Iraq: Political Solutions That Could Have Been

I agree with you, that there were better approaches. However, the sanctions weren't going to get fixed because there were countries on the security council benefiting from the fact that the sanctions were as they were. Specifically, at least one country profited from supplying weapons to Iraq on a consistent basis throughout the entire sanctions period, and used that leverage to the long-term advantage of its oil industry. Peace.

Politics is such a weird world. Dealing with people on a day to day basis is pretty hard; I can't imagine what it would be like to deal with countries of people on a day to day basis. It must be maddening.

I can't speak for President Bush or for his administration, I can only guess at what they were thinking. Bin Laden is on the brink of death because of his kidneys, and he is going to die on the run. Bin Laden may not have been caught, but Afghanistan is "finished" so let’s move on. Afghanistan has gone so much better and is in much better shape because we left... to go fight in Iraq. I don't think you would want to leave the whole US Military in a country looking for one man.

Even if we had removed our "spies" from the UN team, they never would have been allowed in. Saddam had it in his best interest to keep the world believing that there was the possibility that he had WMD. That gave him power over his people, power over his neighbors and negotiating power with the UN and the US. He was playing an elaborate game of chicken and President Bush got tired of the game and just ran over him. The Administration was pretty sure that the weapons were there. Now we KNOW the weapons are not there. If they had couched the war with "We are going in to find out if they have them..." no one would have said "Go." This goes back to my first paragraph, how do you determine what the public is going to react to?

The Administration was praised for their actions in Afghanistan, and believed that the same would happen after Iraq had been freed. The rebels/terrorists have good intentions (get these foreigners out of our country), but they are really messing things up for the rest of Iraq with their kamikaze attacks on innocent people that are being helped by the US. If they had sat back, let the US and the UN get Iraq back on its feet, the US would have been gone a long time ago. The rebels/terrorists in Iraq have killed more soldiers and probably more Iraqis. But the papers don't keep track of those numbers, only the number of dead coalition soldiers. The news says one US soldier and two Iraqi police officers were killed in one kamikaze car bomb. Another car bomb went off and it killed 42 people and wounded another 140, many of them children. In the second incident, nothing was said of US troops. Who are the rebels/terrorists attacking?

Whether we did it the right way or not, the intentions were good. The Administration wants to get out of there, but can't because of the rebels/terrorists and the government isn't strong enough to stand on its own two feet. If we left there would almost certainly be a religious civil war.

The past is gone, we can only deal with today and plan for tomorrow. Whether you like President Bush or not, at least you know where he stands. You know what his beliefs are and what he is going to do. I don't think Senator Kerry has a firm stance on anything. Even though the war has been painful, I don't think you can blame the US for the majority of the deaths.

Carl, I'll take your points one at a time.

"I don't think you would want to leave the whole US Military in a country looking for one man."

True. But the timing meant that the US military wasn't able to put the overwhelming force into the Iraq offensive that it wanted to. This caused the initial phase of the war to drag out considerably. I also posit that the lack of US military power led to abuses such as mistreatment of Iraqi PoWs (due to there not being enough guards), and perhaps the killing of Iraqi soldiers and civilians because the US soldiers didn't have the necessary backup.

"This goes back to my first paragraph, how do you determine what the public is going to react to?"

The U.S. is supposed to be a democracy, ruled by its citizens. When the government doesn't know how the voters will react, it should ask them. It should ask them without lying, spinning or manipulating to produce a 'correct' outcome. This is an important difference between truly free democracies and pseudo-dictatorships like Singapore.

"Even if we had removed our "spies" from the UN team, they never would have been allowed in."

We'll never know, because we never tried it. You don't need to put "spies" in quotes either. (Have a search on Google for ("scott ritter" "richard butler" spies iraq'.) The spy allegations featured prominently in Saddam's refusals to cooperate with inspections. The inspections and sanctions worked well enough that Saddam had disposed of his WMDs 2002, and he might have let inspection teams in, if they were truly independent.

"Who are the rebels/terrorists attacking?"

My guess: some of them are stirring up general discontent because insecurity suits their private objectives, some are fighting for political advantage, and others see themselves as a legitimate insurgency. Not too different from what we might see after a hypothetical Chinese invasion of the US deep south. I agree that they deserve condemnation.

"Whether we did it the right way or not, the intentions were good."

That is something that will be debated for the next hundred years, but it isn't the important point. The important point is whether or not invading Iraq was justified. It certainly can't be justified by saying that the US government had no other options.

"Whether you like President Bush or not, at least you know where he stands. You know what his beliefs are and what he is going to do."

Bush stands astride the globe brandishing the US military like a club. He beats up countries he doesn't like, and is causing the world to divide itself into those that submit to the US in every detail and those that are enemies of the US.

I don't get a vote in the US elections, and I don't think my opinion will affect a single vote, but from out here, I'd rather somebody more humble and more careful had control of the most powerful military force on the planet.

"...I don't think you can blame the US for the majority of the deaths."

Blame isn't binary. The US (and other CoW members like Australia) share at least a small part of the blame in each and every death associated with this war.

"The past is gone, we can only deal with today and plan for tomorrow."

I agree that we have to move on, and I'm already on record as saying the Aussie military should stay in Iraq while we're doing good. But let's not fall for simplistic chest beating, proclaiming that our side has only ever done the right thing.

Alan,

I apologize if I came across as beating my chest. Mistakes have been made and they will be debated as you said. The one thing that disturbs me is the visual of President Bush brandishing a club standing on top of the world. Why do you think that?

I think if that was the case, they would have sent the Pacific Fleet into North Korea.

I put spies in quotes because I think Saddam would have said they were there even if the entire team was made up of French inspectors.

If the Chinese invaded Texas (which is a very humorous idea) the Texans wouldn't drive over to New Mexico and start blowing them up because the Chinese were in Texas. The Texans would fight back (part of what makes the idea funny btw) but they wouldn't blow up other Americans. I know we agree on this point, but the thought of people invading Texas is very humorous and I just wanted to let you know that I had a nice laugh over that one statement. *chuckle*

Justification of invading Iraq is simple. The Administration thought Iraq had the capability to make WMD. That is what the intelligence agencies told the Administration. What we learned later was that the agencies were either fooled, or couldn't determine whether the weapons were there or not. They are now beefing up the intelligence agencies so that won't happen again, I bet that makes everyone outside of the US happy.

Thanks again for the good laugh about the Chinese invading the south.

Hi Carl,

"I apologize if I came across as beating my chest. Mistakes have been made and they will be debated as you said."

My apologies to you. I read you that way because so many of your pro-Bush compatriots will not admit that he has ever made a mistake or done anything wrong.

"The one thing that disturbs me is the visual of President Bush brandishing a club standing on top of the world. Why do you think that?"

It might be different from the safety of a US address, but the US government has made it quite clear that they will attack wherever they see a need to, unilateraly and with a clear conscience.

This is bad for international security and stability because it sets a precedent that any country can decide to ride on in and attack any other country, so long as they do it with what you described as "good intentions."

North Korea is an interesting one. I think it would have been next if the Iraq campaign had been the quick success it was supposed to be - President Bush was certainly making all the right noises. The way things have turned out, I don't think there will be an assault North Korea in the next few years (despite the opportunity to remove an unpleasant dictator).

However, President Bush hasn't changed his mind ("flip-flopped") on the preemption doctrine, so it's entirely possible that a Bush administration might start another offensive, on a softer target, in two or three years time.

I'm glad you got a chuckle out of the Chinese invasion - it was only intended as a hypothetical, and it's not going to happen in the next 50 years, while the US holds the biggest military stick.

Still, I think Americans would attack Americans in that scenario. Take the sprinkling of doomsday cults like Branch Davidian. These would be attractive to some people suffering the ignomony of occupation. These cults have shown themselves as being capable of horrid behaviour in the name of God. Leaving the extreme elements aside, would all insurgents avoid hurting fellow citizens they identified as cooperating with the enemy? I don't think so, and once you cross that moral line, it's all downhill.

"They are now beefing up the intelligence agencies so that won't happen again, I bet that makes everyone outside of the US happy." It sure make me happy. It is a positive step for the US and the world. I am particularly pleased that the Intelligence Czar will be independent of the Whitehouse, but I am still concerned that the politicisation of the US intelligence agencies will make it hard to report anything that does not accord with the administration-of-the-day's view of the world.

I know this thread has been fairly negative, but please don't take this as all down on the US and Bush; Australia suffers from many of these problems too.

Alan,

During the Roman empire, a Roman was free to wonder the world because the world knew that the Roman empire would come crushing down on anyone who molested a Roman citizen. Obviously the United States has not gone so far as that, but being that we are the current "empire" I think we have used our powers to do more good than evil. We guard and protect our friends and try to make peace when possible.

Living in America doesn't offer the sense of protection that it once did. Granted, we don't live in the Gaza strip by any stretch of the imagination, but we do realize now that we are not completely secure inside our shores. Any time an American gets onto an airplane, they are reminded of just how different life really is now. Please don't take this as a "please feel sorry for me" paragraph, I am just trying to let you know that it isn't entirely safe here. I would think it would be more safe in Australia than anywhere else in the world :D

"This is bad for international security and stability because it sets a precedent that any country can decide to ride on in and attack any other country, so long as they do it with what you described as "good intentions.""

No, not any country, just the U.S. That really sounds arrogant but it really is not meant to be. Since we are the current empire we almost have a duty to "serve and protect" those that can not protect themselves. Of course we are going to pay attention to those areas where we have vested interest (oil) and little to those areas that do not offer as much value (Africa). This is the one fuss that I have, if we are going to be the protectors, then we need to protect both. However the economies of protecting both is rather difficult and the people probably wouldn't stand for it. "Why should we send our troops into harms way in Africa when there is nothing to be gained from peace over there?" It is a bit short sighted, but... people are what they are.

*** This is the end of part I of this message ***

*** We return you now to our regularly scheduled program Part II ***

How quickly we Americans forget our own sins. I had forgotten all about the Branch Davidians and the guys who blew up the Oklahoma city federal buildings. Those groups do exist and it is one of the things that makes America great. Freedom is a really difficult thing to understand and Americans don't always have a very real sense of what it means to be free (<a href="http://www.sixty4bit.com/mt/archives/2003/03/23/definition_america.html">my enlightenment</a>).

It isn't until you have traveled outside of the U.S. and walked the streets of a foreign country (Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand don't count) and seen the dispare and witnessed the corruption first hand that you get a real sense of the world. I never want to go back to Africa, it was to depressing.

I have learned in my travels that people are pretty much the same everywhere you go. They are looking out for themselves and trying to make their own life better. The next time you are out and about look around at the people that are around you. Notice how each is very different. Some are smart, some are not, some are pretty, some are not, some are both, many are not. That is what America is like. We are all different. You can't group us into a single sterotype (I am not accusing anyone, just on a soapbox) just like you can't group all Australians into a sterotype of Crocodile Dundee. topic.next();

I was surprised that you welcome a stronger US intelligence regime. Most people think spies are bad and that they hurt more than they help. I too think it will be a better place with a better intelligence agency, I just hope it isn't another bureaucratic mess.

"Australia suffers from many of these problems too."

I don't think the US or Australia "suffer". I truly believe that those who are in power are doing the best they can with the current situation. Are some of them corrupt? Yes, and so is that guy that is sitting two seats in front of you on the subway. Tomorrow our fictional guy is going to take a bribe to give business to a particular company. Did President Bush go into office with the intention of taking Saddam out? Probably. I am actually glad that Saddam is gone. I wish the war had gone better and I hope that our troops are rapidly removed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will have lost their lives to American soldiers and bombs, but millions will be free because of their death. Some of those who died were innocent. Many of them were not.

All of my "empire" rubbish came from an English author who talks about how America should start acting more like an empire, because that is what it really is... One of my coworkers introduced the idea to me, so I will ask him the name of the author and book and then will let you know. I am actually more interested in reading it now after this discussion than I was before.

I have actually been very happy with this thread. I wanted to say something along those lines in my last post, but didn't know how to fit it in. I feel like I can actually have a conversation with you and not be bulldozed by someone who refuses to keep an open mind about what we are actually talking about.

Carl,

You sure gave me plenty to think about there.

When I said "from the safety of a US address" I simply meant that you are safe Bush's big stick, the US military, so it's not surprising that you find it hard to equate Bush with a thug carrying a big stick. I'm safe from the US military here in Australia too, but with Bush's words and the invasion of Iraq, Muslim countries in particular feel threated by the US military.

I can't think of one reason why Muslim countries should feel safe, except to ask them to trust George Bush. Unfortunately, while George Bush has demonstrated resolve in pursuing his goals, he has not demonstrated reason, restraint or respect for international law. When the US president displays all of these qualities, over a long period of time, the US may once again stand a chance of gaining the trust of Muslim countries.

You claim that the doctrine of preemption applies to "not any country, just the U.S."

Here are two countries that have incorporated the US version of the doctrince of preemption into their foreign policy:

- Australia
http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=12740&col=57

- Russia
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-10-09-russia-nukes_x.htm

To speak in generalisations, although other countries count themselves the moral equal or superior of the USA, they acknowledge the superior military force of the USA, and look to the USA to lay the ground-rules for acceptable behaviour. The Bush administration has declared acceptable preemptive strikes on the basis of vague, inconclusive intelligence or for the purpose of rooting out groups labelled as terrorists. Other countries are either picking up these policies or are concerned that their neighbours might.

The results of this Google search capture the spirit of chaos and fear that devolve from the doctrine of preemption:

http://www.google.com/search?q=pakistan+preemption

*** Part 2 ***

A while ago you wrote about the "rebels/terrorists" in Iraq as though what they were doing was particularly inexplicable. I replied by raising the bizarre Texas invasion scenario (and whackos like Branch Davidian) in order to point out that that the Iraqi insurgency was not unpredicatable. The US administration should have taken the possibility into account when they made their plans for war, and factored it in accordingly. That they expected coalition forces to be welcomed as heroes in Iraq, and lauded around the world smacks of naivete.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the US is morally worse than any other nation for having a small proportion of unsavoury, crazy people. Every country does, Australia included, and it's only differences in wealth, culture and society that determine whether they come out and how much damage they do. Australia has its share of crazies too, though with a smaller population and historical condistions that allow stricter gun laws.

"I was surprised that you welcome a stronger US intelligence regime." A problem with the current US structure is that the intelligence agencies are too politicized. By this I mean that they are not independent of the executive, and individuals up and down the organisational hierarchies are under pressure to report what the executive would like to hear. I hope that the new, more independent structure will allow the agencies to concentrate on reporting how things are, rather than how they should be.

I note that the Bush administration initially objected to making the "Intelligence Czar" independent of the executive, and I'm glad he has changed his position on this.

On the subject of corruption, I believe we should not accept it in any form from our democratically elected representatives. If they lie to me, they do not represent me. I choose to vote for politicians that have a record of not lying, because I value democracy and open government more than I value the pushing of a partisan political agenda of almost any kind.

"I am actually glad that Saddam is gone." So am I (and so is every single person I've ever talked to about the war), but that was not the reason our countries invaded Iraq. We were explicitly told that regime change was not a goal of the war; it was a likely side-effect, but not a goal. Regime change certainly isn't a good justification for an invasion.

I'll stop here because I'm about to launch into a bunch of left-wing theories about the reasons why the USA invaded Iraq, including: George W. Bush's need to be a "war president" just like his Daddy; Vice President Dick Cheney handing Haliburton a second round of juicy, over-priced, reconstruction contracts while still on their payroll; the US taking control of foreign oil fields; and how little most of us westerners care for people of different cultures.

*** Part 3 ***

"Did President Bush go into office with the intention of taking Saddam out? Probably."

Going to war is about the biggest step a country can take. Taking leadership of a democracy with an intent to take it to war is serious, but quite proper if that's what the people have voted for. Would George Bush be president if he had been honest with the voters about his intentions? Probably not.

How would you describe a candidate who presents an attractive set of policies to the public in order to get elected, but on taking office starts doing something quite different? Principled?

If you believe that Bush probably came to office with a secret plan of this magnitude, you should be asking yourself what secret plans he has for his second term. You might find him spending a trillion dollars this time instead just a few hundred billion.

Whether or not Bush came to office with the intention of taking Saddam out goes directly to the point where this thread started, when you challenged me on characterising Bush's government as using "violence as a first resort." It looks to me as though he never had any intention of any approach other than violence.

Carl, I too have enjoyed this exchange, and likewise appreciate your open mindedness. Perhaps we can do this again after the US election? Meanwhile, please have the last word.

Alan,

I started a reply yesterday and reread it today. I am basically repeating myself. This one paragraph bears repeating though:

I honestly do believe that President Bush is principled. I don't think he ever lied. I do think that the list of reasons why they wanted to go to war with Iraq is much longer than what they are telling the world. The world (or the press) can not pay attention long enough to understand the legitimate reasons. There are also some items that the world should not know about. So, the administration goes over the list until the most compelling reasons are determined. Then, that short list is provided to the public. Similarly, try explaining to a non-programmer the reasons why you chose to use Python to write your blog versus Java.

I think there is much more thought that goes into making a decision at that level than we the little people will ever know.

I look forward to our post election exchange :)