Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"I, by contrast, see much greater continuity in Bush administration policy--see the shift to a policy of regime change in Iraq by force and violence coming on Inauguration Day itself."

Any person who doesn't admit that without "force and violence," Saddam Hussein and his sons would have been in power for at least 2 more decades is either being hopelessly naive or dishonest.

The simple fact is that anyone who did NOT advocate for the "forcible and violent" removal of Saddam Hussein was really not advocating for the removal of Saddam Hussein. In other words, such a person was advocating that Saddam Hussein and his sons be allowed to continue to rule Iraq for at least 2 more decades.

Mark Bahner (one of those who did not advocate for the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein)

But the issue is was 9/11 the trigger, and if so, why? I just read the War College report and it is scathing not only on the connection between al quaeda and Iraq, but on the utility of wasting resources, international prestige, and lives on the crushing of this murderous but, ultimately, hamstrung regime. Brad's right.

As to whether not advocating war with Iraq after 9-11 meant that "saddam and his sons continued to rule iraq for at least two more decades." Well, no. We didn't have to go to war then but could have gone to war later; Saddam could have died of old age and his sons killed each other in internecine squabbling; we could have lifted sanctions and flooded the country with propaganda, money, and all the pleasures that destabilize countries; god could have intervened as we've been informed he is planning to do in this election cycle.

Kate Gilbert

Thanks, Mark, for a fine comment. Brad, Clinton signed into official policy regime change in Iraq. Yeah, the Reps wouldn't let him do it. But, had Gore been elected and had 9/11, you can bet the PNAC neocons would be VERY loud, and more listened to, in wanting forceful regime change in Iraq.

The political calculus of attack or not changes totally after 9/11. Only humiliating, and obviously unlikely, total capitulation by Saddam would stop the US invasion after the Nov 2002 elections. In Saddam's power, but he didn't do it. Nor even cushy exile.

Saddam NEVER believed the US would actually attack. Now lots of Arabs are changing their mind sets.

This big Bush war win trumps all the domestic small blunders, all the small minded, back stabbing O'Neill style whining, all the Bush misrepresentations.

And it should. Booting Saddam was good, was GREAT. Maybe expensive (but the alternative???). But Great. Better than NAFTA or Welfare Reform, Clinton's two huge victories (because they were Rep policies).

And deficits? Well, it's Keynesianistically turning a recession into growth. I don't hear any Dems arguing to increase gas taxes, or pollution taxes, to save the world and the reduce the deficit. I don’t hear about programs the Dems want to cut.

(Maybe your comments & site is really fixed? That would be fine, too!)

I see a different element of continuity -- concern with this nation's security from outside attack. Before 9/11 -- it looked like the Bush policy was a fortress America hiding safely behind a missile defense system. 9/11 proved that terrorist can change an airlplane into a missile

So now the policy is make the mideast a better place so they won't send new terrorists after us. It comes from the same wellspring, but dictates different foreign policy initiatives.

Also, those who propound "War in Iraq was always the objective" need to explain how on earth Bush would have been able to sell that to the public and Congress. Surely, without 9-11, Rove would have argued against a military enterprise without the support of the US public. And I don't see how Bush could have gotten anyone excited about Saddam, particularly because it would have been represented in the press as some Oedipal wierdness.

" Saddam Hussein was not Al Qaeda's ally..."

They must have thought they were allies. Osama is on record as declaring that it was the presence of "infidel troops" on sacred Saudi soil that made him order the 9-11 attacks. Those troops were in Saudi Arabia for the express purpose of containing Saddam Hussein, thus protecting Saudi Arabia from being invaded.

Osama thought he could defeat the U.S. as he (deluded himself into thinking) had defeated the other superpower in Afghanistan. Had he been able to do so, that would have been in Saddam's self-interest.

A poor calculation, but once one makes it, Al Qaeda and Iraq are effectively allies.

Let's see. Osama wanted U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia; so did Saddam. They must have been allies!

Osama wanted U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia; so did Rumsfeld. They must have been allies!

Brad and Kate: I'd argue that 9/11 changed the set of assumptions Bush--and, indeed, the security apparatus at large--were working under. The doctrine of preemption follows 9/11 rather well: it's better to take the fight to the enemy now than to react after the damage is done.

Kate: There was no "War College report." Jeffrey Record is a fine analyst but he's just a civilian professor who happens to work for the research arm of the Army War College. His report doesn't reflect the AWC's view any more than one of Brad's papers reflects that of Stanford.

Actually by that logic Patrick, Sadam and Osama were enemies because the troops would have to be moved somewhere. And that somwhere is Iraq. So we were able to acomplish Osqam's goals. Which means we are now allied with Osama.

By the way, is this "highly intelligent and thoughtful" Dan Drezner the same one who, a week or so ago, was seen screaming and, fangs bared, leaping over a cliff?

Maybe the current adventure in Iraq was on rails from January 2001 on, but the question of timing is still relevant.

I suspect that something is going to come out such as Saudis asking for the removal of American forces on the ground that they had become too destabilizing to be hosted. Seeing as there was no way that the administration was going let Saddam win by default by letting him out of his box, the timing was then set in stone.

Or maybe I'm granting the administration too much credit and the goal was to do Iraq, hand off to Chalabi and a sheep-dipped Iraqi state apparatus, and declare victory in time for November '04.

Opps!

A bit off-topic, but this overwhelming show of force that the neocons were trying to show with a swift victory in Iraq has actually weakened the perception of effectiveness of the U.S. military in my mind. Even though I was against the war, I always held the U.S. military in high regard as far as their capabilities were concerned. Perhaps I've watched too many Hollywood movies. But what I'm seeing now is a conventional military that can be tackled by a force of much fewer guerillas. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it's probably making a lot of undesirable potential U.S. enemies very confident that they can take on the U.S. military in drawn out guerilla-style warfare. Sure, I was against the Iraq war. But even I am surprised that things have ended up the way they did. I was expecting a swift and comprehensive victory by the U.S. military with an end to combat measured in weeks, not months or as it could turn out, years. I'm sure the neocons will blame the results on a military that was neglected by Clinton for 8 years when the problem seems to be much more fundamental; something that could only be corrected by a complete re-think of American military strategy.

Well, on the osama is the same as saddam I think the other posters have pretty much covered it. The pro-war hawks would look a lot less silly (and I understand that silly is a very frightening term to them) if they would just stick to the facts that make sense. Osama wants us out of Saudi Arabia--we went into Iraq in order to have bases to pull back to so we could stop inflaming Saudi Arabia and the actual Islamic fanatics against us. That would be score a big one for Osama and if you don't believe me just check out any pro-terrorist group and see if they are really quaking in their boots over Iraq? And of course, as Brad has noted above, we are in fact restoring islamic repressive religious law for Iraqi women--that would be score another point for Osama and friends. Whether it makes saddam happy is moot, of course, but I don't think on this point we can continue to argue that saddam's interests and osama's were convergent.

Kate

For the last 10 years neocons wanted to finish what Bush I did not. Their reasons were the same as in 1991: occupying Iraq would destroy one of the main resistance points to US/Israeli dominance in the Middle East and - the best - it will pay for itself in Iraq's oil. The difference in 2000 was that
* Iraq's army was weakened by the sanctions so it could put up even less resistance than in 1991
* Saddam killed all domestic opponents so there was no hope for his removal in a coup or insurrection
* UN inspections proven there was no WMD there so there was no danger for US troops
* In 1991 there was still some uncertanity about America's sole superpower status and therefore a desire to have allies (that did not want Iraq invaded). By 2000 American dominance became so unqestionable there was no reason to share the spoils with anyone

Well said, Anonymous. Before the war, for example I thought the FARC in Colombia were crazy for trying to provoke the USA into an intervention. They had a clear strategy of provocation with kidnappings, bombings, etc. and I imagined that a USA intervention would wipe them out. But now, it seems Tirofijo was on to something. If 5.000 Irakis (which are relative amateurs in this), in the desert, can give this much trouble to the american army, then what could 12.000 experienced guerrilleros, with the oldest guerrilla organization in the world, in the tropical jungle, do?

In the first place:

While NON "state-sponsored" terrorism IS a national security problem, it is not essentially or even primarily a MILITARY one: according Osama bin Laden (and his ilk) the status of "enemy" only makes the problem worse. Terrorism is and OUGHT, by responsible, "rational (policy) actors", to be treated as an international CRIMINAL JUSTICE/INTELLIGENCE problem in the first or narrow sense and as a GEOPOLITICAL problem in "big picture" sense.

Secondly:

I have it on VERY good authority that the attacks of 911 "could have been and should have been prevented."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

That being established, there are only two possible answers to the question: Well then, why wasn't the terrorist plot disrupted? THAT "failure" (or "blind-spot")was either unintentional (incompetence) OR it was intentional (malfeasance). As of this writing, so far as I've been able to determine the facts of the case, there is evidence to support BOTH "theories".

IF the second "theory" of the case is to be ruled out, the "neo-conservative mafia" most certainly deserves a hard look. BUT, in my opinion, it wouldn't be prudent, it wouldn't be in the national interest, and it WOULD be worse, MUCH worse, than naive NOT to "follow the money"...

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

Is this "highly-intelligent and thoughtful" Dan Drezner the same one who, just a couple of days ago, was seen wearing a war bonnet, holding a tomahawk and bow and arrow, and lying face down in the mud, arrows sticking out of his back?

>But what I'm seeing now is a conventional
>military that can be tackled by a force of much
>fewer guerillas.

We've known this for a while. Col. John Moseby tied up a union army 20 times the size of his own force with guerrilla tactics during the US civil war in the Shenandoah, and his ideas weren't exactly new. Our Revolution was often one of small guerrilla bands against the best army in the world. How to fight? Persevere, and be nice to the civilians.

What 9/11 changed was the importance of Iraq, and how urgent things were. Before, we thought we could be patient - leave Hussein in charge in 1991, and isolate him. 9/11 caused us to look at the existing history - at what happened to the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, to the Shiite uprising. To look at the Stark, at Khobar Towers, and at 9/11 itself. And to realize, patience was getting us killed.

Shorter rvman:

"I can make large leaps of logic in a single bound"

Patrick,

You don't actually believe that do you ? If you know enough recent history to know that Osama was against the "infidel troops" on Saudi soil, you probably know that Osama told the Saudi government that they didn't need the help of the US, because Osama vowed to find Saddam with the help of his mujahadeen.
From Time magazine's bio of Osama.
"When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, bin Laden informed the royal family that he and his Arab Afghans were prepared to defend the kingdom. "

Doesn't sound like Saddam's ally to me.

The Bush policy is definately different from Clintons and continuous from Inauguration to Invasion. "we're gonna get em"
What is so amazing about this administration is its uncanny ability to manipulate the interpretation of events to achieve its pre determined policy goals.
In this sense, 9-11 was cynically used to allow for a desired course of action.
The tax cut is another example
There is a surplus: we need a tax cut to fix it
There is a deficit: we need a tax cut to fix it
Drezner is part of the interpretation machine. He is selling the administrations message. As do most of the media. Why do the hard work of journalism when you can regurgitate White House press releases? Plus, if you are a good boy, maybe you'll get a Cato institute or AEI chair to pontificate from in old age. 66% of the media has become a group of bought minds as doctrinaire as anything the old Soviet Union could produce. It's almost funny.

Hopefully there will be a poweful backlash against this in November.

"911 was not--at least, for a rational actor it was not--a reason to attack Iraq. It was a reason to avoid attacking Iraq. "One enemy at a time," is the first and most important rule of rational security policy."

Sure Brad and German U-boats shouldn't sink U.S. vessels carrying supplies to the British. Saddam was already our enemy and a threat. The Clinton Administration's actions show that quite well. Saddam was already our enemy and his antics were already aiding bin Laden.

Bin Laden and Saddam didn't have to like each other one iota for one's actions to aid the other. You know that bin Laden benefitted greatly from the sanctions. You know very well that bin Laden benefitted from our presence in Saudi Arabia. You know very well that our presence in the Gulf overall was driven to great extent by threat Saddam posed and that bin Laden used that presence to push his lunacy. Saddam alone drove a major wedge into Arab/Israeli relations and therefore was a prime mover in that part of bin Laden's recruitment and contribution efforts.

Bin Laden's recruitment and money raising activities were highly aided and abetted by Saddam's presence. Likewise Saddam could easily use al Queda as cover while hating every fiber of bin Laden's being. You know all of that very well but somehow it isn't rational to take out Saddam because he is distinct from bin Laden? Equally a containment strategy that we devolved into because resuming war was never going to be a popular idea was somehow the best security strategy in a post 9/11 world? The potential for leaks of WMD are somehow not an issue? It is interesting that you reserve rationality for this position.

a shorter strawman:

"Unsupported accusations equal critique."

"But what I'm seeing now is a conventional military that can be tackled by a force of much fewer guerillas."

I wouldn't want to upset anyone unduly but the rather pessimistic analysis in this by an ex-Marine makes a lot of sense to me: http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702

I'm burned out on these matters (not that I've ever been professionally involved), but this here, from Patrick Sullivan, is very much far from the truth:

"Osama thought he could defeat the U.S. as he (deluded himself into thinking) had defeated the other superpower in Afghanistan. Had he been able to do so, that would have been in Saddam's self-interest."

Im sorry to say this, but this is balderdash, the second sentence, definitely, and, in a way, possibly the first sentence as well:

1- Bush plans for Iraq -- whatever they were -- might have already failed any way, or else why would US want to have back Incirlik air base in Turkey (unless they plan to attack Syria, which does not seem plausible to me)? I'm no military or foreign policy expert, but I ain't stupid either. I remember very well the Americans' "who needs Incirlik any way?" attitude shortly after they got to Baghdad and air dropped into Northern Iraq. What has changed now?

2- At a personal level, Osama bin Laden would probably consider Saddam Hussein a worse infidel than George W. Bush, as Mr. Hussein maintained a more secular world view than Mr. Bush. OK so I'm exaggerating a bit here but being of any service to Mr. Hussein could not have possibly ever occurred to Mr. bin Laden. He wanted the Americans out of Saudi territory because he himself wanted to be in charge of Saudi security, then, in time, he aspired to rule Sauid Arabia, then, Allah permitting, unify Arabs, kick the Anglo-americans off of Middle East and then beat the s**t out of Israel, and then... he probably did not have plans for after that. Hostilities with Iran and Turkey might have vaguely occurred to him but I don't think he figured any details on that. Any way, in that process, as I believe was envisaged by Mr. bin Ladin, what awaited Mr. Hussein would likely be something like hanging from a power line post.

So, there...

The significance of 9/11 is simple: it allowed the Bush administration to present the case to the American people that Saddam needed to be taken out. The administration realized that Al-Qaeda hated Saddam as much as we do, but they felt that the political climate was such that the American people would support a plan to invade Iraq because of post 9/11 anger.

Secondly, 9/11 made the administration realize that they needed to urgently re-think their middle east strategy. They realized that they needed to get the troops out of Saudi Arabia, and they were un-willing/reluctant to do so until the big threat of the middle east -- Saddam -- was taken out. Given the general desire for regime change in Iraq (coming from Wolfowitz and company) the decision seemed obvious. "Any way I look at it, it's the right thing to do."

Regrettably, the administration wasted U.S. credibility with our allies. They all realize that it isn't about WMDs, but rather the first move in improving the middle east and getting our troops out. This may cause us trouble later on.

I also think that they thought that the Iraqi people would accept Chalabi. Nonsense. They know who he is, and he's not going to have general support. This was a major error on the administration's part. We're not going to be able to get out of Iraq anytime soon.

So if the point of invading Iraq was so we could get our troops out of Saudi Arabia (which we have done), the biggest challenge in the administration's foreign policy now is getting the troops out of Iraq (which makes Osama and friends just as mad I'm sure).

At least, that's my view. There is a link.

Tom Grey, you should actually take a gander at the law Clinton signed in 98 (called, if i recall, the iraq liberation act). It specifically disavowed military effort.

The idea that such longstanding proponents of military action against iraq as rumsfeld, cheney, perle, and wolfowitz bit their tongues until the afternoon of 9/11/01 is very hard to believe.

A number of commenters have beaten me to it, but Patrick Sullivan's comment may well, even by his august standards, be the worst thing he's ever posted.

JK, some of us actually care about how policy is made and what it means. If you think that polls should tell us how to behave, then why bother to spend any time on sites like this one?

What on earth leads to these endless assertions that Saddam was a threat (as opposed to an enemy) to the USA? He became a threat to American soldiers only once they had placed themselves all over Iraq, as targets. He had no weapons, he had no means of delivery, he was vulnerable to retaliation and susceptible to deterrence. The upshot of the invasion has been to change all these factors, in ways disadvantageous to the USA. Iraq is now awash with weapons; no special means of delivery are required to get at American (or British) troops; further retaliation against Saddam is pointless; he can't be deterred and neither is there any other political entity in Iraq which might be induced by the threat of violence to stop the war.

"hair-splitting"?

That's rich. (I wonder how JK feels about lying to the likes of Ken Starr about what the definition of "is" is ;?)

What was Iraq's history looking like 70-100 years ago?

Let's see. Bush wants us out of Iraq; so does Saddam. They must be allies!

I have never seen a satisfactory argument or evidence that connected Saddam and Bin Laden. However, after 9/11 it seems reasonable to ask whether basing forces in Saudi Arabia for our containment strategy was going to be sustainable in the long run. It had become a political problem for the Saudis and a recruiting tool for extremists. 9/11 could change the calculus of invasion vs. containment without any Iraq-Al Quaeda link existing.

Unfortunately, the post-war occupation has struggled due to inadequate planning by the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, including too few boots on the ground. That a guerrilla force could tie down a larger professional military was well-known. That is why Shinseki thought that more forces were required for the post-war occupation. Our current problem partially attributable to the Administration over-ruling the professional judgment of the Army leadership and not sending enough soldiers for the first phase of the occupation. Now the resistance has had more time to organize and we cannot draw down our forces. More troops initially might have produced a more stable security situation, enabling use to occupy with fewer soldiers later in the occupation.

My view at least.

Tom Grey: Much of what you claim is untrue. Please resubmit.

JK -- we are not poll-driven morons, though perhaps you are. If I end up disagreeing with The American People, to me that's a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

The basic point is that Bush & co. siad that the war would improve us security.

I opposed this war because I beleived it would harm US security and I expected the type of resistence we have encounteded. So did the CIA.

I have seen no evidence to make me believe my original analysis was wrong.

Would someone in favor of the war give me one
specific example of how the US is better off or
more secure because of this war.

Spencer - One specific example of how we're better off because of the war -- we don't have the Chandra Levi case all over the TV any more.

"Spencer - One specific example of how we're better off because of the war -- we don't have the Chandra Levi case all over the TV any more."

What, Petersen,Jackson,and Bryant are some kind of step up into serious journalism?

What on earth leads to these endless assertions that Saddam was a threat (as opposed to an enemy) to the USA? He became a threat to American soldiers only once they had placed themselves all over Iraq, as targets. He had no weapons, he had no means of delivery, he was vulnerable to retaliation and susceptible to deterrence.

Posted by Andrew Brown at January 15, 2004 12:47 PM

Andrew, you seem to have a different readout of what constitutes a threat than all of our security agencies. It was they who felt that Saddam was a threat to U.S. security. It was they who started the nasty assertions that you keep seeing. They believed Saddam was a threat under Clinton and continued to do so under W.

Their error probably comes from the fact that every country on the Security Council thought Saddam had WMD and that he didn't need a missile to deliver them to be a threat. Saddam was already experiencing all of the retaliation possible short of war, and the fact that he kept lying to inspectors showed he was not susceptible to deterrence. Of course, you must of had access to better information!

I opposed this war because I beleived it would harm US security and I expected the type of resistence we have encounteded. So did the CIA.

I have seen no evidence to make me believe my original analysis was wrong.

Would someone in favor of the war give me one
specific example of how the US is better off or
more secure because of this war.

Posted by spencer at January 15, 2004 01:17 PM

spencer, I was not in favor of the war, nor am I a hawk. I felt that we had to get Saddam out of there because we could not continue the sanctions/containment regime.

There was/is no guarantee that removing Saddam will make U.S. security better, but letting Saddam out of his box was guaranteed to make our security worse.

The major improvement I have seen so far is the removal of sanctions. The recent moves toward Sharia are disturbing.

Leaving a functioning democracy would be a very positive difference maker in the region. I'm not under any illusions about how likely that is.

"He [Saddam] kept lying to inspectors." This meme is received wisdom, much like the meme that Saddam had WMD was received wisdom before the war. But is it true? Is there any evidence that he actually did lie to the inspectors after they returned to Iraq in 2002? Or do we simply accept the word of the Bush admin that Saddam lied?

TS: I agree with you on all but one point - more troops. It is far from proven that throwing more troops at the problem does anything to overcome a guerrilla insurgency, unless you can actually lock down the entire country. That would take more troops than we have. An insurgency was, in retrospect, something we were just going to have to deal with, if we invaded, no matter the numbers. Dealing means defending self and winning over population. We are trying to do that.

Before 9/11 the debate was "continue sanctions or lift them?" I was hearing "lift the sanctions" until very shortly before Bush started making noises about invading. Sure, Bush has talked about regime change the whole time. By '98 it was clear that what was going to have to happen to get sanctions lifted and the troops out of Saudi. A lot of Bush's people were from the "take him out" wing of the 1st Bush admin - they thought it was a mistake not to finish the war in '91. I agree with them. Most of them thought getting Hussein out would probably require an invasion. It wasn't until 9/11, however, that that invasion became high priority. And it became high priority because 9/11 made clear that the moment to "fish or cut bait", as it were, had come, or was at least near. I originally opposed the war, until I realized this part of the equation. It was a bad time to do it, but that is because it should have been dealt with earlier - like 1991.

Saddam said he didn't have any WMD; Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD were located. Who was telling the truth?

"...there was no reason to share the spoils with anyone..."

Spend $4+B every month and lose dozens of lives all on our own?

Brilliant!

Stan wrote, "Sure Brad and German U-boats shouldn't sink U.S. vessels carrying supplies to the British. Saddam was already our enemy and a threat. The Clinton Administration's actions show that quite well. Saddam was already our enemy and his antics were already aiding bin Laden."

The parallel hardly holds. Our aid to Britain was direct, with intent. Saddam's "aid" to bin Laden was neither direct nor with discernable intent.

The ruling elite of the Republican party has been mucking up American foreign policy since 1968 and the Nixon Administration. Leaving alone the Vietnam War, consider some of the more prominent allies that this Gang has alligned the US wth: Noriega/Panama, PolPot/KymerRouge Cambodia, Osama BinLaden/mujahedin-Taliban/Afganistan, and Sadam Hussein/Iraq.... All belong in the Hall of Shame of bad Republican strategic choices and have come back to cost America both blood and treasure in later years.
This administration is driven by ideology not good judgement. Going to Iraq and virtually abandoning what should have been done in Afganistan was a fool's errand. They chose to spring it as the centerpiece of their 2002 mid-term for political, not security, reasons. Sen. Kennedy is absolutely correct.

Pakistan, not Iraq, is the most threatening place in the world. A nuclear armed chaotic hovel of 100 million people...40% of whom are extreme fundamentalist muslims supporting and aiding Osama and crew. The strategic folly of the Irag misadventure is easily seen by anyone not afflicted with ideological Althiemers. Why would anyone accept the flawed wisdom of the republican cabal that allied our country with these heinous villains in the 80's and now wants to sell us on their wisdom on how to clean up this mess of their own making?

Stan wrote, "The potential for leaks of WMD are somehow not an issue?"

Leaks of *what* WMD?

"Saddam alone drove a major wedge into Arab/Israeli relations and therefore was a prime mover in that part of bin Laden's recruitment and contribution efforts."

A *major* wedge? Saddam was a major obstacle to improving relations between the Arabs and the Israelis? LOL!

Furthermore, the Palestinian cause was hardly on bin Laden's radar. A little later in the game he started paying lip service to it, but so what?

"You know all of that very well but somehow it isn't rational to take out Saddam because he is distinct from bin Laden?"

Yes, because Brad (and a lot of other people) don't buy your connection between Saddam and bin Laden.

"9/11 made clear that the moment to 'fish or cut bait', as it were, had come, or was at least near."

I think this statement is at the heart of the dispute between those who supported and those who opposed the war. For those who supported the war, 9/11 made it "clear" that the time was nigh to invade Iraq. Those who opposed it say, "What the heck does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?"

9/11, as an event, either gave one instant enlightenment, much like Saul received on his way to Damascus, or it didn't. Rational discussion cannot change minds that have been mystically illuminated.

Nice post Brad. I tend to agree that Rummy and others have likely had a "git Sodom" faction since 1991, public protestations of continuance to the contrary. I remain unconvinced about Bush, but the paternal thing is a hard motivation to ignore.

I have to disagree with your point #1. "One enemy at a time," is not necessarily the first and most important rule of rational security policy.

Certainly it is sometimes (*cough* Hitler *cough*), but it is easy to imagine a scenario in which there are two enemies to address and sufficient surplus military capital to go after both enemies. In fact, I would argue that leaving excess power supply unused in the face of a second threat is NOT rational.

Delay in attack, as any general will tell you, can end up costing you many more casualties, and therefore there are certainly circumstances where it is better to engage in parallel rather than in series.

"Why would anyone accept the flawed wisdom of the republican cabal that allied our country with these heinous villains in the 80's and now wants to sell us on their wisdom on how to clean up this mess of their own making?"

I'm surprised this case is not made more frequently. Nicely stated endgame.

This big Bush war win trumps all the domestic small blunders, all the small minded, back stabbing O'Neill style whining, all the Bush misrepresentations.

Huh????? "Big" war "win"??? I wouldn't characterize Iraq that way just yet....and surely you know the fiasco Afghanistan has turned into.

Small minded.... From the excerpts I have read, it seems clear that we are leaderless, or at best, being "led" by a moron.

It seems a bit of a coincidence that people who disagree with W all are assumed to be sick, spiteful, etc....when it is obvious the the MO of the Administration is to strike out at disagreement.....Shinseki, Wilson, and now O'Neill...these are people who have served admirably under other Presidents than Bush, and were well-spoken of by Bush when he hired them- and we know what a good judge of character he is, don't we?- but as soon as they disagree, they are found to have all kinds of negative traits.

I guess we are lucky that military officers, ambassadors, and Cabinet officials have had their shortcomings discerned by the wise and inteliigent, bold and decisive, Churchillian leader that watches over us.

Another thing regarding 9/11 and the "origins" of the Iraq attack, bear in mind that the (traditional) "honeymoon" was already over for Bush by September 2001:

1 Democrats and fair minded people everywhere were universally and unapologetically apalled at the high-handed way the highest court in what used to be the world's leading democracy had handled the abortion in Florida.

2 Bush was hovering in the 50% range in the polls (and was just BEGINNING to take the political flak) for his "feed the rich" tax cut.

3 The stock market bubble had burst and the economy was in the tank.

5 The bogus West Coast energy crisis/gang rape was coming undone.

6 Enron was in mid melt-down

and

7 "The consortium" was about to publish the results of its "analysis" of the uncounted Florida ballots.

In short, things political didn't look real good for the "homelanders" on 9/10/01. Rove & Co. desperately needed to "change the subject"...

This just in from Washington (of course):

9/11 director gave evidence to own inquiry

By Shaun Waterman

UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

Published 1/15/2004 7:16 PM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- The panel set up to investigate why the United States failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, faced angry questions Thursday after revelations that two of its own senior officials were so closely involved in the events under investigation that they have been interviewed as part of the inquiry...

http://upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20040115-024012-7011r

I'm with you on this one, Bradford.

The 20 year claim is hogwash. The fundamental insecurity of despotism is the transfer of power. Assuming a long reign for Uday or Qusay is sheer imagination. He would have lived out his rule, though, I guess, and killed far fewer Iraqis doing it than Bush killed.

endgame was talking about horrid dictators we have backed since '68. It almost hurts I didn't read Pinochet, Suharto, the real list of names is very long. The CIA basically considers its birthright to much about in foreign politics.

'..."Bush had a role: President of the United States. He's our Commander in Chief and makes all such final decisions on the use of our military forces."

"Daniel"'

This is taken verbatum from Daniel Drezner's website. If this is his view, then there isn't anything "brilliant" here. This is a peek into the mind of a royalist here, not a genius.

In the US we live under the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. According to the Constitution, the power to "declare war..." is the sole domain of the Congress, not the president. "Daniel" couldn't have gotten it any more wrong.

So how did the President acquire the acquiescence of the Congress? He, along with various members of his administration, lied to them. Most of the US media amplified the claims, and most people thought they were true.

But they weren't.

There was a study not long ago regarding the number of times that Bush had mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence. The study showed that at every opportunity to do so, Bush tried to tie 9/11 to Iraq.

But there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Then there was a concerted attempt to tie al Queada to Iraq. The US Secretary of State went before the entire world and said that he had solid evedence of such a connection. No denying this, he said.

But there was no connection between al Queada and Iraq. Even Powell himself now admits this.

Then there were the innumerable claims about the "weapons of mass destruction." There were claims of such magnitude that if even a small part of it was true, then there might have been some threat.

But none of the claims were true. To date, not a single WMD has been found in Iraq.

So what do we do when the chief executive of the country presents testimony to the Congress that has been shown to be false?

We remove the president by way of the Constitutionally-mandated process--we impeach him, and punish him according to law.

His lies have caused the United States to suffer incalculable damage in the eyes of the world; they have added billions of dollars to our debt; they have resulted in the unjust death of hundreds of our citizens, the maiming of thousands of others, and the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent civilians in the country that he unjustly invaded.

We live in a world that is, and must be, governed by rules.

So the question now is: Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men?

rvman, I agree that there was no guarantee that more troops would have provided a better result in Iraq immediately after the collapse of Saddam's regime. However, I do not believe the resistance was well organized at that time. With more troops, I think the resistance would have had difficulty coalescing, there would have been better policing of Iraqi towns and cities initially, and the repair of infrastructure would have progressed more rapidly. All of these things would have improved Iraqi opinion of us as an effective occupying power while perhaps allowing us to transfer power more quickly than was the case. We'll never know if more troops early on would have made a difference, but I think it's likely.

Shorter Stan -

"I have a special on all the tired rehashed neo-con talking points"

Transformative violence, to say the least, is not exactly a good idea. That violence can function as a communicative medium to convey a determinate message, let alone one that alters attitudes or dispositions, begs the question of precisely how such violence is to be received and interpreted by its willing victims. That the United States should respond to the 9/11 atrocity, borne by terroristic/nihilistic visions, perhaps, of transformative violence, directed at who knows what audience, with a project of demonstrative/transformative violence of its own scarcely amounts to strategic insight. We are intervening in complex, fragile and, (in the case of Iraq), terribly worn-down societies/cultures about which we haven't the faintest clue. A more delimited response directed at the actual perpetrators, (i.e. in Afganistan, which remains as unfinished business), followed up by a much more long-term effort to "drain the swamp", using indirect diplomatic and economic means well within the where-with-all of the U.S. government would have made a lot more sense. At any rate, the standard definition of the legitimacy of a state is "an organized monoploy of legitimated violence"; the key term there is "organized". If the Bushies' Iraq project was at all serious, post-war planning, by far the larger part of the equation, would have been crucial. That the U.S. government had the resources to do so is demonstrated by the reports of the State Dept. and the Army War College before the invasion, both of which accurately predicted the difficulties ensuing and proffered remedies for them.

Stan, just for the record, every intel service on the planet did not believe that saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.

And every intel service on the planet does not believe that chemical and biological materials deserve to be called weapons of mass destruction.

And the American intel assessment of Iraq changed dramatically once the Bush team came into power (see the Carnegie report for the fine detail).

So please stop this silly right-wing line about how everyone was fooled the same way.

The only people on earth who thought that Saddam was a serious threat right now were the people in Feith's office and Feith's bosses. The rest had a measured, reasoned analytic opinion of the appropriate threat assessment of Saddam.

" Well, on the osama is the same as saddam..."

The above seems characteristic of the intellectual confusion being expressed here. No one is arguing Osama and Saddam are "the same". Any more than that Churchill and Stalin were "the same" after June of 1941. But they had a mutual interest or goal, and they became allies to that end.

Conspicuous by its absence amidst the copious amounts of self-esteem on display here, is any coherent argument as to why Saddam would not have been better off if the U.S. had put its tail between its legs and withdrew from Saudi Arabia--as we did from South Vietnam, or Somalia--because of domestic political pressures resulting from the casualties Al Qaeda was inflicting on Americans.

Those of you arguing that the only place for the troops in Saudi Arabia to be moved was Iraq itself, are rather ignorant of the history of the last quarter century.

howard wrote, "And every intel service on the planet does not believe that chemical and biological materials deserve to be called weapons of mass destruction."

Agreed! Chemical weapons definitely do not deserve the WMD moniker, and biologicals probably don't either.

I summarized a Gregg Easterbrook article on this at:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/html_gen.php?entryId=77

..."The doctrine of preemption follows 9/11 rather well: it's better to take the fight to the enemy now than to react after the damage is done"...

This offered up as a rationale for the Iraq war. As if Iraq could bring the fight to us. The only question left for me is how all of these relatively smart people could say such nonsense. And I mean this sincerely, is everyone just out and out dishonest? Or under delusions? Drezner is a professor at U of Chicago. They don't give those things out to mush heads.

Wow. I have so little faith in the political process these days. Would such liars or morons (their pick) oppose the invasion of ANY Muslim country?

Patrick Sullivan:

"If the U.S. had put its tail between its legs and withdrew from Saudi Arabia" upon Saddam Hussein entering Kuwait, then Mr. Hussein would be better off.

"If the U.S. had put its tail between its legs and withdrew from Saudi Arabia" yielding to Al Qaeda operations and thus yielding ground to Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, then Mr. Hussein would not be better off at all.

In the latter case, in fact, we could have seen a Sharon-Hussein coalition, like Churchil-Stalin coalition. (This is a joke. But then there is no smoke where there is no fire.)

And my burned out circuits in these matters are drained of energy again!

I have to admit that bulent has exceeded even my lowest expectations of him as a logician: Al Qaeda would be a more formidable foe than the U.S. military!

His circuits are indeed burned out.

His circuits are burned out so he offers only a very basic logic, which would befit the circumstances any way:

The basic logic is that any power that brought about a situation in which "the U.S. had put its tail between its legs and withdrew from Saudi Arabia" would be a more formidable foe than the US any thing, including US military.

His circuits was burned out in the first place because of people who didn't know much but thought they knew every thing.

And it is happening again!

Bulent spoke!

Over and out! (At least until his circuits cool down a bit!)