A Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community

Acknowledgements

SEARCH eRiposte!

WHAT WILL BECOME OF IRAQ? 

Last Updated 5-2-04

1. Comments on immediate aftermath of Iraq invasion by the U.S. (4-20-03)

2. FLASHBACK: World's outpouring of support for the U.S. after 9/11

3. FLASHBACK: Bush administration's actions in Afghanistan and the U.S. - Incompetence continues

4. FLASHBACK: Case for invasion fraught with lies, deception and misleading statements, i.e.,  compassionate conservatism

5. IRAQ PREFACE: World reactions before Iraq invasion and reactions inside Iraq right after the toppling of Saddam's statue 

6. IRAQ TODAY: History repeats itself - Quagmire

1. Comments on immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, by the Bush administration (4-20-03)

On 4-10-03, we heralded the evident toppling of Saddam's regime - a day for celebration with the throngs of liberated Iraqis. We need to be clear - especially those who were against this war - that we should share the joy of the formerly-repressed Iraqis. At eRiposte we are striving to bring balance to public discourse (keeping in mind our own finite capabilities and natural biases) - so it would be remiss of us to not applaud the liberation of Iraq and thank the American troops for the great job they have done (as measured by the joy of the Iraqis). It is also our experience that no one is always wrong - so credits are due to President Bush and his administration for their success in this one dimension of this war. That said, much caution is in order - not only because of the widespread looting (see: "Looters destroyed what war did not") that the Bush administration did not plan for. 

In our Iraq unplugged page, which we had compiled up until the point of the start of the United States' attack on Iraq, we concluded from the mass of evidence available until then that, "Based on a review of all the pros and cons, and opinions offered, there is no real case for an immediate invasion of Iraq, even though we believe very much in the cause of taking Saddam out. We have always supported aggressive inspections backed by a real threat of military action. We believe that it is imperative for those who are protesting unilateral invasion to also simultaneously protest against Saddam Hussein and ask for him to step down from power for the sake of Iraq's citizens (borrowing Joe Conason's proposal). As of today (3/16) it has become clear that we are going to war (reading President Bush's latest announcement). It is sad that this is the way the administration is proceeding. We hope and pray for minimal casualties or injuries amongst American troops and innocent Iraqis (whom Mr. Bush has stated, this war is also being fought for). As we have said before, we support American troops who are doing their job, as unpleasant as it might be." 

Our position was that there were good reasons to attack Saddam (such as his cruel dictatorial regime, the small possibility that he held WMDs, our chronic inability to de-seat him in the past - in part due to the U.N., a corrective action for having supported him in the past, and the potential of making Iraqis happy), but that there were strong countervailing reasons that made the costs of such an attack without U.N. support and military backing higher than the benefits (e.g., repeated lies/misleading statements about Saddam's weapons arsenal or links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda - more on this in part 4 below, display of hypocrisy, politics and egregious "diplomacy" which eroded trust and harmed long-term alliances/friendships, possibly high casualties amongst our soldiers and amongst those whom we seek to liberate, quest for oil wealth, , the post-war "rule" (un) planned, the costs of maintaining order and democracy, etc.). On balance the war had a moral goal (liberation of Iraqis) but also some immoral goals (unprovoked attack on another country preceded by a mass of fabrications and misleading statements about the threat posed by Saddam to the U.S., at a time when one of the key past (and present) (direct/indirect) supporters of those that caused 9/11 - Pakistan - remains our "ally" in the "war on terrorism"). It was obvious from the start that victory would be easy. While this administration is free to criticize the so-called "armchair" generals (look who's talking!), can they say with certainty that following the advice of the generals would not have saved some of the 100 or so American lives that have been lost to date? Life is not as cheap as some would have us believe.

Well, anyway, back to the present. On balance, we are neither dovish nor hawkish. We believe that life is based on balance and all issues should be reacted to with balanced views. Today, the part that brings us happiness is the liberation of Iraq from the hands of a heinous dictator. The part that leaves us nervous and concerned is obviously the uncertainty about what will follow in the years to come. Given that, we believe a few snapshots are in order to keep in our memories what lies ahead and what - we must ensure - lies ahead. We thought we would first start by finding out what the gloaters are saying. As we looked at a few sites we came across a slew of pictures nicely put together by Balloon-Juice to taunt the inhabitants of San Francisco (via Instapundit). We borrowed some of these pictures, along with others from other sources (cited below) - to try and bring some balance to where we are. Our hope is that this will make it clear where we need to go from here.

The key point is - let's remember 9/11, but let's also remember Afghanistan, so that we don't forget the promises we have made to the (Afghani and) Iraqi people. To those of you who are pro-peace/anti-war - here is a suggestion. Clamor for the democratization and building of Afghanistan and Iraq (not just the buildings and industry, but also a progressive educational infrastructure with mass access to the internet - which is perhaps even more important). Nothing is perhaps more important than this, in order to build goodwill in those countries and prevent another heinous dictator or terrorist group from emerging due to "benign neglect." Make that a big part of your future message. And, take a flag with you and be proud to speak for the values the flag actually stands for.  

In the past we have conceded that it is not obligatory for the United States to embark upon nation-building in states like Afghanistan. However, doing something because it is an obligation is quite different from doing something because it is in our national interest. The Marshall Plan after WWII was perhaps the best security plan for the United States since WWII. What we need is a well thought out Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. FLASHBACK: World's outpouring of support for the U.S. after 9/11

9/11 (you can click on the pictures to expand them)

What happened	How NY and the world reacted
Source	This picture is worth a thousand words and pictures Source
Pentagon Source	San Francisco Source
Source	Frankfurt, Germany Source Hamburg
.	Source
.	Gallup International Poll (snippet only) Western Europe Supports US Military Action Citizens in the vast majority of western European countries agree with US military action, with support at it's highest in countries which have strongly allied themselves with the United States cause - the Netherlands (75%), France (73%), UK (68%), Denmark (66%) and Germany (65%) [our emphasis]. High levels of agreement are also found in these same countries when they were asked whether their own country should participate in military action. Only in three of the eighteen West European countries surveyed significant disagreement with the US military action was measured - most strongly in Greece (81%), Spain (49%) and Austria (43%).
.	Moscow
.	Palestinians in East Jerusalem
.	Gallup International Poll (snippet only) Asia/Pacific Predictable patterns are found with seven out of ten Indian urban respondents supporting US military action, whilst 82% of Pakistani oppose this (our emphasis), reflecting the tension between these two countries. Strong dissent is also found in Malaysia (67%), which has a high level of Muslim citizens. (Note: Pakistan is our "ally" since 9/11)
.	France offers Navy support to US "...French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin told the National Assembly on Wednesday that his administration had agreed to U.S. requests to open its airspace and offer its naval co-operation in the Indian Ocean, mainly for logistic support. France, a member of NATO, confirmed its solidarity with the United States -- or "the nation to whom we owe our victory over the Nazis" as Jospin told the assembly. (our emphasis) Jospin also called for better cooperation between countries to track down terror networks, regardless of different systems or police forces, and the need to shut down the financial networks supporting them..."

3. FLASHBACK: Bush administration's actions in the U.S. and Afghanistan - Cover-ups, Incompetence and Neglect continues

9/11 - Part II

Tim Dunlop at The Road to Surfdom elegantly summarizes how Bush has systematically tried to undermine the 9/11 Commission again and again - in order to prevent the truth about his administration and its inactions from coming out in the open.

In short, this is what Bush's relationship with the 9/11 Commission boils down to:

• He tried to block the formation of the commission
• Failing, he then appointed a patsy chairman, Henry Kissinger
• Then he refused to testify
• And he blocked them from getting key documents
• Then he agreed to talk with them
• But not under oath
• And only for an hour
• And only with the chair and deputy chair
• And then he insisted on having Cheney go with him
• And agreed to a single notetaker
• Then he refused to grant the commission a time extension
• Then he tried to stop Rice testifying
• And he blocked the release of papers from the Clinton era
• Then tried to stop the August 6, 2001 PDB being released
• Then he flip-flopped on the extension, Rice testifying, the Clinton papers and the PDB
• Then he ran ads saying Kerry was a flip-flopper
• Then he changed his mind about the notetaker
• And then he decided to have his legal counsel along

And then, funniest all, his spokesman can say this with a straight face:

McClellan said Bush "appreciates the job the commission is doing. He strongly supports the commission's important work."
He said the president "very much looks forward to sitting down with the commission and answering whatever questions they may have."

Well, obviously.

(Article link via Corrente and there is more over there.)

9/11 - Part III

4. FLASHBACK: Case for invasion fraught with lies, deception and misleading statements

Iraq - Part I

As I said on 11/14/03:
Since the invasion of Iraq, it has only become clearer that the principal justifications for the war were fraudulent - Saddam's nuclear weapons/capabilities, his biological/chemical/other weapons/threat, his supposed link to Al Qaeda and [subliminally (or directly) cultivated] link to 9/11, and the overall threat posed by him and the supposed irrelevance/ineffectiveness of the UN. The post-war reconstruction has been less than crisp, to put it euphemistically - not to mention that fakery that continues on that topic. While things have improved in some parts of Iraq - and most Iraqis clearly are happy to be "rid" (in a manner of speaking) of Saddam Hussein (which is a good thing while it lasts), it is undeniable that in the key Sunni triangle (and perhaps to some extent in other areas), security and life in general is not much better, or is in fact worse. In the face of this, it is not easy to conjure up reasons to support an American or International/U.N. occupation of Iraq. 

5. IRAQ: World reactions before Iraq invasion and reactions inside Iraq right after the toppling of Saddam's statue

Iraq - Part II

Iraq - Part III

Iraq- Part IV

December 2003: Saddam Hussein captured. A brief moment of rejoicing

6. IRAQ today: History repeats itself - Quagmire 

Iraq - Part V

Eric Alterman at Altercation sums it up (via Brad De Long):

What we said before the war, in no particular order

1. The invasion of Iraq will cause, not prevent, terrorism.
2. The Bush administration was not to be trusted when it warned of the WMD threat.
3. Going in without the U.N. is worse than not going in at all.
4. They were asleep at the switch pre-9/11 and have been trying to cover this up ever since.
5. And they manipulated 9/11 as a pretext for a long-planned invasion of Iraq.
6. Any occupation by a foreign power, particularly one as incompetently planned as this one, will likely create more enemies than friends and put the U.S. in a situation similar at times to Vietnam, and at other times, similar to Israel’s occupation of Lebanon; both were disasters.
7. An invasion of Iraq will draw resources and attention away from the genuine perpetrators of the attack on us, and allow them to regroup for further attacks.
8. Bonus: Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” will increase anti-Semitism worldwide.

We Told You So, I:  “The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has accelerated the spread of Osama bin Laden's anti-Americanism among once local Islamic militant movements, increasing danger to the United States as the al Qaeda network is becoming less able to mount attacks, according to senior intelligence officials at the CIA and State Department."  [Link]

We Told You So, II:  "Secretary of State Colin Powell conceded Friday evidence he presented to the United Nations that two trailers in Iraq were used for weapons of mass destruction may have been wrong.”  Powell:  “It appears not to be the case that it was that solid.” [Link]

We Told You So, III:  “The Bush administration is scrambling to develop a new Iraq exit strategy with help from the United Nations over the next two to three weeks, but the array of political and security challenges is now so daunting that U.S. officials also quietly acknowledge that the U.S.-led coalition may end up in an even worse position if the latest effort fails.” [Link] 

We Told You So, IV:  “The broad outline of Clarke's criticism has been corroborated by a number of other former officials, congressional and commission investigators, and by Bush's admission in the 2003 Bob Woodward book "Bush at War" that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden before the attacks occurred.” [Link] (And plenty more.) [eRiposte note: And more]

We Told You So, V:  “President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.” [Link]

We Told You So, VI:  “By unleashing mass demonstrations and attacks in Baghdad and southern Iraq on Sunday, a young, militant cleric has realized the greatest fear of the U.S.-led administration since the occupation of Iraq began a year ago: a Shiite Muslim uprising.” [Link]

We Told You So, VII:  “A new report by the United Nations Development Program, made public on the eve of last week’s international conference, in Berlin, on aid to Afghanistan, stated that the nation is in danger of once again becoming a “terrorist breeding ground” unless there is a significant increase in development aid.” [Link]

Bonus We Told You So, VII[I]:  “The percentage of Americans who say Jews were responsible for Christ's death is rising, particularly among blacks and young people, according to a nationwide poll taken since the release of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ." [Link]

As Atrios said:

Condi Flashbacks

From Foreign Affairs, 2000:

"The lesson, too, is that if it is worth fighting for, you had better be prepared to win. Also, there must be a political game plan that will permit the withdrawal of our forces—something that is still completely absent in Kosovo."
"[The military] is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society."
"Using the American armed forces as the world's "911" will degrade capabilities, bog soldiers down in peacekeeping roles, and fuel concern among other great powers that the United States has decided to enforce notions of "limited sovereignty" worldwide in the name of humanitarianism."

Look, for too long these people have swept this stuff aside by chanting "9/11 changed everything." No, 9/11 didn't change everything. What 9/11 did is prove that these people were wrong about absolutely everything. And, what Iraq has proven is they still haven't learned anything.

A regularly updated tally of U.S. military deaths/injuries in Iraq is available at Lunaville.

The cost of war is here.

Note added on 4/24/04: 

It is no surprise that Iraq has turned into a mess. In November 2003, in a couple of posts, I argued that while I was opposed to this war, I felt that the U.S. should stay and bring stability and peace inside Iraq and not leave Iraq in a shambles - as a massive new terrorist-breeding ground that it has become. I had qualified my note with a comment that "staying" by itself does no good if the Bush administration does nothing different and doesn't actively work to reverse their appalling incompetence in, and wilful ignorance of, planning and how they were mishandling the issue of security and governance in Iraq. As I write this, not much has changed for the better and clearly many things have turned to the worse. The Bush flip-flop in letting the U.N. decide the next steps in Iraq, may however be a step that will slightly correct the problem, because at least the U.N. is trying to reduce the hold on Iraq by a corrupt, unrepresentative Governing Council. It is unclear however if this is sufficient to reverse the mess in Iraq and correct its morphing into a hotbed of anti-American terrorism, something that it was not prior to the Iraq invasion.

Note added on 5/2/04:

The battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and the Arab/Muslim world in general, is probably lost for a long time now, with the revelations of the abuse and torture of prisoners in Iraq by some Americans - this happening around the same time that some of Saddam's Republican Guard have been given power again in Iraq because of the challenges in Fallujah. Billmon's posts - here, here, and here - are relevant reading on this.