The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

Then the game is to body snatch them.

That might have worked. Although, it would have been extremely difficult and taken years of infiltration and even then against incredible odds. Also, its against the US laws.

Two men well in the public eye, both of whom were far better versed in foreign policy and bayonets than you or I, Anthony Zinni and James Webb (there were others, but those were two men I have met) were publically and vocally opposed to the war in Iraq due not to any silly moral argument, like what is going on in this thread, but from a powerful practical geotstrategic argument:

By taking out Iraq, Iran's core rival is neutralized, and the biggest pain in the nose to American policy in the Persian Gulf, Iran, wins out by default, all risks of Iraq fragmenting like Yugoslavia being extra salt in the wound. Containment worked for 40 years vs the USSR, and has worked more or less for fifty plus years versus North Korea. The argument for "why now" was never answered. Please do a search on my name, and the "why now" question on this forum if you like.

The policy decision to implement democracy at the point of a bayonet was a gamble, not a risk, that assumed away a lot of unpleasantness within the borders of what is called "Iraq" due to British lines on a map.

I agree with your position. I think Saddam was the madman who gave Iran nightmares. However there was also the drifting of Iraq toward embracing more Wahabi extremists, and training, funding, supporting their actions abroad. Especially as tools against, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, but also against the US, and UK. Iraq had become a nightmare for more than just Iran. That trend might have ended with the decapitation of Iraq's top leadership, but probably not.

Saddam being deposed as a good thing, sorta, but two things that attended it are not so good:

• Five straight years of Civil War in Iraq<>
  
• Saddam's hanging, and the political message that sent: yeah, it was a lynch mob we supported by going over there.<>
  [st]A variety of lesser bad things have also come out of this Iraq war, which need not be listed here.

I think in the future, the analysis of this war Jus Post Bella, will be rife with criticism. Especially in the first year. Subsequently, we've had to dig ourselves out of a pretty deep hole just to get some forward progress. Personally, I wish Saddam, Uday and Qusay had been tried for every crime against humanity they committed. Not knowing how the post war would turn out, I think there was also a rush to judgment to prevent the miraculous escape which would only fuel his legend for survival.

[Occhidiangela]

Personally, I wish Saddam, Uday and Qusay had been tried for every crime against humanity they committed. Not knowing how the post war would turn out, I think there was also a rush to judgment to prevent the miraculous escape which would only fuel his legend for survival.

Why would political show trials have been any good? Paid any attention to the political mess of the trials of the people in Gitmo? Glad his two sons ate lead, very sorry Saddam didn't end up with a GBU-31 on his forehead due to a TST style strike. Would have kept his symbolic value in the post conflict Sunni insurgency down to a minimum, or rendered it nil.

Rummy tossed the dice on a "decapitation strike" and lost, as he did on the two years worth of "decapitation strike" on Zarqawi. Lost due to not being able to simply reach out and smite X, Y, or Z. See also a guy they all Osama Bin Laden.

Want to lose political points? Keep throwing your weight around whilst you foes thumb their noses at you. Image stat drops like a life stat when hit by those Church lvl III zombies in Diablo I.:P

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Thanks, that does clear some things up.

However, this merely raises the question of whether a nation, *in the case of an existing just cause for war*, can act without the United Nations authority. That would be an interesting case, and I would likely accept war from a nation whose case for just war was ironclad, but simply lacked the political support of the UN, or who was blocked by a veto. However, since the US does not have such a cause for war, it is somewhat irrelevant whether they would be justified in declaring war if they had one.

And, of course, it is only a footnoted list of arguments people of made, and is hardly itself a refutation of my argument. Some of the cited articles might have convincing arguments against me, but then, some of them obviously support my position on this issue. I haven't read them, so perhaps a more curious poster will weigh the arguments more carefully.

The best approach would be to review the US Congress's authorization for the use of force. This is the US's justification for war. (link)

• Whereas in 1990 in ... The framework for this AOF is the prior war.<>
  
• Whereas after the liberation ... On the two conditions, open disarmament and support for terrorism, Iraq failed to comply.<>
  
• Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors ... The judgment in the absence of open disarmament by Iraq was they had something to hide. I still maintain they might have.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire... They did thwart the actions of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.<>
  
• Whereas in Public Law 105-235 ... If Iraq was actually in compliance and knew that the US felt they were in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations", then their actions were akin to suicide by cop.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat ... Again, the two conditions the US felt Iraq was breaching were pursuit of proscribed weapons and support for international terrorism. True or not, this was the US Congress's position on Iraq. I tend to feel that Iraq's WMD capabilities were overblown, and most of his programs were entrenched in hiding, but that his growing support for international terrorism was a threat.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq persists in violating... This is true.<>
  
• Whereas the current Iraqi regime... Also, true. Irrelevant if they had been proven to be disarmed.<>
  
• Whereas the current Iraqi regime... This is true.<>
  
• Whereas members of al Qaida... We've argued plenty about Zarqawi's organization, and the links between senior Iraqi's and members of Al Qaida, including directly with OBL.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor... Also, true.<>
  
• Whereas the attacks on the United States... Ok, this is pretty speculative that Iraq might be a conduit more so than say Iran, or Pakistan.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability... So, in the absence of proof of disarmament, the extreme case is made. Again, I think this is a stretch of credibility to believe Saddam would give WMD's to terrorists.<>
  
• Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678... The US, feeling the 1991 cease fire having been violated, returns to its 1991 authorization to bring Iraq into compliance.<>
  
• Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force... Again, returning to the former authorization from 1991 to finish the purpose of the prior war.<>
  
• Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed... Ditto.<>
  
• Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998... The US (under Pres. Clinton) supports regime change.<>
  
• Whereas on September 12, 2002... The US has attempted to work with the UNSC.<>
  
• Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism... The US feels Iraq is in violation in its continued support of terrorism.<>
  
• Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue... Iraq continued and was actually increasing its support for international terrorism, and the post 9/11 congress was more serious in its war on nations who supported it.<>
  
• Whereas the President and Congress are determined... Meaning that Iraq belligerently continued to be a haven and provided support for terrorism and terrorist organizations. <>
  
• Whereas the President has authority... ...to deter and prevent. So essentially, don't get on the bad guy list.<>
  
• Whereas it is in the national security interests...Viewing this war as the last resort to bring about international peace and security to the Persian Gulf.<>
  [st]So, in summary; The US felt it had Just Cause for war and was threatened by Iraq, because of Iraq's position of providing haven for terrorism, it's suspected pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and its ruthless use of these weapons in the recent past. Now, I agree, other nations, like Iran were much larger supporters. I think Iraq was selected due to Saddam's pathological belligerence. Unfortunately a trait shared by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez. How much of the cause of this war would you place on Saddam's intractable ego?
  
  The two pillars here are; 1) Was Iraq a haven for terrorism, and 2) was Iraq intent on producing WMD's? To complicate matters, you need to separate what is believed now, from what was believed in 2002, within all the misinformation flying around at that time. Much of the Just Cause for the war was cloaked in suspicions of Iraq's intent and capabilities, and there was an active lobby of organizations like PUK and the INC who were more than willing to manufacture the evidence needed to justify the war. The "truth" is probably somewhere between what was overblown prewar and suspected then, and the zero that you have proposed was the reality. I believe that items 1 & 2 were true, although Iraq's WMD capabilities had been severely impacted and curtailed by UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. In order to rebuild his programs, he needed to obfuscate and dodge until the UN and the world tired of the game.

[kandrathe]

Why would political show trials have been any good? Paid any attention to the political mess of the trials of the people in Gitmo? Glad his two sons ate lead, very sorry Saddam didn't end up with a GBU-31 on his forehead due to a TST style strike. Would have kept his symbolic value in the post conflict Sunni insurgency down to a minimum, or rendered it nil.

Rummy tossed the dice on a "decapitation strike" and lost, as he did on the two years worth of "decapitation strike" on Zarqawi. Lost due to not being able to simply reach out and smite X, Y, or Z. See also a guy they all Osama Bin Laden.

Want to lose political points? Keep throwing your weight around whilst you foes thumb their noses at you. Image stat drops like a life stat when hit by those Church lvl III zombies in Diablo I.:P

Yes, I see your point. My desire would be to eternally tarnish the regime with the actual evidence ala Nuremburg, rather than to deal with the revisionist accounts that are bound to be spun in the future.

[kandrathe]

And so what, the power then devolves to whomever wants to claim it? I don't recall that part of the charter. Could Iran have enforced 1441? Could Israel? Or does the US have some special aura that makes it the only one who decides these things? This is pure vigilantism. The enforcement body decided on its course of action, the US didn't like it, and so broke the law to get its way. Not a tough legal issue.

In terms of War, yes, any nation who felt justly threatened by Iraq, and who had the means to successfully prosecute and win the war would be "Justly" authorized to engage in the war. You seem to ascribe to the UN some hierarchy of authority that does not exist.

If this were true, then there has not been an illegitimate war declared by a nation in 7000 years of organized warfare.

Probably not, and you probably know this is an exaggeration.

In matters of war, nations are subservient to the UN if they want to follow the rule of international law. If they'd rather become rogue vigilante states, then no, I guess they aren't.

Again, no state is subservient to the UN. Every state is given the right to its own sovereignty. The UN acts as a means for political dialog. One prerequisite for the modern "Just War" is to present your case to the UNSC, but because it is a political body the failure to get UN authorization for your war would not automatically mean your war was unjust.

Those inspections, still going on when the US torpedoed them by invading, turned up nothing at all. Post-war intelligence overwhelmingly indicates that Iraq had no functioning WMD programs, nor WMD stockpiles. What "reform" did Iraq fail to make that was necessary?

By thwarting UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, a definate answer of "did they" or "didn't they" was not possible allowing for the fear of "did they" to win over. Had Iraq wanted to prevent the war, they merely had to aid the actions of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC to verify completely that they "DID NOT" have anything. But, the best anyone could come up with was "maybe not".

Once again, this claim pops up about Ansar Al-Islam. Do I have to play whackamole with this yet again? Show me something real about this claim, or abandon it.

How about from George Tenet,
"Ansar al-Islam, a radical Kurdish Islamic group, was closely allied to al-Qa'ida. Kurdish Islamists and al-Qa'ida had come together in the summer of 2000 to create a safe haven for al-Qa'ida in an area of northeastern Iraq not under Iraqi government control, in the event Afghanistan was lost as a sanctuary. The area subsequently became a hub for al-Qa'ida operations. We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations. What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northeastern Iraq... Do we know just how aware Iraqi authorities were of these terrorists' presence either in Baghdad or northeastern Iraq? No, but from an intelligence point of view it would have been difficult to conclude that the Iraqi intelligence service was not aware of their activities. Certainly, we believe that at least one senior AI operative maintained some sort of liaison relationship with the Iraqis. But operational direction and control? No." -- "At the Center of the Storm: My years at the CIA", Harper Collins, p. 350-351. You refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming truth of the connection here.

And some other people, in their irritating sanity, insisted that evidence be given for this point that wasn't full of holes. None was forthcoming, and the only program that might have theoretically provided it was derided as the inneffectual bungling of "Hans Blinx." Such nattering nabobs of negativity also happened to have Security Council vetos, making it rather necessary to satisfy them before going to war.

Again, no, the burden of proof was on Iraq, not for Hans Blix to find something. In this case, Iraq failed to convince the US that there was no WMD programs, because the accounting fell short.

The Security Council is a group of nations, many of them the most poweful in the world, getting together to decide collective security matters. It is hardly a "committee of bureaucrats."

The UN, and even the UNSC is a political body and has no power, other than when collective agreement including all the "veto" nations. This means in 99% of all action set before them, the most common response will be to do nothing.

[kandrathe]

Lets be perfectly clear that your position is equally extreme and you have as well been equally in refusal to taking any steps towards a middle ground. Demanding that someone concede their position before a debate can even begin while you make no effort at equal concession is hypocritical at best and decays quickly from there to wilfull ignorance.

I don't see it that way. He systematically went through all seven tenets and came up with zero. In that case, I see little merit in trying to propose a middle ground.

[Thecla]

I'd rather be China's pit bull, than their mutton dinner.

You certainly do seem to have an appetite for agression. But rabid pit bulls usually end up getting put down.

I dare say China's leaders are getting a grim sense of satisfaction in building up huge foreign reserves whilst the US impales itself on the middle east.

Clearly the next century is very uncertain (as it always is, I suppose) but energy will be an issue at the heart of it (as Cheney et. al. surely knew when they invaded Iraq). If there turns out to be one event that people point to which triggers the demise of the US and the ascendancy of China (if that's in fact what happens) I suspect it will be the Iraq war.

[kandrathe]

You certainly do seem to have an appetite for aggression. But rabid pit bulls usually end up getting put down.

:) Not aggression, more of an acknowledgment of responsibility. Unfortunately we are not Switzerland, who can shrug and watch the world collapse around us. Depending on if prosperity brings a more democratic China, you might find that the US is more of an ally than an enemy.

I dare say China's leaders are getting a grim sense of satisfaction in building up huge foreign reserves whilst the US impales itself on the middle east.

Economic power is essentially power, and having strayed from pure communism, China has realized how to wield its newly discovered power.

Clearly the next century is very uncertain (as it always is, I suppose) but energy will be an issue at the heart of it (as Cheney et. al. surely knew when they invaded Iraq). If there turns out to be one event that people point to which triggers the demise of the US and the ascendancy of China (if that's in fact what happens) I suspect it will be the Iraq war.

You are correct about energy. I think it is probably the #1 strategic resource. Without cheap and abundant power, our societies will fail. You are wrong, however, about the pivotal position of the Iraq war. China's ascendancy was assured by means of its vast population, and its embrace of capitalism. The US's and Europe's decline was assured by the continued embrace of socialism. Our crushing debts are not from the Iraq war, but from social programs run amok. As an example, the budget of the Iraq war (not reconstruction mind you) would be within the means of my meager state to fund. It can be turned around, but only by removing the attitude of entitlement with which our populations persist in deluding themselves.

[Jester]

I don't see it that way.

Of course not. But, equally as a matter of course, neither do I.

Edit: It's all been said and done in this thread, many posts ago. I'll leave you with the last word on the great chain of argumentation, I think I've been clear enough about all the points you bring up already.

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

Shoving it all into the pot! . . . (end of title)

Care to put your money where your crystal ball is, Van?

YEAH MAN I SURE DO!!!

In fact, I'll bet ALL MY MONEY!!!

Lessee, let me add it all up . . . there are ten items to total . . . okay, that's $1.47 baby! YEAH!

Everything else is "our" money.

You see, I'm a SITH. For the force-impaired, that's Single-Income-THree-kids. And that already-spread-out money, being in the D.C. area gets very little "bang for the buck", according to CNN today -- only worse place in the U.S. is New York.

Back in our DINK days, I could buy stuff! I once paid $400 to have my picture taken with Wayne Gretzky. The very idea of doing that these days, is just, well, seemingly uh whatever that word is that means being so rich that you throw money away on stupid decadent stuff.

You do have me thinking, tho, about financial support of sites I want to still exist when D3 comes. (There are two.) Perhaps the standard contribution should be a nickel for each forum post? :P

NOW ABOUT THE BET ---- we probably have different standards as to what qualifies. My crystal ball has some attack against Americans somewhere in the world and, this is the crucial part, some GOP arse pipes up that the event shows that the terrorists want us to vote for Democrats and we would be safer with McCain and the GOP then with the Democrats. THAT is my prediction. I'm sorry if I made it sound like "Pakistanis, in the kitchen, with the lead pipe." To me the location and degree of the attack is immaterial, the certainty is what we'll hear from some fearmongering GOP or GOP mouthpiece. This has been happening for at least 36 years, so I'm not really on going out on a <strike>lamb</strike> limb.

-V

[Occhidiangela]

YEAH MAN I SURE DO!!!

In fact, I'll bet ALL MY MONEY!!!

Lessee, let me add it all up . . . there are ten items to total . . . okay, that's $1.47 baby! YEAH!

You see, I'm a SITH. For the force-impaired, that's Single-Income-THree-kids.

:lol:

I am aware of the insane cost of living in DC.

NOW ABOUT THE BET ---- we probably have different standards as to what qualifies.

Simple: US attacks Iran, which means Iran is stupid enough to provoke an attack. I don't think so, and neither did Admiral Fallon, recent US CENTCOM.

The offer of the bet still stands, at twenty US dollars. Let Bolty or Griselda act as judges on the criterion for who won the bet.

"Pakistanis, in the kitchen, with the lead pipe."

That's a different bet. ;)

Occhi

[Thecla]

Simple: US attacks Iran, which means Iran is stupid enough to provoke an attack.

Sort of the same way Hussein was stupid enough to provoke an attack, I suppose? Currently, however, it seems that it's the US that is engaged in covert provocation of Iran. (And might not be so good for any special ops people in Iran now that the US has flouted the Geneva conventions.)

Still, if there were US military action against Iran (the results of which would make Iraq look like a Sunday picnic in the country) my money would be on the period between Nov 5, 2008 and Jan 19, 2009. If Obama wins the election, I dare say the Bush administration will be happy to hand over to him a world in which Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and who know what else, going up in flames. Should help the GOP election chances in the next cycle, if there is one.

__________________________

Newt Gingrich. This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you're prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers.

[Assur]

Still, if there were US military action against Iran (the results of which would make Iraq look like a Sunday picnic in the country) my money would be on the period between Nov 5, 2008 and Jan 19, 2009. If Obama wins the election, I dare say the Bush administration will be happy to hand over to him a world in which Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and who know what else, going up in flames.
_________________________

I was wondering about that aspect of the US political system. Are Bushs powers as head of the executive branch impaired, i.e. is able to carry on and take decisions until Obama is inaugurated or does the system go into lockdown-mode? Or if Bush decides to do something which Obama wouldn't do do the civil servants/officers work extra sloooow?

Edited after reproval:unsure:

[--Pete]

Hi,

I was wondering about that aspect of the US political system. Does Bush still run the country, i.e. is able to carry on and take decisions until Obama is inaugurated or does the system go into lockdown-mode? Or if Bush decides to do something which Obama wouldn't do do the civil servants/officers work extra sloooow?

In theory, nothing changes until inauguration day. In reality, a lot depends on the incumbent, the elected candidate, and the make-up and mood of the congress. If Obama is elected (probable) then I suspect Bush will find it hard to get congress to go along with anything he wants.

Oh, and by the way, Bush does not 'run the country.' But that is just too big a subject for now.

--Pete

[Thecla]

If Obama is elected (probable) then I suspect Bush will find it hard to get congress to go along with anything he wants.

Perhaps, but as far as I can see Bush has in fact managed to do exactly what he wants even with a democratically controlled congress, who (according to Seymour Hersh anyway) had to approve funding for covert operations against Iran.

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.

[Occhidiangela]

Sort of the same way Hussein was stupid enough to provoke an attack, I suppose?

You suppose wrongly, but somehow, I am not surprised.

Put away your cookie cutter. It is the year 2008, not 2002. Political conditions have changed, both at home and abroad. War is a subset of politics. Follow the bouncing ball.

Or am I speaking to a Hersch fanboi here? (Please, say it isn't so.) That self important putz has been predicting a US attack on Iran since 2005.

Cry Wolf, and let slip the doggerel of self serving spin.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Perhaps, but as far as I can see Bush has in fact managed to do exactly what he wants even with a democratically controlled congress, who (according to Seymour Hersh anyway) had to approve funding for covert operations against Iran.

Wrong again. He had to start using the veto power after 2006.

Gee, I wonder why that heppened?

Funny, the challenge to Gitmo grows stronger.

Gee, I wonder why that heppened?

He had to fire Rummy.

Gee, I wonder why that happened?

He had to hire Gates. (Read, someone who would pass Congressional hazing.)

Gee, I wonder why that heppened?

Here's a hint: his Congressional rubber stamp is no more.

Occhi

[Vandiablo]

Simple: US attacks Iran...

Ah, no. My meaning when I said the attack is sure to happen was not about the U.S. attacking Iran. I think if the U.S. ever attacks Iran, there will be about 5 months of dropping invasion supplies into SE Iraq, so that's not gonna happen before November.

I meant that some Al-Qaeda or Al-Wannabe knuckleheads are going to do something, anything, before the U.S. elections in an attempt to affect the elections. To me the question is where will it happen, and how big.

Thecla was saying the U.S./GOP/whoever will use the next terrorist attack in order to justify an attack on Iran -- I was just of the opinion that the same "next terrorist attack" will be just before November.

A subsequent opinion: If that attack does happen, as I said before, some GOP knucklehead will say that Al-Qaeda wants everyone to vote for Democrats, that therefore voting for Democrats is giving them what they want, appeasement, and so therefore people should vote GOP just to show the terrorists they can't control us. To me the question is who will be the highest-ranking person to actually voice this train of non-thought.

Hmm, now that I've thought about it some more, I'm sure McCain will say it, but it will be in the context of McCain is a better choice than Obama. He's fully entitled to say he's better than his opponent. I guess what I object to is a blanket statement that any vote against the GOP is appeasement.* Just like in 2002, 2004, and 2006. .... hmm ... well, the rabid ones, e.g., Coulter, have been saying that stuff constantly, so it's not a prediction really, it's more of a reality. ... so, never mind the GOP part, let's just see about the next al-whatever terrorist event.

-V

*Of course, I think the terrorists prefer us to elect GOP fearmongers. It keeps all the fires stoked. Makes recruiting easier. Improves the effigy industry. Keeps things black and white -- just how conservatives like things.

[Occhidiangela]

I meant that some Al-Qaeda or Al-Wannabe knuckleheads are going to do something, anything, before the U.S. elections in an attempt to affect the elections. To me the question is where will it happen, and how big.

The ability to sell a link between Iran and Al Q, or other knuckleheads, isn't a sales job available anymore, given the exposure of how the Al Q Iraq conflation game played out. Bush has played that card, and both the public and the Congress are aware of that game, not so clouded in emotion now as five years ago.

Thecla was saying the U.S./GOP/whoever will use the next terrorist attack in order to justify an attack on Iran -- I was just of the opinion that the same "next terrorist attack" will be just before November.

The former is silly, the latter I think is a possibility, see the 2004 attacks in Spain.

A subsequent opinion: If that attack does happen, as I said before, some GOP knucklehead will say that Al-Qaeda wants everyone to vote for Democrats, that therefore voting for Democrats is giving them what they want, appeasement, and so therefore people should vote GOP just to show the terrorists they can't control us. To me the question is who will be the highest-ranking person to actually voice this train of non-thought.

Might be, but I don't think it will be met with much credibility, since the Bush team's long sound byte of "fight them over there so not over here" will be resurrected to point out that it was a GOP failure that set up the attack in the first place.

Hmm, now that I've thought about it some more, I'm sure McCain will say it, but it will be in the context of McCain is a better choice than Obama. He's fully entitled to say he's better than his opponent. I guess what I object to is a blanket statement that any vote against the GOP is appeasement.* Just like in 2002, 2004, and 2006. .... hmm ... well, the rabid ones, e.g., Coulter, have been saying that stuff constantly, so it's not a prediction really, it's more of a reality. ... so, never mind the GOP part, let's just see about the next al-whatever terrorist event.

Easiest thing in the world for a Dem to spin is a successful attack in CONUS is a symptom of failure of the various and sundry measures that allegedly increase our security, whereas in fact mostly all that has been done is an increase of harassment of citizens.

Occhi

*Of course, I think the terrorists prefer us to elect GOP fearmongers. It keeps all the fires stoked. Makes recruiting easier. Improves the effigy industry. Keeps things black and white -- just how conservatives like things.

The GOP successfully gave Al Q, Osama, and Zarqawi all sorts of big medicine by using hype and rhetoric to inflate their importance in the still nebulous policy meme of War on Terror.

I will be out of town for a few days, no internet, conducting my own War on Stress and War on Brain Cells. :D

I hope to have better luck that the Bush team and its war on whatever.

Occhi

[Thecla]

You suppose wrongly.

Like Moses supposes, I suppose?

Put away your cookie cutter. It is the year 2008, not 2002. Political conditions have changed, both at home and abroad.

Political conditions have changed, though I'm not convinced they've changed as much as you appear to think. But one thing is for sure: the administration has not changed, and it will not change until Jan 20, 2009.

Bush strikes me (just my personal impression) as someone whose certainty is matched only by his lack of self-reflection and his disregard for the opinions of those who don't agree with him. Not a happy combination in a man who holds the levers of the US military, as events have shown.

The Bush administration won't get public support for military action against Iran at this point, especially having cried wolf once already on the nuclear issue. But if they've decided it's necessary, or they think that the wimps who follow them won't possess their wisdom and fortitude, I can believe they might use every means available to try and make it happen.

Perhaps the US military would not go along with Iran as easily as they apparently did with Iraq (Fallon vs Shinseki not withstanding) but I expect you know a lot more about that than I do. As a side note, given Shinseki's fate, I find Bush's current supposed deference to the "military commanders on the ground" in Iraq rather than the "politicians in Washington" --- as if Bush himself were not himself a politician in Washington and the commander-in-chief to boot --- highly ironic.

War is a subset of politics.

Certainly the Iraq war was, and very bad politics at that.

Or am I speaking to a Hersch fanboi here? (Please, say it isn't so.) That self important putz has been predicting a US attack on Iran since 2005.

Your opinion of Hersh is less important than the accuracy of his information. (Probably his reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib would've been dismissed by right-wing critics as the ravings of a left-wing lunatic were it nor for the photographs.) True or not, I find it quite plausible that influential factions within the Bush administration would like to provoke Iran into an armed confrontation with the US before they leave office.

To be clear, I don't believe the US and Iran will get into direct military conflict any time soon (rhetoric aside, it isn't a feasible option for the US) but the fact that it's even conceivable is pretty bad.