1. Can we please not call the aggression against Iraq a preemptive war? A preemptive attack can be considered justified. However, to qualify as preemptive the attack must be undertaken to stop a clear and imminent threat. Obviously Saddam Hussein was no threat to anyone outside Iraq (and to anyone with any taste in literature), therefore the attack on Iraq does not qualify as preemptive. Some people have called it preventive, which is a bit more accurate, but naked, unprovoked imperial aggression is actually the correct term. (And can we stop using the propaganda term "insurgency"? There are lots of things going on in Iraq, but insurgency is not one of them. The correct word would be resistance - legitimate resistance. What happened in Iraq when Iraqis rose up against the government was an insurgency. Nothing that is going on in Iraq now is.)
2. "Many in the Bush administration were eager to invade Iraq immediately following the September 11 attacks, regardless of who was later deemed to be responsible." That was obvious when the attempts to connect Iraq/Saddam Hussein with the events of September 11 began within two or three hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center. To anyone who knew anything about Iraq or the regime the suggestion was beyond ludicrous, but it was also bone chilling to hear it because we all knew what it meant.
3. "Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and possibly Lebanon were on the hit list". Well, look, their next two targets are clear. they have been trying desperately for at least a couple of years to concoct a reason to attack Iran, and they appear to have settled on the spectacularly hypocritical "Iran is interfering in Iraq" bullshit. And since late last year they have been trying to sell an even more breathtakingly ludicrous story that Israel's utterly unprovoked bombing of Syria last September (a clear war crime) hit a nuclear facility that North Korea was helping Syria to build. In April - coincidentally while I was spending the month in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria - they tried to amplify that ridiculous claim. SURE it was a nuclear facility that was sitting out there unguarded in the middle of the desert. There was absolutely zero security - not one anti-aircraft weapon, not one guard, not even a bit of barbed wire around it. How stupid do they think American people are by now (don't answer that question, please!)?
4. "a frightening question: What if Iraq had gone well? In that case, how many countries would we have invaded already?". This is a very important question. And this is why, from the beginning, when people would accuse me of wanting the U.S. to fail in Iraq my answer was "damned right I do because the consequences if it succeeds are too dire to contemplate".
Posted by Shirin at May 11, 2008 12:59 AMCorrection:
Saddam Hussein was no threat to anyone outside Iraq, but he WAS a serious threat to anyone with any taste in literature given that in his dotage he had taken to writing really, really bad poetry, and novels (two of them) that were, if possible, even worse than his poetry!
Posted by Shirin at May 11, 2008 01:02 AMShirin, that is why Bush needs to be brought before the World Court at the Hague. Who would bring the charges? Can the United Nations declare him a war criminal?
Posted by JudithOne at May 11, 2008 06:06 AMThe neocon agenda is merely unfinished, not aborted. They haven't renounced one aspect of their criminal program or methods. They are treated as a legitimate (hell, dominate) faction in the national "debate".
McSame is at least as enthusiastic a neocon as Cheney. His main reason for wanting to prezlidenterer is to be the next codpiece in chief and direct the imperial strurmtruppen to their next glorious "triumph".
Repubs have not the slightest interest in actual domestic policy or progress as a peaceful nation---they have no patience for it, no idea of where the country should be in a decade and basically have nothing but contempt for the whole project of civil governance. Militarism is all they care about---seriously, that's all they think gub'mint is good for.
Repub leaders like things that explode. And crash. And kill (other) people. While this one-sided killing is always dressed up in noble language, it's what people like McCain and his "straight lie" lovers are really juiced on---that's quite clear. And they country treats this psychosis with the deepest reverance and respect.
Repubs are a deeply sick party with deeply deranged, juvenile, irrational and cruel supporters---people who derive actual pleasure in harming others in a "show of force". Might Makes Right, the time honored nostrum of the force-worshipping authoritarian militarist. The similarities with terrorist groups is striking.
There's a Mother's Day thought for you.
Posted by euzoius at May 11, 2008 08:02 AMMary
This is an extremely important post. It should be on the front cover of the Washington Post, the NY Times, or the Guardian. It explains some other things - the lack of energy in Afghanistan or in the hunt for bin Laden; the undermanning of the Iraq War [saving reserves for the next one]; etc. But mostly, it explains how entrenched the "Bush Doctrine" was in their minds before even 9/11. They naively thought we could simply fix our conflicts in the Middle East by conquering the lot of them [and, taking over their oil fields on the side].
Thanks for this...
Posted by Mickey at May 11, 2008 09:16 AMeuzoius, looking at the foreign and military policy of most Democratic administrations reveals a love for aggression and blowing things up that rivals that of the Republicans.
The Democrats are NOT going to save the situation, and nice, liberal peace-loving Americans would do well to understand this.
Posted by Shirin at May 11, 2008 09:39 AMNo, Judith, the UN cannot declare Bush a war criminal, and in all reality I would not count on the UN to do anything about either the Bush regime criminality, or the war crimes committed by virtually every president, including Bill Clinton (who, among other things, could conceivably be charged with attempted genocide for starving and strangling and bombing the Iraqi people for eight long years), and even the saintly Jimmy Carter, whose foreign policy does not bear close scrutiny.
Posted by Shirin at May 11, 2008 09:45 AMShirin, then who brings the charges?
Posted by JudithOne at May 11, 2008 11:02 AMthe court in the Hague.
Posted by the young Judith at May 11, 2008 01:05 PM "Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and possibly Lebanon were on the hit list".
Uh, we also had - and still have - plans to invade (among others) Canada, France, Bolivia... They are called "contingency plans": the UK has plans for invading us, Argentina has plans for invading South Africa...
Oh, I do not doubt there was some thought given to other countries in 2001-2002. But please also recall that, for instance, while "the people" thought WMDs were the reason for going into Iraq they were, what, 11th of some 20 reasons Congress gave? Among them, the Hussein regime was firing on planes (mostly US, true, but others as well) flying over the extreme ends of the country under UN rules Saddam had agreed to? Had the treaty been with any single country rather than the UN it would have been a declaration of war.
OF the two countries, the US incursion into Afghanistan is nearly insupportable but that into Iraq justifiable.
Posted by Oyez at May 11, 2008 01:20 PMThere are 23 "whereas" clauses in the 2002 authorization to use force, and exactly 3 do not address Iraq's purported WMDs, bogus ties to "terror" or stale violations of UN resolutions for kicking the UN inspectors out. And the whereas clauses hardly represent the exact proportion of time and effort spent by Bushco on the "reasons" given for the invasion, duh.
And you might also want to go read the accounts of the CIA/Powell presentation to Congress in 2002, the 2003 SOTU, the Powell 2003 presentation to the Security Council and Bush's final "ultimatum" speech, which spoke almost exclusively of Saddam's WMDs.
Non-insane Americans are aware that Bushco's story was All WMDs, All the Time. That's how the illegal invasion as sold to the craven Congress and the militarist boobs. So you are intellectually dishonest at best, Oyez, but more likely just a crazed, delusional militarist conservative male.
shirin, over half the House Dems voted against the 2002 authorization to use force. A little under half the Senate Dems voted against it. Virtually every Repub in the Repub Congress voted for it. So one party is wholly fearmongering, militarist and jingoist and the other is somewhat less so.
Do you really doubt that the invasion of Iraq was a Repub orchestrated crime? Or think that Dems were as much behind it as Repubs? To argue that there is essentially no difference between the parties in their crazed militarism is not borne out by the broad evidence.
The Repub party and candidate are (still!) in thrall to the leading neocons, the Dems never were, even with their spineless voting and habd wringing. Yes, B. Clinton's foreign policy was overtly hostile to Iraq, but at least he refrained from actually invading and occupying it, which there were plenty of demands for from the neocon Repubs. Yes, that wasn't good enough and the cruel sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
But what precisely would you have non-militarist Americans do? Not vote for either party? Sit out of politics entirely because of the substantial weakness of the Dems in this area? Throw up our hands because you don't think Obama's contemporaneous statements against the invasion are really credible enough and that he "really" will try to stay forever---as McCain explicitly advocates?
Or are we just to make sure our mea culpas are loud and public enough? I'm curious.
Posted by euzoius at May 11, 2008 03:30 PMIs there anything more unpersuasive than "conservatives" arguing that the Iraq invasion was "really" about their grave concern over the fact that Saddam wasn't takin' their (despised) UN and its resolutions seriously? Now that's a basis for WAR! Don't you diss our beloved UN!
It's like when they were "appalled" about Dems not taking Paula Jones civil rights seriously! Yessir, the conservative Repubs and their grave concern over civil rights in Murica. Get your "I heart UN" t-shirt out, Oyez!
Posted by euzoius at May 11, 2008 04:07 PMI hope you realize that contained within the papers seized from Iraq, is proof that Sadam was indeed aware of al Qaeda and assisted them. He was not involved personally in the 9/11 attack.
With Iran preparing for an attack on Israel, you'll be glad we have a massive base in Iraq.
Posted by Markle at May 11, 2008 09:29 PM"To argue that there is essentially no difference between the parties in their crazed militarism is not borne out by the broad evidence."
That is not my argument. Please make a more nuanced rereading of what I wrote (most of my arguments are more nuanced than most people's readings of them).
"The Repub party and candidate are (still!) in thrall to the leading neocons, the Dems never were, even with their spineless voting and habd wringing."
The neocons are not the only ones who advocate and work toward American empire by any means necessary, including violent force. They are merely the ones who do so most openly and shamelessly.
"Yes, B. Clinton's foreign policy was overtly hostile to Iraq..."
That is not entirely accurate. Bill Clinton's foreign policy toward Iraq was regime change by genocidal strangulation and battery of the population. And genocidal is not my term, it is the term used by two former UN humanitarian coordinators (both of whom resigned in protest) and the head of WHO in Iraq.
"...but at least he refrained from actually invading and occupying it..."
I fail to understand how that mitigates the catastrophic damage he did to the civilian population over eight horrific years. Oh, yes, and let us not overlook the fact that his policies actually strengthened Saddam and his regime at horrible expense to the population, including the squelching of any resistance. In a very real and very significant way Bill Clinton prepared Iraq for the neocons (and Hillary whole heartedly supported both her husband's and the neocon agenda for Iraq - until it became clear that support was hurting her presidential ambitians, that is).
"...which there were plenty of demands for from the neocon Repubs."
See above. Bill Clinton spent eight years setting Iraq up for the neocons (I am not saying this was a planned, coordinated effort - I am not into elaborate conspiracy theories - but the reality is what it is).
Yes, that wasn't good enough and the cruel sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
"But what precisely would you have non-militarist Americans do? Not vote for either party?"
First and foremost I would have you stop deluding yourselves into believing that the Democrats are going to save the day. I would have you approach the situation in a realistic way. And I would have you be prepared to hold every Democrat's feet to the fire as much as you would like to hold the "neocon Rebubs' " feet to the fire.
"Sit out of politics entirely because of the substantial weakness of the Dems in this area?"
Maybe looking more seriously at third parties is part of the answer.
"Throw up our hands because you don't think Obama's contemporaneous statements against the invasion are really credible enough and that he "really" will try to stay forever---as McCain explicitly advocates?"
A look in detail at Obama's actual plans for Iraq - as opposed to the sound bites - would be in order. His plan is not substantially different from Hillary's plan, which is for an indefinite, if somewhat scaled-down, military presence in Iraq, which includes combat. The fact that Obama, as well as Clinton, intends to maintain the Imperial Regional Command and Control Center (risibly called an embassy) in Baghdad says it all, really.
"Or are we just to make sure our mea culpas are loud and public enough?"
I am just suggesting that you maintain vigilance, and not expect any Democrat to relinquish the Dream of Empire in the long term, or to get you out of Iraq in the short, mid, or long term.
Posted by Shirin at May 12, 2008 01:13 AM"With Iran preparing for an attack on Israel..."
LOOOOOOOOOOL! Another moron heart from.
Iran has not attacked anyone in centuries, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it is preparing now to attack anyone, let alone Israel. The Iranian government is far more intelligent, sane, and nuanced in its thinking that the U.S. government is. Unlike the U.S. government, the Iranian government is not ideologically motivated, and has no real reason to attack Israel. Furthermore, unlike the U.S. government, the Iranian government actually carefully considers the short and long-term consequences of its actions, and behaves accordingly.
Posted by Shirin at May 12, 2008 01:22 AM