Philosophical questions about the reasons for the Iraq War

[Durandal]

I'm posting this just after seeing Black Hawk Down for the first time, and I'm trying to see a new perspective on the Iraqi War issue using what I saw in the film.

Here we have Saddam Hussein, a dictator whose brutal regime's coming to power was largely our government's responsibility. Should we have taken steps to remove him? I think so. As most of you know, I disagreed with the timing of the war and the reasons for which it was being waged, not the goal of deposing Hussein.

Some might say that the reasons for deposing Hussein at that time were irrelevant. He was a brutal dictator who needed to be run out of the country as soon as possible. There is a certain validity to this reasoning. However, the reasons for doing something can heavily impact the manner in which it is done. I think the Iraqi War is a perfect example.

What were the reasons for fighting this war? The Bush administration did its damnedest to impress upon everyone that Iraq was a threat to the United States because it possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was the initial, overbearing reason to go to war with Iraq. They'd helped al Qaeda out, and they've got biological/chemical weapons that are being aimed squarely at us, with a nuclear weapons program to boot. That's what we were told. Yes, I know Bush started harping about how we're only going there to free the Iraqi people just before the war, but even most conservatives on this board will admit that that was total bullshit.

Whether or not these statements were true doesn't really matter. I think that the people calling the shots (Bush, Rumsfeld et al) believed them. This was evident in the planning of the war. The "Coalition of The Willing" (Jesus I hate that name) executed the most rapid military advance into enemy territory in history. It could be argued that Iraqi resistance was underestimated and that "Shock and Awe" was a trumped-up fireworks display, but the fact remains that the war went exceedingly well from a purely strategic standpoint. A lot of planning went into it. In fact, virtually all the planning did.

Now we've got a barely stable country with our soldiers at constant threat from guerrilla attacks. We've got a massive estimate for restructuring Iraq's government, no estimates on how long it will take and trite assurances that we'll "be there as long as it takes." There was no proposed budget or timeframe before the war, and the state of such affairs has advanced very little since its end. The current situation in Iraq tells me that there was virtually no consideration given to restructuring Iraq after the dust settled. Why not? Because the big issue was that Iraq was a threat to the US and needed to be pacified as quickly as possible. So when people ask, "Why now? In the middle of an economic recession, when we should be focusing our energy on getting Americans who've been laid off back in the workplace?", the administration can tell them why. It was either live with a climbing rate of unemployment for a year or so, or have another attack on American soil, this time by Saddam Hussein. Of course, the Bush administration did such a thorough job convincing people of Iraq's threat that they largely forgot about the current economic troubles.

Had the evidence of Iraq's threat been solid and reliable, I'd have agreed with the Bush administration. If they could have presented me with strong, irrefutable evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, affiliation with al Qaeda and their intent to attack the US, I could have put aside my economic concerns and given my stamp of approval to go to war in order to secure America against a clear and present danger.

But they didn't. They gave me and the rest of the public sketchy reports, discredited intelligence and pure speculation. Vague suspicions are not good reasons to send our troops off to war. The administration viewed Iraq as a threat that needed to be terminated, not a country that needed to be rebuilt. That's why our troops are in the shit-pits they're in right now, and that's why we've received no solid estimates for the time and money we are required to invest in Iraq.

So where am I going with all this? Well, I've got a question. As I said, I just watched Black Hawk Down, and films like that tend to invoke a certain sense of sympathy. 300,000 people dead. Were we to sit back and do nothing? The same question for Iraq. People being fed to plastic shredders feet-first simply for cruelty. People being pumped full of water with a hose and then having their stomachs crushed. Were we to sit back and do nothing?

How do we determine if the welfare of American citizens is more important than that of people suffering in other countries? Someone has to foot the bill for the war. It isn't good for Americans to have to take cash away from educational and other programs. Similarly, it isn't good to let Iraq suffer under a regime that our government is responsible for installing. How do we decide what to do? Should we have waited until our country was in a better economic position before going to war? That would have meant more deaths. Should we have let another administration deal with the war, one that was not dealing with Iraq as a threat that needed to be exterminated, but a country that needed rebuilding? Any thoughts on the matter are welcome.

End of long thought train. Time for bed.

[Hasler]

You forget one thing though when dealing with timeing. NK and SK are moveing closer to war china is eyeing tiawan more than ever and is half way through their military moderinzation program pluss they will most likely support the DPRK in a second korean war. The timeing is perfect we take out the threat on our supply lines and give enought to form some stability before we have to commit the majority of our militar in massive combat.

[RedImperator]

You forget one thing though when dealing with timeing. NK and SK are moveing closer to war china is eyeing tiawan more than ever and is half way through their military moderinzation program pluss they will most likely support the DPRK in a second korean war. The timeing is perfect we take out the threat on our supply lines and give enought to form some stability before we have to commit the majority of our militar in massive combat.

The Chinese would never support the DPRK. Pyongyang is an albatross Beijing would be glad to be rid of. The only reason they still prop them up is because they don't want or need millions of starving Korean refugees in Manchuria.

[Hasler]

Even if the dont support them directly i couldnt see a better time for china to invade tiawan.

[RedImperator]

Even if the dont support them directly i couldnt see a better time for china to invade tiawan.

How are they going to cross the Taiwan Straits? Swim?

[Darth Wong]

In retrospect, the evidence for Iraq's WMD seemed stronger than it really was. None of it was really evidence for possessing WMD; it was largely evidence for the theoretical capability to produce WMD. In essence, saying that if a group of brilliant people were running the show and were driven to produce WMD, they should have been able to produce WMD by now.

Even that was a bit weak, but it sounded much more reasonable before we learned just how inept the Iraq government was.

[Sea Skimmer]

How are they going to cross the Taiwan Straits? Swim?

Back in 1958 they had the idea to build a giant pontoon bridge out to Quemoy Island, course the Nationalist destroyers noted that ramming the it inflicted no damage on there bows.

[Steve]

Um, how did the US bring Saddam to power? The Ba'aathists were Socialists; Soviet clients, not US.

Blame us for the Shah. Blame us for the Saudis. But for the love of God, not the Ba'aathists.

[Joe]

The U.S. does bear at least some responsibility for Iraq; as I recall, we supported Hussein during the 70s and 80s, at which point he seemed to be a superior alternative to the fundamentalist desert sheiks in control of the Iranian government. If I'm not mistaken, we also supplied Iraq with biological warfare agents, specifically anthrax spores. However, we are only responsible for less than 1 percent of Iraq's munitions.

Most repulsive, however, is George Bush's urging of the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam's regime and promising the support of the U.S. We all know how that turned out.

[Durandal]

The U.S. does bear at least some responsibility for Iraq; as I recall, we supported Hussein during the 70s and 80s, at which point he seemed to be a superior alternative to the fundamentalist desert sheiks in control of the Iranian government. If I'm not mistaken, we also supplied Iraq with biological warfare agents, specifically anthrax spores. However, we are only responsible for less than 1 percent of Iraq's munitions.

We did give Saddam a good deal of support. Hell there are video clips of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand. While we're not responsible for the majority of his munitions, we do bear some responsibility for him coming to power.

[phongn]

The U.S. does bear at least some responsibility for Iraq; as I recall, we supported Hussein during the 70s and 80s, at which point he seemed to be a superior alternative to the fundamentalist desert sheiks in control of the Iranian government. If I'm not mistaken, we also supplied Iraq with biological warfare agents, specifically anthrax spores. However, we are only responsible for less than 1 percent of Iraq's munitions.

We also gave him satellite intelligence, IIRC.

[Axis Kast]

Saddam did well for the United States as a client. So did the Afghanis. There was no way to have forseen his rise as a threat to the national security of the United States of America - or even Kuwait (which had been one of his principle backers during the conflict with Iran).

[Darth Wong]

Saddam did well for the United States as a client. So did the Afghanis. There was no way to have forseen his rise as a threat to the national security of the United States of America - or even Kuwait (which had been one of his principle backers during the conflict with Iran).

It would be extremely difficult to foresee his rise to a "threat to the national security of the United States" since this never actually happened.

[Joe]

Saddam did well for the United States as a client. So did the Afghanis. There was no way to have forseen his rise as a threat to the national security of the United States of America - or even Kuwait (which had been one of his principle backers during the conflict with Iran).

It would be extremely difficult to foresee his rise to a "threat to the national security of the United States" since this never actually happened.

Most arguments put forth by the Bush administration concentrated on the potential of a future Iraqi threat. As I recall, Bush never outright stated that Iraq was a clear and present threat to the United States.

[Axis Kast]

It would be extremely difficult to foresee his rise to a "threat to the national security of the United States" since this never actually happened.

He planned on becoming a threat to American security in 1991 when he anticipated a clash with American troops.

The strongest argument is however that of Israel. Hussein was a delusional human being, prone to ridiculous leaps of logic. It would have been a grave issue for American policy-makers to have had to dealt with a confrontation between Iraq and its Middle Eastern neighbor Israel.

[Durandal]

Saddam did well for the United States as a client. So did the Afghanis. There was no way to have forseen his rise as a threat to the national security of the United States of America - or even Kuwait (which had been one of his principle backers during the conflict with Iran).

It would be extremely difficult to foresee his rise to a "threat to the national security of the United States" since this never actually happened.

Most arguments put forth by the Bush administration concentrated on the potential of a future Iraqi threat. As I recall, Bush never outright stated that Iraq was a clear and present threat to the United States.

The intimation that the Bush administration were giving was that Iraq was a clear and present threat. Witness how many people believe that Hussein was involved in September 11th. It took an attack on Pearl Harbor to get us into World War II, and that was to stop Nazi Germany for Christ's sake -- a regime with far more real threat than a tin-pot dictator ruling over a sandbox and oil fields.

The administration knew that they had to make people think that Iraq was an actual, not potential, threat to the US -- which meant connecting him to the World Trade Center attacks -- if they were ever to get public backing for a war on Iraq, and they did a very effective job, especially given the quality (or lack thereof) of the "evidence" they used.

It's plainly obvious that Bush didn't mean that Saddam was a "potential future threat," because Americans don't like going to war with people who might someday be a danger.

[Durandal]

The strongest argument is however that of Israel. Hussein was a delusional human being, prone to ridiculous leaps of logic. It would have been a grave issue for American policy-makers to have had to dealt with a confrontation between Iraq and its Middle Eastern neighbor Israel.

That's not a threat to national security. Ramming planes into buildings is a threat to national security. Arabs and Israelis fighting over a strip of sand is not; that would be simple stupidity.

[Coyote]

Here we have Saddam Hussein, a dictator whose brutal regime's coming to power was largely our government's responsibility.

Actually, Saddam came to power largely on his own, as a result of an internal coup plotted between Ba'ath and non-Ba'ath officers. In 1968 the non-Ba'athit elements were purged. Saddam, at 31 at the time, was second in comand of the Ba'ath party and soon moved to the fore afer this.

The US largely ignored him until the Iran Hostage Crises in 1979, when we saw Saddam as potentially able to act as a counterbalance to the Fundamentalist Iranian regime. We sold/gave him a number of weapons to attack Iran with, as did Europe and the Russians. Our responibility for 'creating' him is almost nonexistant, but we did help make him a regional strongman.

... I know Bush started harping about how we're only going there to free the Iraqi people just before the war, but even most conservatives on this board will admit that that was total bullshit.

It was pulled out of a hat at the last minute, but I think it was a valid reason from the beginning that they did not properly capitalize. We know he had WMDs at one point so while I think the threat was there, it was not a direct threat agaonst America. I think he was definitely a regionl-stability type of threat but his ability (or willingness) to attack America was only in the most abstract sense. He is not a stupid man.

It could be argued that Iraqi resistance was underestimated and that "Shock and Awe" was a trumped-up fireworks display...

I recall that the actual "Shock and Awe" plan was abandoned as unecessary just before committing to battle...?

As to resistance, we all expected it and we all knew there would be some-- what about the cries tha this would bog down as 'another Vietnam'? We are not close to that yet, in reality. People were saying the war would last 'a year', I myself thought 3 months... Plus some resistance may not even be Iraqi, but foreign Arabs who hate Americans for whatever reason. Many even hated Saddam too.

Let us not forget the SS-Werwulf, which continued resistance and guerrilla action aganst Allied troops in Germany after the war, keeping up attacks until 1948 I believe (Shep?). But it obviously would have been a mistake to pull out of Germany because of them.

There was no proposed budget or timeframe before the war, and the state of such affairs has advanced very little since its end. The current situation in Iraq tells me that there was virtually no consideration given to restructuring Iraq after the dust settled.

I think even the Administration expected a longer warfighting period. The collapse caught them largely by surprise. But we do have a bad history for fumbling the ball after the fight is largely over. But we pulled the Marshall PLan out of nothing before-- but now that we have it as a precedent there is no excuse for lacking a Civic Affairs follow-up plan that can be quickly implemented.

...Were we to sit back and do nothing?

How do we determine if the welfare of American citizens is more important than that of people suffering in other countries? ... Should we have waited until our country was in a better economic position before going to war? That would have meant more deaths...

You bring up a lot of good points, and certainly ones that I have pondered before as well. We did share some responsibility to remove this loony-- obviously, if we did not, no one else would step up to bat. Other were willing to let him go on and on so long as they were not affected.

You are correct in that the Administration should have leveled with us from the start; it would have meant less impetus to fight but much more solid basis for what we did have. The humanitarian angle should have been the big focus from the beginning, and a major part of the plan for the end.

One things others do worry abut, and I can see their reason for worry-- will the US now be in the business of regime change? Certainly there are a number of tyrants out there that need it, but is it our place? And if not, why not? I think we have good reasons to help out in Liberia... but what about when it comes time to free Tibet?

Who we help and why will be as important-- thre are no easy answers to this.

[Darth Wong]

It would be extremely difficult to foresee his rise to a "threat to the national security of the United States" since this never actually happened.

He planned on becoming a threat to American security in 1991 when he anticipated a clash with American troops.

... in Kuwait, not America. Did you fail geography?

The strongest argument is however that of Israel. Hussein was a delusional human being, prone to ridiculous leaps of logic. It would have been a grave issue for American policy-makers to have had to dealt with a confrontation between Iraq and its Middle Eastern neighbor Israel.

Ah, I see. You did fail geography. I suggest you check your atlas. You will discover that, contrary to the your belief (and that of Osama Bin Laden), America and Israel are actually separate countries.

[Wicked Pilot]

Arabs and Israelis fighting over a strip of sand is not; that would be simple stupidity.

It is when they attack our Navy ships in international waters, killing 34 good servicemen and injuring 172 more.

Then again it really must not be a threat to security seeing as our government covered it up.

[phongn]

Are you referring to the USS Liberty incident?

[Hamel]

He's probably talking about the Cole bombing

[Durandal]

Arabs and Israelis fighting over a strip of sand is not; that would be simple stupidity.

It is when they attack our Navy ships in international waters, killing 34 good servicemen and injuring 172 more.

Then again it really must not be a threat to security seeing as our government covered it up.

Even so, there was nowhere near the amount of anger and rage after the bombing of the U.S.S Cole as there was after the World Trade Center attacks. Did we mourn it? Yes. Did we attack Afghanistan and implement a regime change after bin Laden took responsibility for the bombing? Nope.

Americans traditionally don't want to move unless danger is at the front door.

I recall that the actual "Shock and Awe" plan was abandoned as unecessary just before committing to battle...?

I don't think so. I remember the massive, pinpoint bombings of Iraq being a part of Shock and Awe. The problem with the whole idea was assuming that Iraqi soldiers would give a shit about being bombed if they supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction. Trying to "shock and awe" people with conventional weaponry isn't exactly a good idea if those people possess chemical and biological agents, which there's no evidence of, but the administration assumed they did anyway, making Shock and Awe a fairly stupid idea in terms of consistency with other assumptions that they had.

The administration may have covered it up or tried to make people forget that it was largely a failure, but I'm pretty sure that it was carried out. They certainly extolled it enough preceding the war.

I think even the Administration expected a longer warfighting period. The collapse caught them largely by surprise. But we do have a bad history for fumbling the ball after the fight is largely over. But we pulled the Marshall PLan out of nothing before-- but now that we have it as a precedent there is no excuse for lacking a Civic Affairs follow-up plan that can be quickly implemented.

But we do have precedent. That would be Afghanistan. Remember how we were supposed to work wonders with it? With all this attention on Iraq, you'd think we'd forgotten about the other country full of brown people who we promised a better life for and bombed the shit out of.

You are correct in that the Administration should have leveled with us from the start; it would have meant less impetus to fight but much more solid basis for what we did have. The humanitarian angle should have been the big focus from the beginning, and a major part of the plan for the end.

Precisely. If Bush had come out and said, "Listen, we're partly responsible for this guy's reign over his country, and his people are suffering. We owe it to them to correct our mistake, and this thing's been on the back burner long enough," I would have given him a more credit, though still disagreed with the timing of the attack. Instead, he tried bullshitting America. And what was the lesson we learned? That a president can get away with bullshitting when it comes to bombing some Arabs, but he can't when he gets a blow job.

The point is that we forgot about the Afghanis and went gung-ho toward Iraq. In the midst of trying to rebuild a country, an economic recession and a climbing unemployment rate, Bush runs off and declares war on Iraq and then promises its people that he'll rebuild their government too! Where does all the money for these little "projects" come from? We've got our own problems to worry about at home. I'm not saying that we should be oblivious to what goes on overseas, but the government's primary responsibility is to its citizens and their welfare, not everyone else's.

[Joe]

It would be extremely difficult to foresee his rise to a "threat to the national security of the United States" since this never actually happened.

Most arguments put forth by the Bush administration concentrated on the potential of a future Iraqi threat. As I recall, Bush never outright stated that Iraq was a clear and present threat to the United States.

The intimation that the Bush administration were giving was that Iraq was a clear and present threat. Witness how many people believe that Hussein was involved in September 11th. It took an attack on Pearl Harbor to get us into World War II, and that was to stop Nazi Germany for Christ's sake -- a regime with far more real threat than a tin-pot dictator ruling over a sandbox and oil fields.

The administration knew that they had to make people think that Iraq was an actual, not potential, threat to the US -- which meant connecting him to the World Trade Center attacks -- if they were ever to get public backing for a war on Iraq, and they did a very effective job, especially given the quality (or lack thereof) of the "evidence" they used.

It's plainly obvious that Bush didn't mean that Saddam was a "potential future threat," because Americans don't like going to war with people who might someday be a danger.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions ... would come too late.

Emphasis mine.

In other words, there is no imminent threat. Only a future threat.

[Durandal]

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.

Emphasis mine.