication that this means they knew or even thought there was no WMD at the time can be refuted just by reading the memo, which speaks as though everyone involved believes full well that Iraq had some WMD, saying things such as:
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
That doesn't sound like it came from group of people who are assured there is no WMD and were trying to pretend otherwise, does it? (Why didn't your sources tell you about that, hmmm?)
Despite the phony WMD case built against Iraq, Europe, France, Germany, the UN, Blix, the vast majority of European people and a large percentage of American people, nearly half, wanted to see the outcome of further inspections.
Are you missing the little tiny detail that most of the people you're citing were found to be receiving money, in many forms, from Saddam? Have you not been paying attention to this little thing called "OIL FOR FOOD"? Of course they wanted the status quo to continue -- they were being paid for it!
As far as Blix is concerned, personally I didn't trust him, based on what I saw. Saddam had clearly repeatedly blocked his efforts, yet I watched him try to characterize the situation as "some cooperation". But the UN resolutions didn't call for "some cooperation" -- the rules were no blockages.
Later, I discovered that Blix had tried to give Saddam a clean bill of health in 1991 as well, when two of his inspectors threatened to file dissenting opinions. Later discoveries, sadly, vindicated their stance. I also discovered he'd been appointed by France -- you know, that country who stood to make billions off Iraqi oil if sanctions were lifted with Saddam still in power. I also learned he'd previously given a clean bill of health to countries who were later shown to have developed weapons programs. (No wonder Chirac liked him.)
Look, even if Blix were totally on the up-and-up, your point here still is irrelevant: the criteria wasn't Blix's (or Chirac's) feelings about whether inspections should continue. It was whether Saddam had complied in mutually-agreed upon timeframe. He obviously hadn't (numerous times), and Blix's failure to simply admit that spoke very poorly to me about his credibility and honestly.
Finally, your comment about "nearly half" the American people wanting inspections to continue shows how blatantly dishonest your arguments can be: You're basicly admitting a minority of Americans -- less than half -- favored the inspections, and claiming that group's opinon should prevail.
Nice: if the minority agrees with you, it proves you're right. If the majority agrees with you, it proves you're right. Of course, I could pull the same tricks, but I happen to think they're reprehensible.
And if this wasn't your idea, and someone else came up with the argument, then pardon me for falsely impugning you -- but you should really pick who to trust a bit better.
Polls can prove anything. Here's a poll from the same time period showing that 80% favored use of deadly force against Iraq, and that 71% agreed it was "time to get it over with" (22% wanted inspections to continue). And almost twice as many people would have been unhappy with Bush if he'd allowed weapons inspections to continue even another six months.
Again, I think you're just shown the futility of my attempting to have a discussion with you: If you can take a poll which shows your view is in the minority, and unpopular, and proclaim it as support for your case, you can probably will yourself to believe anything.
As it turned out, all of America's WMD reasoning failed so they had to "break a leg" to create a new "truth" to justify the war.
Again, there were numerous arguments stated before the war. Which one were you claiming was created afterwards dishonestly attributed to the pre-war period?
There was no "full and frank discussion and debate" about this reasoning amongst the public and Congress. It was a classic "bait and switch".
In a "bait and switch", you offer one thing, knowing full well it won't be available, and knowing full well they'll have to settle for something else once they bite.
Yet you've shown no evidence whatsoever that Bush knew full well that any of his pre-war arguments (WMD, humanitarian, or otherwise) were false.
Again, your argument is self-refuting: if he knew the correct justifications ahead of time, he could have just offered them, or at least covered up.
Further, you have yet to demonstrate the "switch" part, beyond just asserting it over and over, which seem to be your main form of argumentation.
A true revisionist strategy.
You don't know what "revisionist" even means, do you? For it to have been a "revisionist strategy", he would have planned, in advane, to change the original explanation afterwards. That would make no sense at all. It's like painting your hour blue in order to repaint it green, and planning, in advance, to claim you'd painted it green the first time. That's dumb: If you knew that, just paint it green and leave it.
We did not debate this war.
Of course we debated the war. I've already supplied link after link after link showing that. You can't make that evidence go away by simply stating, over and over, that we've never had a debate.
You seem to be arguing: "Since I argue the intelligence was flawed, no debate occurred." How can you think in such a twisted way?
Let's say my wife and I argue about whether Kohl's has a sale today. I say they do, she says they don't. We debate it for quite a while. I prevail, and we drive there. I am wrong.
According to you, this means we had no debate.
Look friend, you I aren't even on the same plane of existence, if this passes as a valid thought pattern for you. I see that there's no way I could ever convince someone capable of contorting their brain in this fashion to consider whether they were wrong. I mean, I'm shaking my head at the absurdity of it.
There was no justification for Bush's rush to war.
Yet again, I've already answered this argument. Please don't repeat arguments as though I haven't spoken or answered them. Read the rules for comments if you want to know how serious I am on this point. I'm paying attention to what you're saying and answering you as best I can -- please give me the same courtesy, okay?
We could have taken more time to check out our assumptions which, as it turned out, were based on lies.
I've already refuted the "based on lies" bit.
But: Why? Why should we have debated it longer or re-checked our assumptions? Do you think we should have done what we did or not? And if we waited, what would have been different? Please explain why that would be important.
Thank you again for your considerable effort to explain your position. I don't mean to complain but I feel a bit like Sir Winston Churchill who said, "This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
But to be fair, I cannot really complain of its overall length so much as to say that it seems so rich in many varied accusations that I scarcely know where to begin.
To be honest, I never felt I had reason to think of myself as a leftist. After all, I did not like Clinton and I supported Bush until the Iraq War.
I did not think of myself as a revisionist but I feel constantly accused of being one because we are comparing notes on how we view the Iraq War.
I did not feel I needed to be lectured about listening to the wrong kind of people. After all, I am a 51-year old American and have listened to all kinds of people and I think that I should be offered the respect that I am entitled to study and learn from many and varied sources and form my own opinions and not be required to think in one approved way.
My experience is not limited to America as I have spent about half my life abroad and have learned how to appreciate other peoples and their cultures and societies.
In any case, I simply wished to go over McNamara's 11 lessons but you have offered me so many evidences and reasoning to support your view in our discussion on the first lesson that I must beg for time to digest it and make sense of it all.
As you have lived through this period you certainly have a good grasp on all the issues and facts involved.
I want to go over every single point you raised. Please be patient but I am quite busy with family and job and other obligations. But I am planning on going over each and every single detail of these things and all of your evidence without leaving any point you raised unaddressed and I hope you can bear with me and I hope that if I address your points and evidence that this is not objectionable to you.
I would like to digest your message and links you offered to support your view and may have some questions about it. I hope you do not mind or feel that it is too nit-picky.
Warm regards,
Dave
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
You're absolutely correct on that criticism: I'm too verbose, I also feel, at times. But, in my defense, I'll point out it's easy to bring up lots of different kinds of charges, on lots of different topics, and harder to answer them. (But I'm still too verbose, anyway.)
To be honest, I never felt I had reason to think of myself as a leftist. After all, I did not like Clinton and I supported Bush until the Iraq War.
I'm not aware of having called you one. (Point it out if I'm mistaken -- and you have my apologies in that event.) Instead, I feel I've pointed out that your arguments are similar to those offered by those on the political left.
I did not feel I needed to be lectured about listening to the wrong kind of people.
If I came across -- or spoke -- too harshly or strongly, you have my apologies. But there's a serious question here: I keep hearing how awful, terrible it was, for example, for Bush to "lie". Okay, I can completely understand that.
But, so often, when I inspect the material behind the charge, I find it is -- well -- deceptive. Is the one who brought it to me outraged at the same behavior? Usually, they go back to -- well, whoever it is -- for dose after dose, all the time talking about how awful dishonesty or deception (or even mere spin) is.
After all, I am a 51-year old American...
Sir, I will gladly hence grant an extra bit of respect, due your age: but on a blog you are just another voice, and could be 22 for all anyone knows.
Likewise with your statement that you've talked to many people: Readers only know you from what you write. If someone insists, for example, "regime change" was never even debated -- when it was, in fact, a current US policy, passed by a unanimous Senate vote after at least a year's intense nattering -- well, then I can't help but get the impression they were either (a) not present in the late 1990s, and/or (b) somehow never checked that supposedly-important assertion against a contrary view.
I want to go over every single point you raised.
Good enough. I have patience. It it not nit-picky to do so at all. (And if it was I could hardly complain, being much worse than you on that count.)
Sincerely,
- Tim
My reference to nearly half of the Americans wanting to see the outcome of the inspections was valued in this way. Half really should not be enough to condemn a country. In a case involving a death sentence we don't allow half to be the determining ratio. I suppose this is a matter of personal conscience and I can't argue it any further than that.
But I think if 50% or a small majority of a superpower's population wants to invade, destroy, regime change, whatever, I personally don't think that's a sufficient decision-making majority on such a monumental decision.
But I suppose that's more a personal opinion than something I can argue.
Dave
Tim,
I am going over the links and references you offered to support your claim that there was a "full and frank discussion and debate" about the war with Iraq.
I began with this item:
CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ (Senate - October 09, 1998) - HON. CARL LEVIN
It says nothing about invasion, war or regime change. It does support the inspections, as did most of the world, and advocated the threat of missile strikes if the inspections are not permitted.
"...we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.
"In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
This item does not support the contention that there existed a "full and frank discussion and debate" on the subject of invading Iraq and regime change.
Dave
My reference to nearly half of the Americans wanting to see the outcome of the inspections was valued in this way. Half really should not be enough to condemn a country. In a case involving a death sentence...
Sir, you seem to confuse a country with a dictator. The country is Iraq, the dictator is Saddam Hussein. Certainly, the dictator was condemned -- at least to trial. But the country?
If you ask Iraqis if they received a "death sentence", I imagine the majority would view the action as the rebirth of their nation, not it's death. I believe Iraqi poll numbers support that view. Did you even watch the footage? Of them throwing their shoes at photos of Hussein? You are unhappy their regime was removed, they were rejoicing in the streets. Is so, you are working against their interests, but in their name. Perhaps you should stop and consider that dichotomy.
... we don't allow half to be the determining ratio. I suppose this is a matter of personal conscience and I can't argue it any further than that.
Sir, I believe we live in a Democratic Republic, and enjoy our form of government, at least as it existed until the mid 1900s. It is not perfect, but I believe history demonstrates it is superior to all other models which have been tried.
Thus, I respect the wisdom of the founding fathers in distrusting popular sentiment -- the mood of the masses from week to week -- recognising, as they do, how easy the masses are to manipulate -- not to mention how easy it is to rig the polls themselves, by how you frame the question and who you sample. The many false statements arguments I debunk here -- often blatant dishonesties which have enraged a certain subset of my visitors, -- illustrate that point all too well.
So I believe in the sort of representative democracy we have, where we elect people to make decisions based on their character and experience, periodically. Polls can be useful for consulting popular sentiment, and I believe votes can be useful for putting things into law (like the referendums in California) but they are no basis for the day-to-day decision-making needed.
Finally, as pointed out, you're wrong about the polling data anyway. I don't say that on the basis of one article: I remember very high numbers wanting to go in. Again, I don't think that has much to do with it -- we all made promises of "severest action" if Saddam didn't follow through on his end. He didn't, so we should have. A long time ago, actually.
I don't know why that sort of situation is so hard for people to understand. Iraqi lives would have been saved. Oil-for-food wouldn't have had time to be set up, bribing our allies away. Saddam wouldn't have had as much time to drop people through plastic shredders. And, if there was any WMD -- who knows for sure either way? -- he wouldn't have had time to move to other places, into who-knows-who's hands.
And, of course, there's this simple principle of following through on your promises, lest you lose legitimacy and respect. Which the UN did when it didn't: it was revealed as the sham, corrupt, bribable institution it is.
And it's a shame to see that so many Americans still view of that kind of immorality (in the UN) as a source of "moral authority."
But I think if 50% or a small majority of a superpower's population wants to invade, destroy, regime change, whatever, I personally don't think that's a sufficient decision-making majority on such a monumental decision.
Look, in my heart of hearts, if 99.9% want to invade another nation, that doesn't make it right.
This action was legitimate and important because Saddam had attacked another country. Repeatedly. He attacked Iran. He attacked Kuwait. He attempted to attack Saudi Arabia. He attempted to touch off WWIII by attacking Israel.
His enduring vision was to start a region-wide conflict, engulfing the entire mideast in warfare, so that he could end up as supreme dictator, in charge of the lives of every single mideastern citizen. Not to mention the region's oil wealth. That vision should make you pause.
At the end of the conflict, Saddam was put on probation, trial and sentence suspended, based on a promise to be good. Saddam's regime became, if you will, a parolee.
You don't treat parolees the same way as people who have done nothing wrong at all. You can revoke parole for any reason. They must submit to searches without warrant. You can keep them confined to a limited area. You can ask all kinds of questions and demand answers. And if they have the slightest infraction or attitude of non-cooperation, you can end parole and move ahead with the suspended sentence.
You understand this in a common sense way, sir. Nobody protests this arrangement in real life -- in fact, they demand it. And if I put a violent man in your neighborhood, I expect you would agree completely. But when it's someone else's neighborhood... ???
But I suppose that's more a personal opinion than something I can argue.
There are some points at which we have to admit there are two sides to the coin, the other guy has a legitimate argument, at least from his own point of view.
For example, from my side, if someone says they're opposed to all warfare, then I understand how they specificly oppose this conflict. Of course, then I have a different larger debate, but I at least I completely respect how their position on this issue flows from that larger stance.
The people who give me far more grief are those who agreed with Clinton regarding Kosovo, where we (a) fled when the massacre started, (b) instead of putting in ground troops, used massive (and generally unnecessary, IMO) aerial bombardment, killing friend and foe indiscriminately (and still doing nothing to stop the mass killings), (c) did all that without an authorizing UN resolution.
Did Milosevic have WMD? Not that anyone knew or argued. He was much less of a military power. Otherwise, the principles were nearly idenitical, except that we had less UN approval. Yet everyone broadly applauded that.
Yet there were also significant differences. Although you can get all kinds of casualty tolls higher or lower (and such numbers are always suspect either way), according to HRW, 2,467 were killed by NATO, justified by 4,249 who were killed by Milosovec's thugs (Kfor/KLA). Yes, it's true: we killed almost half as many people as Milosovic.
Now let's turn to Iraq. Saddam is estimated to have killed from about 600,000 to over a million people in various ways -- this source cites HRW to estimate 70 to 125 per day. That's about 25,000 to 46,000 each year, not even counting those presumed killed by sanctions. (According to this source, about 6,000 addition children were being killed each month by sanctions, meaning an additional 72,000 killed per year, bringing the total to 97,000 to 118,000 killed per year... and that doesn't include adults killed by sanctions, just children.)
I knew this beforehand, and it was one of the reasons I supported the war: I estimated a few thousand to 20,000 would be killed. But even at 80,000 or more, I concluded, over a five-year period (much less henceforth) Iraqi lives would have been saved.
Actual civilian causuality estimates range from 7,500 to 25,000. For charity to my opponents, I'll assume 30,000. The war started two years ago. That's 3,500 to 15,000 per year. You do the math. Looks like tens of thousands of Iraqi lives -- and perhaps even near 100,000 -- being saved each year.
Again, this is something I'd worked out in advance. Anyone could have done it: all you had to do was divide Saddam's wars and estimated body count by the number of year's he'd been in power and make a reasonable annual civilian death toll. (And believe me, he wanted more in the future, not less.) And the argument became even more compelling when the left started arguing about how immoral sanctions were.
This wasn't the only argument, of course, but it was the one which made the course of action more obvious. Basicly: no matter how inept we were, Saddam was such a rare sociopath that as long as we got rid of him, whatever resulted -- even another repressive dictatorship -- was highly likely to be better for the Iraqi people. Not to mention those of his neighbors.
Dave,
Regarding your most recent comment...
Please note I gave you quite a number of links and references to follow up. You can't just look at one and say: "This doesn't support the contention..." You have to look at the whole history, the whole picture.
For example, you complain Levin's document doesn't discuss regime change. Well, no kidding: I said it demonstrated people were discussing how Iraq posed an ongoing threat. I've already pointed you to the Iraq Liberation Act to answer your contention that regime change had never been debated.
Then, you complain Levin's letter doesn't mention an invasion. Well, of course not -- again, I gave you a different piece of evidence (several, actually) demonstrating that widespread discussion about using an air strike versus ground troops was going on.
Next, I expect, you'll look at the Iraq Liberation Act and complain it doesn't show we were discussing our concerns over WMD and inspections and their effecacy -- which is demonstrated by Levin's letter, among many other sources.
This is like a person who looks in a cereal box, complains there no milk there, and then looks in the milk jug and complains there's no cereal, and thus complains there's nothing for breakfast.
That's fallacious reasoning (the fallacy of division, and perhaps selective thinking) and it doesn't suddenly become more valid when you apply it to your favorite political view. You won't be able draw sensible conclusions -- of any sort -- while using fallacious methods of reasoning.
Next, forgive me, but I'm amazed: where were you in the late 1990s? I'm serious about this. If you didn't even know about or pay attention to the Iraq Liberation Act, for example, what makes you think your view of history is at all reliable?
I mean, it was a big huge thing, got tons of press coverage, and apparently you missed it completely. And now here you are, wandering around claiming there's no evidence for it yet -- while not following the leads I've given you for it. I mean really. I can understand the frustration you say you've provoked in other bloggers!
Now, if you haven't had time to look into it, then that's fine, but please don't be posting messages that seem to imply you think a point's been disproven because you didn't yet examine the evidence for it.
"This is like a person who looks in a cereal box, complains there no milk there, and then looks in the milk jug and complains there's no cereal, and thus complains there's nothing for breakfast."
No Tim. You said there was cereal in that box. There was none. You said there was milk in the carton. I'm going to check that out next.
Dave
Thank you for your reference to the "fallacies" website. It is much better than one I used refer to before.
I am continuing to go over the links you offered to support your argument. I will accept your concern that all of this evidence needs to be considered in total. But nonetheless, I will have to look at each, one-by-one, and then later can see if it all pulls together to make the case.
Now in your message you invited me to comment on one reference that was making the case that AQ Khan, the Pakistani nuclear arms dealer was helping Iraq to smuggle WMD out of Iraq. This report came from "an article by Secretary Raman (a former official in the Indian Government)."
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/000889.php. You included an excerpt of this story but somehow overlooked the comment at the end, "These allegations of Pakistani aid to Iraq have not been confirmed by other sources."
In searching for some confirmation from other sources I examined the official US government reports on Iraq and WMD which mentioned AQ Khan I could find no reference to Khan smuggling for Iraq. There were many details about what he did for other countries but nothing about Iraq. http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html
The comment that these were unconfirmed allegations and that American intelligence services do not mention Khan helping Iraq to smuggle out WMD or, surprisingly, do not mention Khan doing anything at all for Iraq, would lead one to strongly doubt the report from Indian Secretary Raman.
Would you perhaps have another more reliable reference to support the claim that Khan was involved in smuggling WMD out of Iraq?
Thanks.
Dave
Tim, you also requested comment on two other reports questioning:
"Seventh, what do you make of this? The NY Times also recently reported al Qaaqaa had been 'systematically looted' of WMD-making equipment."
I do not care for Christopher Hitchens very much but you seem to like him and it was dear ole Hitch that headlines this blog page. Shall we let Hitch answer this one? "This Was Not Looting - How did Saddam's best weapons plants get plundered By Christopher Hitchens" http://slate.msn.com/id/2114820/
Again, I realize that all of these points you have raised will have to be considered together and in context.
Regards,
Dave
Me: This is like a person who looks in a cereal box...
You: No Tim. You said there was cereal in that box.
The Levin document was introduced with this sentence: "So again, I'm supposed to agree with you that the Bush administration convinced everyone Iraq was a threat, and nobody would have thought that otherwise?"
Then I offered you the link. You then complained it didn't talk about regime change; I pointed out it wasn't supposed to talk about regime change, that it's purpose was (again) to show that Bush isn't the one who convinced people Iraq posed a threat, back in the 1990s. Exactly as I said when I introduced it.
Now you are yet again accusing me of having misrepresented it as being about regime change. Where are you getting this???
Thank you for your reference to the "fallacies" website... I will accept your concern that all of this evidence needs to be considered in total.
I mentioned it because it seemed -- given our difference (above) -- that you were trying to say that there had to be one source somewhere documenting the whole debate, or that each source should address every issue.
Regarding the AQ Khan thing, yes, that's far from open and shut. Not incredible, though, considering the rest of the picture, and considering that we know he'd approached Iraq previously on the same topic. Just found it interesting.
(You mention US intelligence doesn't mention AQ Khan's activities, as though that were indicative of something. But the CIA is hardly omniscient, as we ought to have learned by now -- currently, they've been complaining about a lack of intelligence on Khan. So your argument -- seemingly that if the US intel doesn't know it, it should be discounted -- doesn't really make sense in that context. Also, many [on the left] allege the CIA knows more that it lets on about Khan, so there's always that counter-argument, too.)
I did see the Khan claim in another context, but we'll stipulate for the moment it might have been the same source behind both reports. Again, it was more for your interest -- nothing, in the world of intel, is really ever irrefutable. There is always room for disagreement.
[Regarding systematic "looting":] Shall we let Hitch answer this one? "This Was Not Looting - How did Saddam's best weapons plants get plundered By Christopher Hitchens" http://slate.msn.com/id/2114820/
Ah, so it was Christopher Hitchens who plundered them! Pretty amazing, considering his alleged drinking habits! Who'd have guessed??? ;-)
Seriously: Yes, I'd read that, and agree. So you make my point for me:
But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves—which is the customary definition of a "looter," especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery.
Exactly. Look, you, or someone else, could always claim this isn't definitive proof Saddam had WMD, or posed a WMD threat. As I said, nothing's ever definitive. But it certainly does tend to undermine any argument that Bush knew Saddam didn't have WMD, and somehow falsely put that argument forward himself, knowing the "ground truth" was otherwise. It's still not clear what the entire Iraq WMD picture was.
I don't deeply admire Hitchens or anything -- but he's certainly amusing even when I completely disagree.
Except as noted in the opening paragraph, this seems to be going a bit better now, thanks. I don't care if you agree with me on the conclusions, but I do like to see people at least looking at the data seriously.
Tim, as you recall I held that there was "full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement" amongst "Congress and the American people".
You have replied, "The topic was debated in public extensively throughout the 90's" and offered the reference:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
After I examined this link you offered I found 39 references to quotations by various politicians.
Of the 39 only 9 were from the 1990's. Of those 9 from the 1990's all of them were actually only from 1998. Of those 9 quotes from 1998, 2 were from one speech Clinton gave at one place and 2 were from speeches Albright and Berger gave at one place at one time. One was simply a CNN report that the UN condemned Iraq's lack of cooperation and one was a letter from congressmen asking the president to use "air strikes" and/or "missles" if Saddam does not cooperate, but nothing about invasion or regime change.
There was nothing referring to invasion and regime change.
I'll share further details on this soon.
Dave
Tim, as you recall I held that there was "full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement" amongst "Congress and the American people".
You have replied, "The topic was debated in public extensively throughout the 90's" and offered the reference:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
After I examined this link you offered I found 39 references to quotations by various politicians.
Of the 39 only 9 were from the 1990's. Of those 9 from the 1990's all of them were actually only from 1998. Of those 9 quotes from 1998, 2 were from one speech Clinton gave at one place and 2 were from speeches Albright and Berger gave at one place at one time. One was simply a CNN report that the UN condemned Iraq's lack of cooperation and one was a letter from congressmen asking the president to use "air strikes" and/or "missles" if Saddam does not cooperate, but nothing about invasion or regime change.
There was nothing referring to invasion and regime change.
I'll share further details on this soon.
Dave
Tim, as you recall I held that there was "full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement" amongst "Congress and the American people".
You have replied, "The topic was debated in public extensively throughout the 90's" and offered the reference:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
After I examined this link you offered I found 39 references to quotations by various politicians.
Of the 39 only 9 were from the 1990's. Of those 9 from the 1990's all of them were actually only from 1998. Of those 9 quotes from 1998, 2 were from one speech Clinton gave at one place and 2 were from speeches Albright and Berger gave at one place at one time. One was simply a CNN report that the UN condemned Iraq's lack of cooperation and one was a letter from congressmen asking the president to use "air strikes" and/or "missles" if Saddam does not cooperate, but nothing about invasion or regime change.
There was nothing referring to invasion and regime change.
I'll share further details on this soon.
Dave
Oops, big mistake, I should have said:
Tim, as you recall I held that there was NO "full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement" amongst "Congress and the American people".
I claimed, using the words of McNamara, that "We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement [in Iraq]. . . before we initiated the action."
I discussed one link that was offered to counter my claim and was supposed to support the idea that there was a "full and frank discussion". I discussed some failures of that evidence in the message above. Here are some more details:
Two of the 9 quotes from 1998 were from President Clinton's Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff on February 17, 1998.
I invite you to study that speech and if you do you will find that Clinton makes a clear case for a military action if Saddam does not cooperate with WMD search teams but not invasion or regime change. In fact, Clinton endorses the effectiveness of the UN WMD search teams.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19980217-5402.html
Another quote came from President Clinton's State of the Union address, January 27, 1998.
Careful reading of this speech finds that Clinton states we are determined to deny Saddam the opportunity to use WMD again but says nothing of invasion or regime change but does applaud the effectiveness of the UN WMD search teams.
http://seoul.usembassy.gov/wwwh4410.html
Now two of the quotes were from Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State, and Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor, at a Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University on February 18, 1998.
They made no hint at the possibility of invasion or regime change.
Also speaking along side Albright and Berger was Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. Cohen was asked the invasion question and repeatedly made it crystal clear that the USA did not need to invade Iraq but could punish Iraq with other military actions if it did not go along with the UN. Berger declared plainly,
"What we are seeking to do is not to topple Saddam Hussein, not to destroy his country, but to do what the United Nations has said in its declarations. And we want to insist that that's not only words, but deeds; we want the enforcement of the UN declarations. And these young men and women are prepared to carry out that mission." "With respect to ground forces following any strike, there is no anticipated need. We don't expect to, do not plan to have any ground forces that would be involved in a land-type of campaign."
"We do not see the need to carry out a large land campaign in order to try to topple Saddam Hussein."
I have no doubt Neocons and some others were pushing for invasion. However, with top officials in the government insisting in 1998 that it was not necessary to invade I believe we can not only say of the 1990's, "We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement [in Iraq]. . . before we initiated the action [invade]," and we can also say that it is not "completely ludicrious" to say so.
The expert, Dr Magnus Ranstorp, who you referred to at another place in your blog, in September 2002, warned that military action was likely to happen "sooner rather than later" to bypass growing public opposition to war. He then predicted a media blitz by Tony Blair and others to try and sway public opinion in favour of conflict.
Regards,
Dave
Correction: The quote at the end of the post above was not from Berger but from Cohen. -Dave
So, one particular link I gave you only contained 9 quotes from the 1990s. And they only came from the President of the United States, and head of the State Department, and one of the country's most popular news sources.
So?
Why did that warrant a posting? I knew that when I sent it to you. I gave it to your for what it contained, not for what it didn't. And yes, I'm sorry I couldn't find a source with the 1990s quotes isolated, but I figured you were capable of looking past the other unrelated material.
... but nothing about invasion or regime change. There was nothing referring to invasion and regime change.
Grrrrr.
Dave, I am seriously warning you: This is a major pet peeve of mine. I don't know what I have to do to spell this out for you. Will I have to ban you to get the signal across?
I have already answered your request to show that regime change was debated. I have already provided you with documentation showing an invasion was being discussed. It is NOT SIGNIFICANT that some other document I have given you does not contain a full discussion of each of those. It's telling that you keep thinking that.
Remember how we discussed that such thinking is a logical fallacy? Yes, that. You don't seem to have understood that. Perhaps I'll try to illustrate again:
Yes, I understand the document didn't have a discussion of regime change. I was fully aware of that when I gave it to you. Yes, I was also fully aware it didn't discuss a ground invasion. Not only that, I was aware of how completely it failed to discuss the dangers of lead poisoning, the correct time to bake a bundt cake, and the best techniques for dog grooming. If I had offered it as evidence of these things, and made an explicit claim it contained such, then perhaps you'd have a relevant point.
Further, remember the part at the top, where I told people who wanted to comment -- meaning you -- to read and follow the comment rules? Did you see the one where it says: "Don't blindly repeat arguments which have been answered"? That means you, and I will ban you if you keep this up. Don't make me do it in order to prove I mean it, please. You really won't like that.
Finally, remember how you said you understood about the need to take evidence as a whole? Let's do that, okay? Let's discuss each document for what it does or is supposed to contain, okay? Then, when we're all done with all the documents, THEN we can figure out what pieces were missing, and why we felt the case was or wasn't made, okay? You said you understood this. You're not doing this. Please honor that.
Don't force me to waste my time writing posts like this over and over in order to get you to follow one very, simple, sensible rule meant to stop people from engaging in unproductive and illogical patterns of thought and argument.
Thank you.
Thank you for pointing out "how completely it failed to discuss the dangers of lead poisoning, the correct time to bake a bundt cake, and the best techniques for dog grooming." I thought that was kind of funny. (What is a bundt cake?)
NO FRANK NATIONAL DEBATE
Not to irritate with repetition but to redraw and refresh the lines of the first point of our debate, the statement from McNamara which I appropriated to apply to Iraq:
"We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action."
Earlier you stated, "to apply such a statement to the current Iraq conflict seems completely ludicrious to me. The topic was debated in public extensively throughout the 90's."
Yet as I pointed out above, Cohen assured as late as 1998, "What we are seeking to do is not to topple Saddam Hussein..."
Now, of course there were people talking about it. You referred to something James Zogby said about national debate. But are you aware that he claimed it was NOT a "full and frank discussion". Zogby, who you quoted, stated that, "There are several flaws that can be noted in the current U.S. policy debate on Iraq. The most serious problem is the failure of most U.S. policy makers to understand Iraq (or any other Arab country, for that matter) in the context of the broader Arab world."
Zogby goes on to relate the very amusing story of a debate he had on NBC with one "Middle East expert" saying "During our conversations I learned that not only had he never been to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, he had never visited any Arab country. He assured me however, that he had studied Arab policies in Tel Aviv. This is not at all an exceptional occurrence."
Zogby further points out how Republicans managed to crush debate during 2001 and until mid-2002 when finally “...administration spokespersons have been forced to speak out and provide their answer to many of the questions now being raised by critics of the war. Clearly this matter is not resolved—but at last there is an open public debate.” (1)
But that was mid-2002.
Dave
(1) http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch/081902.htm
I would like to cover three areas in this post.
“IRAQ LIBERATION ACT” = NO INVASION
Now you challenged me with, "Sigh. Dave, do you remember, or did you ever hear of a bill passed in 1998 called the "Iraq Liberation Act"? As early as 1998, regardless of what happened with the weapons inspections, we had agreed, as a Republic, with agreement from Congress (and unanimous agreement in the Senate) and the President, that our official policy was henceforth to enact regime change in Iraq. Again, regardless of what happened with weapons inspections."
I must admit I was ignorant of the "Iraq Liberation Act". So I looked it up and read it yesterday. (1) You may be surprised, I suggest you refresh your memory of what it says.
The only thing it says about regime change is: first, to set up a radio station to broadcast into Iraq; second, offer military training and some equipment to “Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.”
In the entire 1498 words of "Iraq Liberation Act” there was not one word about the USA invading to effect a regime change, in other words, nothing to discuss, debate, raise the question of, justify or support the idea of the Iraq War.
The "Iraq Liberation Act” does not exhibit evidence to contradict the fact that, as McNamara said and I applied to the Iraq War, no full and frank national debate.
SO WHO DID DEBATE INVASION IN THE 1990’s ?
Now, that does not mean that SOME people were discussing it. You mentioned a “PBS NewHour debate among four men, talking about whether to use ground troops and/or large-scale bombardment.” First of all, this debate took place in 1998 at the same time the administration was assuring the world there was no need for invasion. So who was pushing the invasion issue?
Paul Wolfowitz. In his case is true he has consistently argued and debated that the USA should invade and occupy. As Pat Buchanan laments, as far back as the famous Wolfowitz Memo (1992) Wolfowitz made the case for global domination. (I do not care for Buchanan and care little for his politics but it shows that even many conservatives were concerned about these extremist “Neoconservatives” as Buchanan described them.) (2)
As early as his time at the University of Chicago, Paul Wolfowitz got involved with the teachings of Leo Straus and Albert Wohlstetter. Straus is considered by many as being the godfather of neoconservative thought. So there is no surprise that someone like Wolfowitz would argue a case consistently and constantly for an American invasion. But this not contradict the fact that...
NO NATIONAL DEBATE IN THE 1990s
“We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.”
As you said, “Now, I've given you link after link after link...” “If you want a debate on this, you're going to have to be specific...”
So now, at your request, I believe I have covered all the links you offered to support your position in your post of June 4, 2005 04:20 AM that there was a frank national debate in the 1990’s.
Regards,
Dave
(1) http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm
(2) The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to “establish and protect a new order.” Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Oh, and here is a little Iraq War trivia about the famous "Iraq Liberation Act". I admit, for purposes of our debate it is neither here nor there. But it is quite amazing.
I had a hunch about this and Bingo, I was right. It seems that ole lying Thief of Baghdad had his fingers in this one, too. What a guy!
"[Amhed] Chalabi lobbied in Washington for the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act (passed February 1998), which earmarked USD $97 million to support Iraqi opposition group, virtually all of which was funneled through the INC." (Wikipedia)
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT = NO INVASION
Dave, where did I say the Iraq Liberation Act demanded an invasion? I said it was about regime change. You said regime change was not debated, and thus I pointed you to this, which established that our national policy was that we supported regime change in Iraq, and decided that Saddam needed to go. It also establishes that we had decided Iraq was already in "material breach" of UN Resolutions granting ceasefire, and that these two ideas has the full support of the American public as expressed in Congress. These are both important elements to understanding the whole picture.
Dave, your tactics are clear at this point:
Because the document about regime change doesn't authorize a ground invasion, therefore, a ground invasion was never discussed in the 1990s. Even though I sent you two links showing prime-time discussion of a ground invasion was occuring. But because it wasn't authorized at that time, therefore it was never discussed.
Also, because you don't like one participant in the debate (Wolfowitz) -- he went to the wrong school and listened to some guy named Strauss -- therefore there no debate occurred at all.
Also, because one commentator on the left (Zogby) was critical of the discussion -- never mind that he was participating in it too, by saying so -- therefore no discussion occurred.
Gosh, that's telling. You don't even say something more plausable like: "Well, I don't feel it was a good enough debate." No, you insist it didn't even exist at all, repeating over and over "NO NATIONAL DEBATE" like a kid putting his fingers in his ears, going "Lalalalalala! I can't hear you!" As if simply saying something repeatedly made it true.
At this point, I think I'm going to have to politely decline to continue this discussion with you any further, for several reasons:
(a) You don't seem interested in changing your mind or position when confronted by evidence.
For example, as just mentioned, I've shown you that a debate occurred in the 1990s. Now maybe, if you'd said: "Well, okay, it did, but it wasn't full enough for me" I wouldn't be writing this. But no, that wasn't enough to show a debate, of any sort occurred -- thus you end by writing, in big letters, as though that made it more true: "NO NATIONAL DEBATE".
So that evidence didn't make you budge even slightly. Your position when done was exactly the same as when you started. You simply dismissed the evidence out of hand, apparently offering only logical fallacies to explain why you were going to ignore it.
Certainly, you're welcomed to do or believe what you want, but I fail to see why I'm valuable to the process: even if I provide evidence which directly contradicts one of your statements, you don't moderate your stance even slightly. This is a waste of my efforts, Dave.
(b) Your thinking is fraught with irrationality.
For example, you seem to keep falling back into the fallacy of division, over and over.
And apparently you're doing it again in your last comment:
The "Iraq Liberation Act” does not exhibit evidence to contradict the fact that, as McNamara said and I applied to the Iraq War, no full and frank national debate.
You seem yet again to be arguing that the whole does not have some property because one of its parts does not. As if you said: "Your foot offers no evidence that you are not a complete person -- because it had no eyes!" Surely you can see this is an irrational thing to say about feet and eyes, but somehow -- if the topic is about Iraq, then suddenly this kind of reasoning seems to makes sense to you, fallacy or no, and you'll use it over and over.
(Remember how you agreed to consider all the evidence, and then discuss what was missing from the whole picture, not from a specific document? Remember how I have asked you repeatedly to only discuss each document for the evidence it does provide, not for what it doesn't? Yes, that.)
Another: You rely upon ad hominem fallacy, for example trying to claim that Wolfowicz being a bad person means that we didn't have a discussion. As if your dislike from him somehow invalidated his arguments, much less erased the larger debate in which he was participating.
Another: Selective thinking, again: You argue this NewsHour episode provides no evidence of a debate occuring because -- again, as best as I can understand your argument, because you claim Wolfowitz was the main person supporting ground invasion.
Yet even if that made sense (and it does not), in this same episode, I notice you apparently looked right past Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, an aviator who argued that air strikes would never be sufficient to achieve "regime change." You also apparently ignored Richard Murphy, who argued ground troops would be necessary for enforcing UN goals of making sure Saddam was WMD-free.
Why would you ignore these two? I don't know for sure, but it seems you don't want to undermine your view of Wolfowitz's importance. They provide evidence to the contrary. And apparently you also use the conspiracy theory about Leo Strauss as some kind of mind-blanking mechanism to keep from seriously considering the (IMO) persuasive arguments these two gentlemen evince in favor of a ground invasion.
Looks like a mental straw-man argument going on there: easier to argue that Wolfowitz, under the evil mind-bending spell of Leo Strauss, was pushing for an confrontation with Iraq than seriously considering the actual arguments being offered by other people.
There have been countless others, as I've pointed out in previous examples, but that's enough to illustrate the problem here:
Again, the whole problem with having a "debate" with a person who engages in logical fallacies is that he draws unsound conclusions. Having a debate with a person who won't avoid fallacies is a bit like playing pool against a guy who picks up the balls and puts them in the pockets |
I don't know if you've had the chance to see McNamara's documentary. Unlike Hitch, he's been there done that.
After having a long time to reflect on the Vietnam War fiasco former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had a few lessons to share. He is still no peacenik, but today he realizes:
- We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
- We viewed the people and leaders of Vietnam[and I'd say Iraq - dk] in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
- We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
- Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
- We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
- We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.
- After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
- We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
- We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
- We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
It's not such a neat and tidy "yes" or "no" situation as Hitch would allude to. And when you do it, you've got to do it right.
Posted by: dave kees on May 29, 2005 03:22 AM