October 08, 2004
I'm Only Good at Inviting More Trouble
Everyone knows about this Iraq Survey Group report that came out this week, and that it basically says Iraq didn't have what we said they had. However, the report indicates that Saddam Hussein had the "intent" to produce WMD's. Although the "true believers" have had to concede that Saddam didn't actually have WMD's, they have now taken up the position - in true believer style - that this intent to make WMD's still makes the "liberation" of Iraq such a worthwhile idea that they would do it all over again, even with this information. I believe this position is further indication that this administration has no conscience and no shame when it comes to failing to actually take (not just say it) responsibility for their mistakes and adapt their message, let alone their policies, in light of new information. To me, this is just a continuation of the kind of attitude that got us into this situation in the first place. In the first months of this administration, they believed they were so on-track that they didn't take notice of the reports warning them of attacks on the US. Now that we know our "information" on Iraq was wrong, will the administration also turn a blind eye to these facts out of a stubborn need to be right even when wrong? What will be the consequences of this failure to address pressing situations and issues in favor of a pre-set plan and policy? The administration may call this flip-flopping, but survival (security) depends on an entity's ability to adapt to its environment, to become familiar enough with the enemy to either learn how to co-exist or how to neutralize it, and to band together with others for mutual benefit and protection. The administration's inability to face their mistakes and adapt to situations can only put the US more in harms way. Anyway, here are my 2 main arguments:
I.
If Saddam did not presently possess WMD's at the time we demanded that he "disarm" or face war, the only way he could have avoided war would have been to cede his sovereignty to the Coalition, not under any established customary international law or other norm, but solely on the unjustified demand of the Coalition.
The report does reveal that Saddam tried to hide as much as possible from the investigators, but that he was only hiding things that suggested his intent to produce WMD's in the future. While there was no way for the Coalition to definitively determine that Saddam did not presently have the capability of disarming (since he wasn't armed), they essentially assumed these suspicious actions meant he had the weapons and demanded sovereignty be turned over to them for no reason other than their desire to depose him due to the possibility that he had WMD's that posed a threat to the region and the US. Firstly, if all we were really going on at the time was the presumption that a known dictator and madman's suspicious activities indicated he was hiding the exact thing we were looking for WMD's, and nothing else, I just don't think that's enough.
We were told that there was proof and that we'd only go to war as a last resort. If there was proof of possession, why are they're just now releasing that all they really have is proof of intent, even after we've taken over the place? If we went as a last resort, why did we choose a course of action, without actual proof of the existence of those weapons, that completely disregarded the possibility that Saddam might lack the weapons, so that war would be inevitable?
The report makes clear that since all they have is evidence of intent to produce WMD's, they still cannot definitively rule out the possibility that they'll find a stockpile somewhere. Far from convincing me that this justifies the war, I think it has the opposite effect. If, even after we've had control of the country for some time, we're still no closer to proving the existence of WMD's in Iraq than we were in the spring of 2003, this indicates that no amount of inspections or cooperation on Saddam's part would have convinced the US government that Iraq did not have the WMD's it had already convinced itself it had. Once again, this is a product of the US taking a foreign policy stance that all but precluded any possibility but war with Iraq. The administrations "certainty" of Saddam's possession of WMD's always made war the inevitable outcome of the situation; making Bush and his boys are big, fat liars.
Another instance of the administration's ability to set one self-fulfilling prophecy after another in motion is the continued difficulty investigators are having with locating WMD's or even reaching a real conclusion being hampered in part by the mismanagement of the war itself. The report noted:
Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:
3. Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;
4. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;
5. Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;
6. The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.
So essentially, the Coalition made it impossible to determine whether or not there are really WMD's hidden somewhere in Iraq to this very day by: 1) not having sufficient control to prevent looting of the very evidence they would need to prove their case or the foresight to institute protections for those sources of information, 2) allowing WMD personnel to leave the country before they could be questioned, and maybe even allowing them to leave with WMD evidence, 3) not blowing up enough stuff so as to be able to rule out every 2-car garage left standing in Iraq, and 4) not having enough control or appointing a new leader that could get enough control of the country (or just leaving the old one in there) to actually be able to conduct the kind of investigation that needs to be done to finally settle this issue. I mean, I just can't believe we're right back to not being able to conduct proper investigations because of all these hindrances. It seems that the only thing that has been resolved is that we're removed a crazy leader we didn't like who could have possibly had WMD's, but there are still plenty of mad governments out there that we know to have WMD's. So, is the world and the US really safer without Saddam? Perhaps, but I guess we'll never really know.
II.
If the administration's claim in early 2003 had been that Saddam was a vital part of the war on terror and that he presented a grave and imminent threat to the US and the region because he intended to produce weapons of mass destruction, would we have been able to get anyone on our side? I think not. Talk all the trash you want about international public opinion and law, but this wouldn't have flown with anyone. Putting aside the generally accepted requirements (not just of UN law but customary international law) for an armed attack and to only act in self-defense, most people would require that a country at least presently present a danger before physically invading it and removing its leader by force. Even in ordinary criminal law, mere intent or mere preparations toward committing a crime are not culpable acts. Since it would have been silly to try to invade Iraq pointing only to an intent to possess WMD's, it would seem that it's silly to continue to assert that a costly, bloody, politically messy war is justified because of that intent. As I noted before, the defense that they couldn't have known it was just intent in March 2003 isn't a good one because the administration would not have rested on any level of "proof" of lack of possession despite their inconclusive proof of possession. Furthermore, it is a mistake for the administration to not take responsibility for basically going after the wrong guy. The US has had definitive proof of other nations' possession of nuclear and biological weapons and involvement with terrorists for some time now, some with leaders as notorious and insane as Saddam himself. Why didn't we go after these, even with our proof of their more-than-intent, even without the need to try to get inspectors inside their facilities? I guess their oil just isn't as yummy.
Look at me getting first place in two comment sections! Truly, I rule.
Mostly I wanted to say I love your Presidency 101 test; it is exellent.
And while I didn't read half of what you wrote because frankly I'm spent when it comes to Iraq, Bush, and the election mess, I'm sure you are entirely in the right with everything you said because you always are.
Also because Bush is a hardcore retard.
And one last point before I stop commenting on your site: I really think that most everyone you and I know, and possibly everyone in the country, has already decided who to vote for, and those few people who haven't probably live in Tennessee or Arkansas or something and don't have access to this page anyways. So before any right-wingers pop up to lambast you into frustrated exhaustion, I'd just like to put it out there that any ideological argument anyone (liberal or conservative, Yaya fan or Blindy lover) can pose at this point is entirely ARBITRARY.
We all know who we're voting for, no one is changing his mind, so can we skip the back-and-forth for once?
Posted by: Renee at October 8, 2004 08:00 AMI almost didn't post this because I just know I'm going to end up in some ugly, unproductive, frustrating debate with some person whose politcal philosophy is so far from mine that we pretty much don't speak the same language. However, I'm determined to not let that happen.
Posted by: Kristina at October 8, 2004 08:37 AMAn honest appraisal of the report must take into account the overwhelming evidence that our "allies" were bribed by Saddam and actively working to undermine the sanctions. There is no doubt that the absence of WMD undermines Bush's position. It is particularly damaging in terms of how compelling our threats toward Syria and Iran will be. Both countries know that Bush will not be able to muster support for an invasion. He will not be able to argue that they are about to get the bomb without people pointing to "that's what he said last time." Thus, it seem to me that Iran is in some ways more secure in knowing it is exempt from invasion than it was.
Still, it must be acknowledged that sizable portion of the Security Council was in league with Saddam. Thus, those who favored a U.N. solution, who favored relying on our "allies" have also had their credibility damaged by this report. Sanction were not working. Saddam still had the knowledge, the intent, and all he needed was to bribe the inspectors, get sanctions lifted, and then return to his pursuit of WMD.
I'll also add that Kerry was doubly wrong. He was wrong about their being WMD. He was also wrong about France and Germany and Russia being "allies." The worst part is that he still acts as if they are allies, as if we should give one shit about pleasing those in league with our enemies. The global test means pleasing the same French enemies who were actively engaged in mutual back scratching with Saddam--at our expense. But hey, John Kerry would have had them on board in no time.
Posted by: Global Test at October 8, 2004 11:48 PMIf we have indeed made enemies out of the other permanent members of the Security Council (France, Russia and China) by either just having interests adverse to theirs (i.e. our disrupting their oil supplies) or by our badmouthing them so they they no longer have any reason to try to work with us, but now have greater incentives to work together and with others to benefit their interests... this could one of biggest mistakes that this administration has made, one that could affect us for years and years to come. Without a unanimous vote from the P5 members of the Security Council, the UN has effectively lost whatever remaining binding power that it had in order to curb global terrorism and nuclear proliferation. The Security Council is the only body in the UN system that has the ability to make decisions that can bind any nation, even a state that is not an official UN member. Even if the United States became intersted in the strategy of gaining compliance anti-terrorism and anti-nuclear proliferation policies and agreements via the binding international pressure that only the Security Council can provide, we may no longer be able to do that because we have alienated and made "enemies" out of those countries that we should be endeavoring to keep good relations with... even if only superficially. Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer.
To say that certain friendly nations were "in league with Saddam" is an incredibly hard to substantiate, incredibly divisive thing to say; perhaps even more than saying that the war itself was a mistake. There's a world of difference between having diplomatic relations with a state in order to take care of your interests (i.e. our proven relations with Saudi Arabia) and being "in league with them" (i.e. "Bandar Bush" having a personal meeting with Bush on 9/13/01 despite our suspecting Saudis were involved in the attacks and our flying every member of the Bin Laden family out of the US that day when every other passenger plane in the US was grounded.) While it is true that France has received most of its foreign oil from Iraq since 1918, it isn't the only one that has stood to gain from relations with Iraq for oil. Of the five largest oil companies in the world, the US has 2, the UK has two and France has one. Until 1972, when the Iraq Petroleum Company was privatized, the US and UK had a combined 75% interest in Iraq's oil production. Since then, France and Russia have continued to have relations with Iraq for the purposes of obtaining oil for themselves, as they have been doing for years and years. During this time, the US and UK have consistently attempted to regain a presence in the Iraq oil picture, which they see as essentially to remaining the world's #1 and #2 nations in the world oil industry.
So, essentially, the only difference between the US/UK and France/Russia is that Iraq forced US/UK out in the 70's to gain greater control of its own oil supplies (President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr was in power at the time) and kept France and Russia (and many other nations) on as customers. Until very recently, there was nothing "wrong" with France and Russia getting oil from Iraq, and I say there's still nothing "wrong" with it since that's what the US and UK have wanted from 1972 to this day. It's a fact that the US had relations with Iraq during the 1980's, during which we were providing them with arms and training, and it would be absolutely contrary to American interests and MO's if we weren't also getting oil from them at that time.
Furthermore, France has denied past insulting accusations that they are doing anything more than legally buying oil from another nation in a standard manner for its own use. Now, France is further insulted by the Iraq Survey Group's accusation that they have profited from Iraq's oil sales (I assume "profit" means means in a way other than just getting the oil they paid for, or else it's a sitlly "accusation"). To me, none of this adds up to enough to officially pronounce France and Russia as our enemies. We can't be mad at them for having legitimate, OPEN relations with Iraq for the purposes of procuring oil because that's just what WE want and have wanted for quite some time. Although the last 10 years or so of France's relations with Iraq have been during major UN Security Council sanctions, it quickly became clear that these did not have their intended effect on the government, but were only impacting the already impoverished, sick and hungry citizens of Iraq. So, it eventually came down the the US and UK saying they would veto any attempt by the Council to repeal the sanctions. Many conservatives like to spin this as showing evidence that the other members of the Security Council supported Saddam, when really, their primary concern was for the cititzens that were being affected by the sanctions and that Saddam didn't care enough about to have the government come to their aid in any productive way. Undeniably, there was also a selfish desire to get rid of any pressure France and Russia were under to cease relations with Iraq because the sanctions were on, but the sanctions really had very little to do with oil and business relations with the Iraqi government (which is its oil industry). Here is a list of things that were banned by the sanctions:
agricultural pesticides
all electrical equipment
all other building materials ambulances
baby food
badminton rackets
bandages
blankets
boots
cannulas for intravenous drips catheters for babies
children's bicycles
children's clothes
chlorine and other water purification chemicals
cleaning agents
cobalt sources for X-ray machines
deodorants
dialysis equipment
disposable surgical gloves
drugs for angina
ECG monitors
erasers
glue for textbooks
incubators
leather material for shoes
lipsticks
medical gauze
medical journals
medical swabs
medical syringes
medication for epilepsy
nail polish
nasogastric tubes
notebooks
nylon cloth for filtering flour
other adult clothes
oxygen tents
paper
pencil sharpeners
pencils
ping-pong balls
polyester & acrylic yarn rice rubber tubes
school books
school handicraft equipment
shampoo
shirts
shoe laces
shroud material
soap
sanitary towels
specific granite shipments
specific umbilical catheters
steel plate stethoscopes
suction catheters for blockages surgical instruments
textile plant equipment
thread for children's clothes
tissues
toilet paper
tooth brushes
toothpaste
various other foodstuffs
wool felt for thermal insulation
X-ray equipment
X-ray film
To me, these items don't show an attempt to prevent the Iraqi government from producing or possessing WMD's, but an attempt to get the Iraqi people to pressure their dictator into getting the sanctions lifted by complying with the UN's initial demands.
This always has been and always will be about oil. To label our one-time friends and allies as "enemies" because we're both fighting over the same oil is childish and narrow-minded. France has done nothing but refuse to let the US push it into giving up its long-time oil source for BS reasons. France and Russia are sovereign nations with needs and interests just like us. Those are bound to conflict at some point, and to create such a huge gap over a thing as flimsy and BS as the patently false connection between Iraq and the real war on terror is just shooting ourselves in the foot. France and Russia could be allies if we were to stop treating them like enemies for opposing our attempts to deny them access to their primary source of oil, if we were to treat them with the respect due to sovereign nations by not basically forcing them to pay US prices and deal under US law for something they've been getting from the same source for over 80 years. I think Kerry can heal the wounds among the P5 members of the Security Council, if only just by not being a total dumbass.
Posted by: Kristina at October 9, 2004 12:01 PM