Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Occhidiangela]

Yes, you did. War is war. When you invade an entire country, you attack all of its citizens - end of story.

The view of a simpleton. You really don't 'get' Modern Warfare at all. This war was NOT a war along the model of World War II, which is what you just defined. Were that so, I cringe to think at the body count, what with the lethality of air launced weapons. It is (it aint over yet by a long shot) a different sort of beast, and could be better understood as a limited war, though that too is a very inexact description. Similar to Korea, similar to Viet Nam, similar to Panama (1989) similar to Serbia (1999) and with its own character.

The Kurds, for example, were not attacked, yet they were citizens of Iraq. (A few did die due to some errors in Coalition air attacks, if I remember the news reports correctly.)

As to terror groups, the group (Al Masur? I forget the name at the moment) in the North was indeed a terrorist group, al beit not quite Osama's Homeboys. Just more garden variety terrorists, with, IIRC, ties to Iran.

The Iraq operation, the war, was a political gamble, as is any war. Let there be no mistake. The gamble was that more good would come out, in the long term, than harm, to both Iraq and the people there, and the US and its ability to influence stability in the region. Stability => prosperity, or so the logic seems to go.

In five years, we might have a clue as to how the balance sheet works out on that one. Maybe in three.

And the critics will snipe, in some cases for very good reasons, in some cases because that is all that they can do.

Sorry, and add on here. In re Imperial models: Niall Ferguson has written some very insightful pieces on the 'responsibilities of empire' which he postulates that America is, whether we want to call ourselves one or not. (One current euphamism is 'hegemon.') I won't say that I subscribe to everything he writes as being true or correct, but he presents some very interesting ways to look at global influence and what it implies.

[Chaerophon]

The view of a simpleton. You really don't 'get' Modern Warfare at all. This war was NOT a war along the model of World War II, which is what you just defined.

Sorry, I edited that out later, clearly after you had read it. Realized what it sounded like upon rereading the post.

[WarBlade]

I'm glad the the Australians were there, but what are you basing this on? Since they were a small part of the overall force, their results may be nonrepresentative and nonreproducible due to the luxury of having few targets, and perhaps specially selected targets.

After a couple of failed search ideas I tried "australian stricter rules engagement" as my search terms and got what I was looking for. The following two links highlight some of the issues involved:

http://www.banminesusa.org/news/983_afghan...964_afghan.html

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s810237.htm

ANZAC forces refuse to use cluster bombs on the same basis that land mines have gained widespread condemnation - Civilian casualties, even long after the conflict in which these things are deployed.

I wasn't surprised to learn that American forces used them, but the fact that British forces did also was a little surprising. Especially considering the very public campaigning by Pricess Diana on the rather similar land mine issue, I'd (mistakenly) expected the cluster bomb issue to be more in the public arena than it appears to have been.

There are also stricter rules for Australian forces in the area of target verification.


edit: I just found an amusing flame war on the same search terms . . . link
This one sparked off by a little distortion within the pages of my very own local paper!!! :lol: Go go Bill Quick, whoever you are, and thanks for the giggle. :lol:


edit2: Anyone need a new sig? "Boozer, you wouldn't know a rule of engagement if it bit you on your drunk, pox-bespeckled ass. I doubt you're old enough (or brave enough) to serve in the Girl Scouts, let alone anybody's military" :lol: Oh, this guy's fun.

[Growler]

Destroyed a number of cultures along the way, but I'm sure that you think that they're better off in the long run anyways.

The British Empire was on balance a very good thing for its subjects. They brought representative government and the rule of law to the remotest corners of the world. They banished the world wide slave trade. In India they banished suttee, the practice of burning widows on their dead husband's funeral pyres. They greatly reduced the incidence of plagues by introducing the principles of sanitation and scientific medicine. They reduced famines by introducing improved agricultural methods. That is off the top of my head, they are responsible for many other worthwhile achievements. And yes, those achievements remain worthwhile even balanced against the blood spilled of those who resisted them.

For that matter, in my opinion, the USA is one of the least "revolutionary" of the modern western nations.

I wonder what standard of measure you employ to call the US the least "revolutionary".

The idea of implicit consent justifying a government may have been around for a long time (what is the significance of 2500 years?) but historical longevity is not an argument for its validity. Because the doctrine of implicit consent can be used to justify the continued reign of tyrants, it is in fact fatally flawed considered as political theory.

a.) does not have any particular terrorist affiliations (particularly compared to its neighbours)

Saddam sponsored terrorism against Isreal by making payments to the families of suicide bombers. This is one of the many facets of Saddam Hussein's behavior that made his continued existence incompatible with the goal of peace in the area.

b.) is governed by a regime at polar opposites with those clerical orders in the rest of the arab world from which terror cells develop

I don't agree with this assessment that Saddam was a polar opposite of the theocracies around him. A police state is a police state, it makes no difference whether it was secularly or religiously justified.

And 10,000 frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?

Try at least 30 million.

I'm sorry that went over your head. What I meant was: the numbers are irrelevant, what is right and what is wrong is not determined by counting noses.

Germany had no oil contracts with Iraq.

I was glib. Germany built Saddam's bunkers. France was the oil money launderer. Russia sold arms, China helped with Iraq's air defense network. Regardless of the details, I insist that French, German, and even Russian government interest in continuing the regime of Saddam Hussein indefinitely was motivated by crass economics, not any principled stand against violence. Crass economics is not evil, but please spare me the hypocrisy of the 'peace loving peoples of europe'.

Because Saddam Hussein's tyranny was financed by the state controlled (ie socialized) oil industry, he was free to neglect the welfare of his people. In democratic countries, because the gov't is financed only by taxes on the people, the gov't has an interest in encouraging a healthy economy, and the people have some economic leverage over the government if taxes are set by a representative legislature. So it is better for the people of Iraq that their oil fields not be socialized, that arrangement merely funds their repression.

I like the Wolfowitz doctrine. It disproves the notion that the short election cycles of democracies prevent long range planning. A country as large and influential as the US should not lurch from crisis to crisis, it should plan ahead. It should plan for its own benefit because the primary responsibilty of any government is to its own people.

[Growler]

A better link would be this one, because it gives more of the interview. I don't blame the guy at all. People dressed in civilian clothes but bearing arms are not civilians.

CommonDreams

Christians invented the idea of separating religion and politics. Although the medieval Catholic popes may have strayed from the ideal, in modern times practice conforms well to theory.

The terrorists are all Wahhabi Islamists (except for those few sponsored by Iranians directed against Isreal), so it would not be inaccurate to say that the war on terror is a war on Wahhabism.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

I like the Wolfowitz doctrine. It disproves the notion that the short election cycles of democracies prevent long range planning. A country as large and influential as the US should not lurch from crisis to crisis, it should plan ahead. It should plan for its own benefit because the primary responsibilty of any government is to its own people.

The Wolfowitz doctrine isn't so much for the responsibility for the American public, but to turn various nations worldwide into more "americans". It is the marketing, advertising and then power-sale of Freedom™ with the same verve and methodology as the spread of Communism in the mid-century. Wolfowitz and the resultant New American Century are not so much concerned with domestic policy as foreign policy. This could be argued by the example of the intense pressures (and botch-ups) that the US is continuing to this very morning (Who shall we accuse of harboring WMDs today, Don?).

It's very interesting that an administration that had zero direction on foreign policy after the election of 43 now seems intent on shaking its fist at every nation on earth. Perhaps that's an indication of how effective a stalemate the Hawks and Doves held between the Departments of Defense and State in the early part of the term. Alas, with 9/11, the Hawks had all the jump-start they needed... and Powell's been fighting a tsunami ever since. It's also very interesting that a president elected™ on the basis of his domestic policy ideas now barely gives them a passing glance. Domestic policy seems to have taken on the "bandaid on a hemorrhage" status.

While the US would not wish to be seen as lurching from crisis to crisis, you would think that the 43 Administration would wish to stop manufacturing said crises for the sole benefit of CNN soundbytes. Better yet, perhaps the US would stop sticking their fingers into so many pies. After all, doing so tends to have dire consequences down the road.

Perhaps this ability for long-term planning does indeed show promise of off-setting the schizophrenic nature that the US has via their 4 year terms. Or, perhaps it shows that the 4 year terms, elections and even the two party system are a fraud. There are those in power and with influence that will have decisions made and ideas pushed, regardless of their position on the political spectrum... and the American public will never vote for them nor bring them to task on their actions.

[Occhidiangela]

1. The president does indeed spend plenty of time on domestic policy, as every president does, however, lately that has not been perceived as "newsworthy" to the same weight as the international issues. Our recent tax cuts bruhahaha is a very internal discussion.

2. Your comment on the focus in re internal versus external rings of some truth, however, no President can escape foreign policy. Like WJ Clinton before him, the President, also former governor, 'gets' internal issues better than 'international issues.' The problem with governorship as preparation for Presidency? The US is engaged in too many places to pretend the world is not out there. I guess one way to characterize the past two years is 'having been forced into an arena' rather than having actively pursued a particular plan, since 2000, that got the US to where it is today. A 'reactive' policy versus 'proactive policy.' However, those characterizations are a bit simplistic.

3. President Clinton lurched from crisis to crisis for 8 years as well, starting with Somalia. He brought a great deal of naivete into office, and a certain lack of focus. For example, his first big battle with Congress was . . . gays in the military? He had far bigger and more important fish to fry, to include the national health care initiative he supported, as did Mrs Clinton, yet he poisoned the well with his attempt to get around Congress' authority as to codifiying the rules for the military. Had he waited a year, having built up a little street cred and referent power, I suspect that fight would have gone far differently than it did. For some reason, this very capable politician forgot how politics worked. When he went back to his normal style, that of getting people, from both parties, on board with issues, his success rate was remarkable.

What made Clinton more palatable to European allies was his personal belief in internationalism and multilateralism. Ironically, he was trying to implement George Bush's (senior) 'new world order' without a clue as to where the traps and pitfalls lay; that myopia bit him hard in Mogadishu. (The 'do more with less' attitude he brought to defense policy was a great example of being dealt a winning hand -- like a Kings-sevens full house -- and throwing away the three kings in hopes of two more sevens being drawn into the hand to make four sevens. Hope as a method?)

That mess, to which the previously well demonstrated inefficiency of multinational forces was blamed far too heavily, IMO, and the US Army/SpecOps planning and decision cycle far too little, set him up for some nasty 'in the trenches fights' about lending assistance to the UN in Bosnia, and elsewhere. His mideast peace initiative was also a crisis to crisis bandaid, and IMO doomed to be a 'scrap of paper.' Unlike Carter, he tried to set up a viable peace agreement without buying off enough of the players. He really had to use another approach, since the PLO et al are not quite the same kettle of fish as the nation of Egypt.

The biggest screw up the American people committed, IMO, was that in 1992 they did not re-elect George Bush. I submit that Bush actually understood foreign policy, and had a reasonably coherent vision of where he was going. The problem was, he could not, and did not, sell his domestic vision well at all in 1992, and that cost him the election. It also cost the US constancy of purpose in foreign affairs as we transitioned from the Cold War to whatever the hell we call what is going on now: the Multipolar Melee, perhaps?

US Foreign policy in a nutshell under President Clinton?

"Work with others as much as you can, integrate a global economy as fast as you can, but when you get pissed of at someone, launch the Cruise Missiles."

A bit of a soundbyte, I confess. :D

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

It also cost the US constancy of purpose in foreign affairs as we transitioned from the Cold War to whatever the hell we call what is going on now: the Multipolar Melee, perhaps?

I think it's more unipolar, myself.

In the grand scheme of things the US owns the house, and is looking out the screen door trying to decide on how to shape the yard around itself. The problem is that there are mosquitoes on the screen, and they may or may not be carrying West Nile.

Only the crows can say for certain. ;)

*fills out his job application to the CNN Propaganda/Fiction Team for Wolf Blitzer "Insta-Quotes"*

[Occhidiangela]

Unipolar would be a US hegemony that eclipsed the various and sundry squabbles around the globe, and rendered the UN and every other regional organ irrelevant.

That has NOT happened.

Multipolar is the model. Bipolar was driven by US/West vs USSR/East attempts at global hegemony, with some lesser included cases. The draw down after the Cold War was in anticipation of that. What was a bit unexpected by some was the the bipolar devolution would be so bloody. Trouble is, some of us saw it coming and no one listened. Some of us recognized even then that bipolar was a poor illustration, given that China has always been on its own side. :) At the very least, the Third World created a third pole in the circus tent.

The Current Poles:

The Subcontinent
China
Europe
US
Islamic World (and ideological pole more than a geographic one)

That's five. I'd call it a Hexa-polar world.

The strength of any given pole should not be measured in military might alone.

Combine a few more factors, to include economic strength and potential, population, diplomatic ties, ideology, and you'll see that 'unipolar world' hardly describes the current state of play. Armed might is a subset of political power.

If it were a unipolar world, the UN would have meekly bowed to US demands and the second resolution would have passed 15-0. That would have been an example of unipolarism.

[kandrathe]

Ah, don't forget the "War on Drugs" which adds South and Central America. Unless that is what you meant by subcontinent, which would make more sense.. I always think of India and Pakistan when one mentions the Subcontinent.

I've mentioned this in another post, but one place where we have no tent stake is Africa. Look at what a mess that is. By 2010, I'm doubtful many people will still be living there.

[kier]

No, Bush didn't. With an iq of around 89, I find it unlikely he himself manipulated the data. More the puppeteers running the white house did. All of his Pa's old mates, who, incidently are in the oil business. Allthough they do not earn from Iraqs oil now, they can controll the price, which means they can sell their own oil at a higher price than before as Iraq's oil is not cheap anymore.

When I have a spare hour, I will post some of the bush administration's former jobs, and try and track down some pieces of information and statistics that prove there where no weapons of mass destruction, more like weapons of mass distraction.

[kandrathe]

Well, I don't believe Bush has an IQ of 89. Since you do not cite a source for this bit of wisdom, I can only assume you pulled that number from your arse. So, save yourself the hour if all you are going to do is inform us of things we already know with your own moronic slant.

Allthough they do not earn from Iraqs oil now, they can controll the price, which means they can sell their own oil at a higher price than before as Iraq's oil is not cheap anymore.

More of your unsubstantiated spewage. Time will tell who controls Iraqi oil. My bet is that it will be the Iraqi's. Why? There are many powers at play here, including European, Middle Eastern, and anti-US movements. The name of the game here is stability, not rock the boat. We will turn over the oil production of Iraqi oil to whomever provides for a stable market. But, before that can happen, you need to achieve a stable and strong political system to guide it.

But, check this out; Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam -- by Paul Berman (Liberal Ideologist)

[Occhidiangela]

Power centers are the poles that are typically referred to in the bipolar unipolar discussion.

South America, and Central America, are potential economic powerhouses. At present, their economic power and potential do not seem to translate into global influence and power, but that may change in the next generation. Hard to say.

Africa: Which part? Africa, over three times the land area of the United States, is made up of some 51 countries. The Magreb is tyipically viewed culturally as part of the Arab world. East Africa has very strong ties to the Islamic World. Western Africa suffers from a few decades of anarchy, and Southern Africa is currently in a state of transition. In short, Africa as a continent is not in the same league vis a vis Europe, or even east Asia or the Subcontinent insofar as cultural and economic strength. Far to many nations there are still 'foreign aid junkies' which is a shame, since that artificial infusion of economic blood creates its own political messes. (Somalia being but one very good example.)

I'd venture to suggest that 'Africa' will continue to evolve into three or four 'blocs' similar to the European Union in character, but that is going to take some time. WAU, the South African Development Council (Hmmm, don't remember that name correctly) and probably an East African bloc tied even more strongly to the Islamic World should more Arab nations adopt the 'Islamic Republic' model of Persian Iran.

My opinion, and subject to being a bit gross on the generalization side.

[kandrathe]

Power centers are the poles that are typically referred to in the bipolar unipolar discussion.

Ah, yes, and it appears that Africa and South America suffer from the opposite problem then. Being that no one cares, they are left to suffer in a misama of civil war, poverty, disease, drugs and terrorism. From that then, what will emerge?

[Moldran]

This is a strange definition of the word "Justified". That always seemed to have something to do with justice. If their intentions are questionable, and they didn't have the "right", what justice are you referring to? Perhaps you mean "moralized into existence"? That's certainly true. But, then, so were the crusades. Nations have no business being the guardian angels of the world. If there is a god, he'll deal with it. If there isn't, invoking his name to invade countries is in pretty bad taste.

The justice I am referring to is the duty of everyone to abolish any regime that causes so much suffering to people like Saddam´s did as soon as possible. The Baath regime had to end, and there was no possibility in sight that could have ended it from inside, or without war.

I would rather support a position that does the right thing (remove the Baath regime) for the wrong reasons (geostrategical thoughts, economic advantages, etc) than one that does the wrong thing (keep Saddam in power) for the "right" reasons.

Moldran

[Occhidiangela]

But, check this out; Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam -- by Paul Berman (Liberal Ideologist)

Kandrathe, thanks so much for that link. That man reminds me of a liberal who many folks still admire, all indiscretions aside: JFK.

A solid liberal who was at the same time a rabid anticommunist.

That fellow's book is on my list, as of Right Now! :) I am pleased as punch that he too finds Naom Chomsky to be a blindered liberal who can't see past his own delusions. Gore Vidal, on the other hand, is just a liberal full of bombast who has read one too many of his own press clippings. (Though I do like how Vidal gives short shrift to 'court historians.' Or for that matter, Fox News, which are one and the same some days!)

[Moldran]

Some info regarding the Yugoslavia case:

Isn't it what European Countries did ? I mean, we didn't ask our US ally to come and help us with our problem, we asked UN to do so (as I said, I may be wrong here). By the way, the dangerosity of Milosevic's regime was known, it was happening "live", and without any control. Something had to be done, quickly.

No, it is not what the EU did. What they did was this:
When they saw that they would not get a majority for the war in the Security Council (Russia would have vetoed), they just "stopped to ask the UN", so to say, and attacked Yugoslavia without UN permission, claiming they were acting in a very special emmergency to stop a human catastrophe.
If you remember this and realize that what Milosevic did in Yugoslava was definately not so much worse than what Saddam did in Iraq, you will have to agree that the position of Germany, France, etc about the recent Iraq war is extremely hypocritical.
It is also proven, by the way, that these governments (the German one at least, not sure about the other ones) deliberately lied to their public in order to justify the Yugoslavia war. Funny that hardly anyone took offense by this in Europe, but millions of people were out on the streets against the Iraq war, isn´t it ?

Moldran

[kandrathe]

I can respect people who swim upstream, no matter what side they come from, if they are using their brains and not parroting some tired ideology. He stands for something. He can describe what that is, and is not apologetic for it. As a libertarian in the USA, I too find it difficult to accept the Noam Chomsky, and general DFL anti-capitalist stands, while many of the extreme Republicans agenda is concerned with maximizing capitalist freedoms, while curtailing personal freedoms. I do enjoy certain psuedo conservatives opinions as well, people like Ann Coulter, Camille Paglia, Ron Reagan Jr.

[kier]

That iq came out of a journal i found on the web, and I figure that an iq of 89 is about right for Bush. The average is 100, but I really do hope that you do not think of him as smart. Yes, his speeches are impressive. Not suprised, they will have some of the best script writers working away to produce them. He is the David Bekham of America, people may like and respect him, but they do come smarter.

America (and to some extent, europe) is allready controlling the iraq oil. The money made from selling it is going to an iraq fund, but they control the price of it, which means they can hike the price up, and then sell America's own oil, creating bigger profits. So to that extent, I don't see how you can say they aren't.

[Occhidiangela]

While the EU tried, in support of UN, to stop the madness in Yugoslavia, it was not until the Brits at Gorazde in 95 that anyone simply pointed their guns at the Bosnian Serbs and said :"cross that line and we shoot" that anything really improved. It took the US to play, which took canning the inane UN dual key RoE, to make real progress. Had the stupid UN RoE been scotched in the first place, the EU, and other UN troops, like the Nordic Brigade, were perfectly capable of doing what needed doing. What was missing was intelligent means of putting a boot up the arse of the arsehole Croatians, Serbs, and Bosnian thugs at play in the sandbox.

In '99, EU had not the wherewithal to do what it took a NATO operation to do. Europe simply lacked the ability and political will to put an operation like that together. They had to have NATO, no EU, structures, since that guaranteed US hardware and lagre scale Command and Control capability. In time, if the EU and WEU et all put some resources into it, that sort of imbalance may change.