Nothing follows.
Comments
Hi, Large Pinniped.
Long time no hear...
Laugh. At the discussion, I mean -- and the futility of it. One guy expresses his opinion, others come in to express differing opinions. All which, like yours, they're entititled to hold even if they do tend to take an idealistic and thus unrealistic view of what happened and why. Be great if the world were a nicer place. It isn't.
We should be able to differ amicably without name calling or denigrating others. One would think...
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy new Year
(I doubt we'll see peace, not the way of the world, unfortunately...)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over this discussion.
I understand Dave's righteous anger regarding the lack of recognition of the genuine hard work and sacrifice of some of the Defence forces in Iraq.
I also have to say that there is a genuine concern by people who have an understanding of the ways the world, regarding the necessity of this adventure in the first place, and the fact that they may sit in armchairs is irrelevant.
Current received wisdom is that the Iraq war was an unnecessary event, justified by trumped up evidence, to satisfy the ego of George Bush, the financial requirements of the military industrial complex, and the political requirements of the Likud Party in Israel. I have seen no factual evidence to dispute this view, and much that reinforces it.
There is further received wisdom that the costs of this unnecessary operation far outweigh the benefits, as the apparent enmity of the Iraqis and a cratering American economy demonstrate.
However, whether the sacrifice the Daves of this world was required, or whether the benefits exceeded the costs in no way devalues what he and his comrades have endured.
Merry Christmas to all, and may next year bring peace.
John Blackmon:
<blockquote>"Um... There were more deaths than that in France alone in World War II. And then there was that whole Holocaust thing..."</blockquote>You are of course correct. My fault for abbreviating. As Schmedlap points out, depends on what one is talking about. In my case, I should've said:
"That would be more people killed than were killed by combat action in Western Europe in World War II after the Normandy Landings and through the end of the war -- far far more intense and destructive combat than Iraq has seen and that during an era when there were no significant efforts to curtail or reduce civilian casualties."
Depends on whether we're talking civilian deaths or total. I think the 500K number referenced is from a report on civilian deaths. It also depends on what you consider to be Western Europe. The UN says that Western Europe includes France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The CIA World Factbook says Great Britain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Civilian deaths in the former were over 2 million; in the latter, under 450K.
Regardless, I think the point was that the claim of 500,000 Iraqis killed was based on some controversial reasoning and should not be regarded as a claim that is universally agreed upon. I recall the Lancet survey claiming 600K+. At the time, I was taking a statistics course in grad school and my professor, who expressed sympathy with the political motives, nevertheless chose to use that report as a case study in bad data collection techniques.
Ken White:
"Death of 500,000 Iraqis? If you really believe that, then I can see where you're coming from. You need to avoid sites like that, most are full of misinformation; broaden your reading to see other views on things. Pity that figure is almost certainly well beyond incorrect. That would be more people killed than in Western Europe in World War II."
Um... There were more deaths than that in France alone in World War II. And then there was that whole Holocaust thing...
I'm amazed that this brief comment has drawn such attention. Some guy throws his shoes at the President in a display of contempt, he misses, and then gets carried away by security. The next day, he's the biggest news story and people are hailing him as some kind of hero. This situation is absurd on its face. Why is it wrong to point to this out? How did such an obvious observation draw so much attention and criticism?
The most simple fact is the shoe thrower was an exceptionally impolite, discourteous man. His action was silly to the point of being prissy. To proclaim him a paladin should be an embarrassment.
"It was a criminal enterprise launched by madmen cheered on by a chorus of fools and cowards. And its seen as such by virtually everyone all around the world -- including but by no means limited to the Arab world."
In addition to Ken White's comment about this statement, it is the kind of thing diffident Americans working overseas say to European NGO workers when they want to prove they are hep. Now Yglesias is hep too.
This sentiment was mostly based on what the diffident ones thought the Europeans wanted to hear. The ironic thing was most of the Euros were very thoughtful and were quite receptive to the type of argument Ken makes so well.
Actually no, I'm satirizing the clueless. For example:<blockquote>...how is this substantively different from creating a false pretense for the authorization of force?</blockquote>He had the authority to use force; he just --as any politician would -- wanted more political support if he could get it. I said they used a bad rationale because it led to arrant nonsense like this:<blockquote>"Yes, it was our fault that we believed the President and his deputies when they lied to us about the threat, speaking of mushroom clouds, yellowcake, and mobile chemical warfare labs."</blockquote>Yep, it was your fault. Actually, more correctly what you thought was broadly irrelevant, so it wasn't your fault (though you can be faulted for believing any politician) -- however, what your congressperson thought was relevant so much of what happened was indeed <b>their</b> fault. The lack of intel is untrue, it was restricted but the Intel committee saw it all (and most voted for the resolution).<blockquote>"Yes, Bush invading Iraq to "send a message" is comparable to FDR declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, and on Germany after Hitler declared war on us."</blockquote>Appallingly ignorant. FDR worked for two years to get us into WW II doing a lot of quasi-legal things and finally succeeding in provoking the Japanese to attack. That's not a right wing fantasy, that is historical fact and adequately documented. You need to do more research. Here's a good book to start <a href=http://www.amazon.com/Cruise-Lanikai-Incitement-Bluejacket-Books/dp/155…; LINK</a>.<blockquote>"...A typical baseball stadium filled with civilians. Is that number of deaths acceptable in order to send a message?"</blockquote>Depends on ones viewpoint I believe. Those charged with the decision did not know when the attack was ordered where it would go; there could well have been that many US deaths. The bad thing about any national security decision is that the luxuries of hindsight and failure aren't afforded. Any decision involving the national use of force is going to have proponents and objectors for various reasons; seems to me, having been in or watched US wars for about 70 plus years that which side one is on often depends on which political party started it...
That's why I pay little credence to carping.years<blockquote>"This particular rationalization makes me very angry. The courage and sense of service displayed by our military volunteers should never be twisted by politicians to minimize the tragedy of their loss."</blockquote>Why should it make you angry? I spent 27 years in uniform; my currently serving son has 18 years -- we both volunteered, did our respective wars and would have no bitch if we'd been killed. We were or are doing something we wanted to do; the risks were known and accepted. Why would <u>you</u> be angry?<blockquote>"The US Dept of State under GW Bush disagrees with you:"</blockquote>Cool! I disagree with them on a lot of things. Have for many years. My old man used to work for them -- he disagreed with 'em often as well. You might have missed the fact that DoS disagreed with attacking Iraq -- just as you apparently did. However, apropos of my original comment, you missed or left out the last part of what I said:
<i>"A law by definition requires a controlling authority AND an enforcement element. Who enforces this international law of which you speak?"</i>
Do you have an answer for that?<blockquote>"Absent an imminent threat or authorization by the UN, the invasion of Iraq constituted a war of aggression and a violation of treaty....and was therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the President's use of "blather and spin," to use your preferred phrasing, to win Congressional authorization of force was action in bad faith, and a violation of his Constitution authority."</blockquote>I disagree on all counts except the bit about an action in bad faith; that's correct. The rest is, I believe, quite wrong.
It was, specifically, not a violation of his constitutional authority; he had the authority under <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution> The War Powers Resolution</a> which you should read, paying close attention to this segment "<i>The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it became law, and every President since its passage has treated it as unconstitutional. The War Powers Resolution has been violated a number of times with little attention by media outlets.</i>"
MattT,
On the legal question, you would be right if Congress had not authorized the war. Treaty obligations do not (and, indeed, cannot) abrogate power given to the Congress by the constitution, which in this case is the power to authorize the US to make war. When powers granted directly by the Constitution come into conflict with a treaty obligation, the Constitution wins. So to believe the war was illegal because treaties are the "supreme law of the land" (which is just a fancy way of saying, "equivalent to federal law," then you'd have to argue that Constitutionally-derived powers can be amended or taken away by treaty, which obviously is not the case.
Ken White, I have to ask....are you satirizing the Bush apologists? I hope so, because I could use a good laugh.
"...the Administration's poor decision to use a lot of blather and spin in an effort to garner political support."
Maybe you prefer this phrasing, but how is this substantively different from creating a false pretense for the authorization of force?
"I'm not sure whether the fact that spin was successful says something bad about the Administration or about those Americans (and others) who accepted such improbabilities as even possibly real....."
Yes, it was our fault that we believed the President and his deputies when they lied to us about the threat, speaking of mushroom clouds, yellowcake, and mobile chemical warfare labs.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
I mean, what if the President had access to intelligence that the public and most of Congress did not? We were fools to trust him, even in time of war! It's not like he was under any mandate to faithfully execute his office....oh wait.
"...no one goes to war for all the stated reasons, there's always more to it. See Roosevelt, F.D., Kennedy, J.F. and Clinton W.J. for examples."
Yes, Bush invading Iraq to "send a message" is comparable to FDR declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, and on Germany after Hitler declared war on us. :/
"Death of 500,000 Iraqis?"
I think that's a low estimate, if you include those killed indirectly as a result of the destruction of infrastructure and overthrow of Saddam. But let's say we're only responsible for 40,000 civilian deaths, about what the DoD claims to have resulted directly from coalition action. A typical baseball stadium filled with civilians. Is that number of deaths acceptable in order to send a message?
What if it were as few as 2,974?
"The Americans killed and maimed are as regrettable.... but all those Americans were volunteers who knew or should have known of the risks involved...."
This particular rationalization makes me very angry. The courage and sense of service displayed by our military volunteers should never be twisted by politicians to minimize the tragedy of their loss.
"What US law do you believe was violated and in what way?....As for international law, there is no such thing -- there are international conventions and norms but they are not laws."
The US Dept of State under GW Bush disagrees with you:
http://www.state.gov/s/l/rls/86123.htm
"...our Constitution...declares that treaties are the "supreme law of the land" and assigns to the President the responsibility to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. This duty includes the upholding of such treaties."
Absent an imminent threat or authorization by the UN, the invasion of Iraq constituted a war of aggression and a violation of treaty....and was therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the President's use of "blather and spin," to use your preferred phrasing, to win Congressional authorization of force was action in bad faith, and a violation of his Constitution authority.
No offense to anyone, but why would anybody be shocked by this? There are many in the Middle East (especially Iraq) who are upset about what has happened in Iraq. Maybe one day history will look back and talk about how this was the storm before all cleared and became rosy, but we are seen by many as occupiers who have brought death and destruction. We all have versions of the truth and facts and ideas to support our opinions...this man has his...at least he is able to voice (and throw) his concerns. I don't agree with his methods, but everyone who has been in Iraq knows that a lot of people have issues with our policies there.
He is a hero to many...to say that is ridiculous demonstrates a lack of understanding about popular feelings in the Arab world toward US policies in the Middle East.
Apparently Dave Dilegge thinks Americans are the real victims of the Iraq War. An Iraqi expresses his anger at President Bush for destroying his country (insert your favorite numbers here for deaths, injuries, refugees, etc.)? It's a cynical media circus, played up "on the dailies and wires", distracting us from the REAL suffering ("back in the real word", revealing the author's complete moral myopia) - the suffering of AMERICANS, who heroically sacrificed so much to bring about this bloodbath. A damn shame it is, indeed.
MattT:
Of course the real reasons are 'fuzzier' as you put it -- mostly because of the Administration's poor decision to use a lot of blather and spin in an effort to garner political support. I'm not sure whether the fact that spin was successful says something bad about the Administration or about those Americans (and others) who accepted such improbabilities as even possibly real. It certainly does not speak well for the media or the academic and political classes. Or anyone who cites them today as ever having been remotely believable...
Nation building was not part of the original plan, I personally have no idea why that was changed in early May, 2003 but regardless, it is a fact today. Iraqi Freedom is a political buzz phrase, that's all it ever was and what it still is. Of course the troops don't give that much thought, they have other concerns. Troops don't ever really get into that kind of 'big picure' foolishness like the chattering classes do...
Most of them also have more sense than to put much stock in anything any politicians says...
You say:<blockquote>"Well, there you go. Waging aggressive war under the false pretense of a WMD threat, resulting in the deaths of upwards of 500,000 Iraqis, killing or seriously maiming of tens of thousands of Americans, and (much less seriously) spending close to a trillion taxpayer dollars in order to "send a message" quite definitely constitutes criminal action under international and US law."</blockquote>Really ???
The 'pretense' bit is just silly. The WMD threat? Be serious, Iraq was no threat to the US and and anyone who gave that a few seconds thought was certain to realize that. Further, no one goes to war for all the stated reasons, there's always more to it. See Roosevelt, F.D., Kennedy, J.F. and Clinton W.J. for examples.
Death of 500,000 Iraqis? If you really believe that, then I can see where you're coming from. You need to avoid sites like that, most are full of misinformation; broaden your reading to see other views on things. Pity that figure is almost certainly well beyond incorrect. That would be more people killed than in Western Europe in World War II.
The Americans killed and maimed are as regrettable as the far fewer Iraqi deaths than you cite but all those Americans were volunteers who knew or should have known of the risks involved. Having known a few of them, they'd disagree with your assessment.
What US law do you believe was violated and in what way?
As for international law, there is no such thing -- there are international conventions and norms but they are not laws. A law by definition requires a controlling authority AND an enforcement element. Who enforces this international law of which you speak?
Ken wrote: "This [war] or something like it was very necessary to send a message to the Middle East..."
Well, there you go. Waging aggressive war under the false pretense of a WMD threat, resulting in the deaths of upwards of 500,000 Iraqis, killing or seriously maiming of tens of thousands of Americans, and (much less seriously) spending close to a trillion taxpayer dollars in order to "send a message" quite definitely constitutes criminal action under international and US law.
Ken said: "anyone who relies on anything any politician says to make judgments about events in the world is subject to leap to false conclusions."
I think that applies quite well to Dave and others who eagerly lap up our president's latest rationalizations about "ensuring Iraq's freedom and future place as a responsible partner on the world scene."
The war was sold as necessary to prevent attacks on America with Iraqi WMDs. The real reasons are fuzzier: Was it about the oil, As Alan Greenspan has said? Was it to serve notice, as Jonah Goldberg wrote at the time, by "throwing a medium-sized country up against the wall" to serve as an example? Maybe there was an element of personal vendetta, recalling GW Bush's 2002 comment that "Saddam is going down - he tried to kill my dad."
Whatever the real reason we were taken to war, in 2002-2003 Rumsfeld, Bolton, Cheney and others were openly contemptuous of the "nation building" motive that revisionists would now like to use as their moral cover story.
I don't hear a lot of returning veterans talking about "ensuring Iraqi freedom," either, and I know several very well. To a man they say, as soldiers of every war seem to, that it was just about the man next to them. We do these heroes - and the ones who will follow them into military service - no favors by whitewashing the crimes of those who sent them off to an unnecessary and illegal war.
Well, Jason, since I quoted Yglesias It must be he to whom I referred. Not at all sure how you missed that.
Now I'll quote you:<blockquote>"How many official reports and briefings on the failed reconstruction, Iraqi civilian casualties caused by "collateral damage," and polls showing the drop in support for long-term US presence in Iraq do you need to read?"</blockquote>Any, none or all; makes no difference how many I've read or that exist -- none of that changes the fact that the Yglesias comment was ignorant -- and wrong.
The harsh reality is that the war was done for a very necessary reason -- albeit not one that was used in any significant discussion of 'why' and that's a lick on the administration but not a foolish or criminal issue.
First, there is absolutely no such thing as a 'good' reason to go to war; all war is bad -- but some are necessary. This one or something like it was very necessary to send a message to the Middle East that we were not going to accept continual probes and attacks as we had through 22 years and four previous Presidents from both political parties. Yglesias, Matt and you may not understand that, Europe may not -- but the ME (and Asia) do understand it. Flawed in execution, yes but the intent, the goal, was achieved.
Secondly, there was nothing criminal about it -- it may not have been the smartest way to do it and the execution may have been flawed but there was no criminal act involved. Some many think so but until it's adjudged under law, that is merely an opinion, no more. Flaky opinion born of politics at that.
As to fools and cowards, also an opinion. Since many of those who went to that war essentially cheered it on, the coward label is almost certainly incorrect. It has been my observation that 'fool' is almost always a judgmental term applied to others so that one may feel good about ones self.
So my comment stands -- Yglesias made an exceptionally ignorant statement. Amazingly, first MattT and now you seem to support it...
You add:<blockquote>"The Iraqis didn't ask us for liberation. It was forced upon them, and now you want them to be gracious about the costs and failure to achieve a state of improvement past pre-Saddam days. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the sooner we can get back to hunting the real culprits of 9/11."</blockquote>Iraqi liberation was a secondary issue if that, it was one of many synergies that occurred from the event. I do not nor did I suggest that I might "want them to be gracious." Don't care. I've lived in the Middle east and while they are very polite, graciousness is not a trait so I wouldn't expect it in any event.
We're not going to get out of Iraq for a long time; enjoy!
When 'we' (thank you for your participation in the global War on Terror) continue (we've never stopped) hunting the real 'culprits' (I thought most died in the crashes and KSM is in Gitmo...), what are we going to do with 'them' (whoever they are) when we find them?
"He is certainly entitled to his opinion and you are certainly entitled to agree with him, however that is an exceptionally ignorant statement that is apparently politically motivated and has no basis in reality."
Hmmmm. I can't tell if you're talking about the original poster (Dave Dilegge) or Matt Y. It seems as if Dave is making observations from the foxhole and is ignoring the strategic evolution (de-evolution?) of the US invasion of Iraq. How many official reports and briefings on the failed reconstruction, Iraqi civilian casualties caused by "collateral damage," and polls showing the drop in support for long-term US presence in Iraq do you need to read?
The Iraqis didn't ask us for liberation. It was forced upon them, and now you want them to be gracious about the costs and failure to achieve a state of improvement past pre-Saddam days. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the sooner we can get back to hunting the real culprits of 9/11.
MattT:
What Yglesias said was this:<blockquote>"The harsh reality is that this was not a noble undertaking done for good reasons. It was a criminal enterprise launched by madmen cheered on by a chorus of fools and cowards."</blockquote>He is certainly entitled to his opinion and you are certainly entitled to agree with him, however that is an exceptionally ignorant statement that is apparently politically motivated and has no basis in reality.
I can sympathize with both of you; anyone who relies on anything any politician says to make judgments about events in the world is subject to leap to false conclusions.
Shortly thereafter our President remarked that such displays come with free societies. Judging from some of the displays, acts and remarks I've seen from within our own free society, I'd agree.
I have a great deal of respect for this President. I would not want to walk a 1/10th of a mile in his shoes, and while I've met many who are critical, few of them would measure up, or fare as well in my opinion. Most I've found have never led anything or made decisions that affect anyone outside their own interests. Most I've seen can't even consider such responsibilities as those carried by a U.S. President, yet feel obliged to offer advice as though they had the future mapped out before them. Most I find make their decisions based about what is best for them personally.
I don't know what others saw on the video or the post interview, but consider this:
1) To me our President looked more like a fighter dodging a left jab then someone ducking for cover. He came right back up. He did not cower. This even though he has been threatened by the likes of AQ and others.
2) He waived off the aide or secret service agent who came over to try and lead him off. I'm sure that the security folks and his staff were uncertain of the environment at that point, considering if this was a distraction for something else, and ascertaining the danger to the President. Yet the President would not allow himself to be escorted off.
3) Afterward, the President seemed devoid of ill will, insult or injury. I've seen plenty of people who hold their own importance supreme take insult at a misconstrued glance or the smallest remark, and then takes steps to ensure the "offender" and others who witnessed might not soon forget how important they were.
This President has made some of the most difficult decisions a person can be charged with and in some of the toughest conditions. He has done so in my opinion without shifting blame, being disloyal, and without trying to self-aggrandize. There are few elected leaders I would trust more. Those who judge him harshly might first consider judging themselves - as they say, if the shoe fits...
Best Regards, Rob