rideside.net

home | archive | comics | about

reply to the comment you are replying too

tracker / 2005 / 11 / 15

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-15 15:51:50 +0000

Bad Policy, not just Bad Intelligence

I'm swayed by <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/14/23121/761">Yglesias</a>. Even if Saddam did have nuclear weapons, the best thing to solve that crisis was to have the UN inspectors continue with their work. Especially when the intelligence we did have was so shaky. The UN inspectors were finding out that there was no active weapons program during the winter and spring of 2003. This was taken as a sign that inspections were not working, because they did not fit the expectations of the hawks in the administration.

The Nigerian documents we received from the Italians that Bush based his Jan. 2003 State of the Union claims on were considered to be highly dubiuous by the State Dept., the CIA and the FBI at that time. If that is not an example of ignoring evidence that does not fit your desired outcome, I don't know what is.

I'm afraid that in all the shouting about who knew what and how and by twisting which arms, we are forgetting a crucial lesson from all of this: preemptive war is a losing strategy.
Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-11-15 16:40:19 +0000
During the run-up to the war, this is what totally got me, and formed the basis of my opposition to the war in Iraq. Several weapons search/inspection teams scoured Iraq before the war occurred. By all accounts they found nothing. Still, somehow we KNEW they must have had the weapons, and KNEW they must be hiding them somewhere. The inspections seemed to be going well, being performed by people who knew what they were doing. They found nothing. Ever since the Gulf War, Iraq had been under the US microscope, and heavily sanctioned. How, with the destruction of Iraq from the Gulf War and the continuous Coalition sorties between then and 2003, could they have possibly built up any sort of offensive arsenal of WMDs? It makes no sense. Finally, even <a href = "http://www.slate.com/id/2094415/">David Kay sort of came clean</a>.
Posted by tgl on 2005-11-15 16:45:09 +0000
Saddam was able to smuggle out $10 billion dollars of oil under those sanctions, plus another $1 billion in graf under the UN Oil for Food program. So, it was possible for Hussein to operate clandestinely under that scrutiny. However, the countries that abetted Hussein in his smuggling (which includes the US, I believe) might be less inclined to help him develop nuclear weapons.

I still remember my shock in Oct. of 2002 (Nov.?) that the Senate -- The Senate! -- was giving the administration the A-OK for war in Iraq.
Posted by Miriam on 2005-11-15 16:45:25 +0000
I'm all for pre-emptive measures if there is a real threat. Like the Israelis bombing weapons factories in Libya back in the 80s. Targeted. No troops. Little cost. Accurate.

I think that intelligence was lacking in the intelligence field here.
Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-11-15 16:58:07 +0000
Considering the administration's embrace of preemptive war and torture, I can only conclude that the US's foreign policy can be distilled to "bullyism." It's like the ultimate point of everything we do is, "We're kickin' ass and takin' names. And you're next! So watch it!" "Don't Mess With Texas!" taken to its logical, international extreme. Our foreign policy is one of fear. Even Bob Kerrey, on the Colbert Report last night, highlighted the fact that the world thought we were a "straw giant," that if knocked we would not knock back. And pretty much implying that someone was itching to prove this - as if seeing that bin Laden could take down the Twin Towers, Saddam with his "vast resources" could take down the US. To me, this is insanity, and talking points of some sort. This preemptive war we launched was a wicked experiment.
Posted by tgl on 2005-11-15 16:59:40 +0000
You also supported Clinton's rocket attack on supposed chemical weapons factories in Sudan? Which turned out to be false?

The consequences of a rocket attack are smaller than a full-fledged invasion, so the threshold for reacting to intelligence might indeed be lower. Still sounds like "shoot first, ask questions later".
Posted by Miriam on 2005-11-15 17:11:56 +0000
I didn't say I supported what happened in Sudan. I said I supported intelligent pre-emptive attacks. There is a difference between being certain and accidentally bombing the crap out of a milk pasteurizing plant.
Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-11-15 17:12:53 +0000
But it still comes down to the fact that the inspectors found absolutely nothing. Funneling money clandestinely is one thing, actually using it for offensive military purposes (and WMD development) is another. I had confidence in the weapons inspectors, and the fact that all members of the administration were skeptical of their efforts completely confounded me. At one point I believe it was put forth that El Baradei was somehow in cahoots with Saddam, or with a Saddam supporter...right.
Posted by on 2005-11-15 19:39:51 +0000
Right, I was assuming that the Sudan attack was also deemed to be an "intelligent pre-emptive attack" beforehand. How does one differentiate?

I don't think the Sudan attack was accidental. We hit the target we intended. Targeted. No troops. Little cost. Accurate.

It was the intelligence that was bad...
Posted by Miriam on 2005-11-15 19:41:56 +0000
it's all a matter of trust.
Posted by rladew on 2005-11-15 20:46:23 +0000
isn't that a Billy Joel song?
_______________________________



Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-11-15 20:48:16 +0000
The singing Ewok.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/dtrull/pix/tpm/ewok.jpg"></src>
Posted by tgl on 2005-11-15 20:49:50 +0000
That's soooo racial.
Find me on github.