George Will vs. William Kristol.
By on Jul 18th, 2006 at 8:22 am
George Will vs. William Kristol.
In today’s column, Will slams Kristol’s latest war-mongering and answers Kristol’s question, “Why wait” to bomb Iran?: “Perhaps because the U.S. military has enough on its plate in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran. And perhaps because containment, although of uncertain success, did work against Stalin and his successors, and might be preferable to a war against a nation much larger and more formidable than Iraq.” Steve Clemons has more.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
good for george will… but who’s gonna hear about it… i didn’t hear about this view on the today show… but then i turned it off early…
July 18th, 2006 at 8:43 ami did get to hear a lebonese man cry out that HE had no weappons, HE had no militant son, why was he being punished?
good question…
Neocons tend to think that banging oneself’s head in a wall will crush eventually the wall. Well, OK, it’s somewhat likely, but it’s far more likely that the own skull breaks first.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:43 amRichard Haas said on Larry King last night that bringing Syria into this war would be “interesting”.
That’s where we are with these fools.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:11 amActually, the answer to why wait is simple:
Let Israel take down Hezbelluh and Hamas, which are supported by Syria and Iran. Neither Syria nor Iran will do more than provide arms, money and some number of insurgents, out of fear that Israel with hit either Syria or Iran with a nuke.
Israel will succeed in rooting out the terrorists, while creating a second (or third) front for Syria and Iran, weakening their ability to support the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. This helps America’s aims to stablize those two countries.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:15 am#4 Yes, and all that in the doorstep of Russia and China. And they will do nothing. Sure.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:18 am#5 – Russia and China won’t involve themselves in this region except to negotiate a ceasefire. They have no interest beyond Iran’s oil.
What needs to happen, again, is for Lebanon to agree to move their army south to occupy the Israeli border and assist in bringing an end to the firing of Katyusha missiles. As soon as those launches are stopped and Hezbollah releases the troops, Israel will stop pounding Hezbollah controlled southern Beirut. But those two events must happen first.
Iran (and it’s de facto protectorate Syria) doesn’ want to escalate their war of words to a shooting war with Israel, not because they fear a nuclear attack but because they fear the loss of negotiating leverage with the US, EU and UN over its nuclear program. They know if a shot if fired at Israel, the first thing to go in air raids are their nuclear sites.
It’s in everyone’s interest for Hezbollah to initiate the cease-fire and return the IDF soldiers.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:31 amJason, there is a mass of spongey tissue located just behind and above your eyes that has the ability to process various types of information from many sources, analyze it, and come to some sort of momentary conclusion which may be adjusted upon a new source of information. You don’t have to listen to one source or side and proceed directly to stating someone elses’ conclusion, which is nothing other than mindless parroting, you are repeating word for word propaganda. Now, you have this spongy tissue, called a brain, please use it and stop presenting your dumbed-down regurgitation via FOX and the like.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:35 amReturn the IDF soldiers, how many ?2?, 3?,5? Israel has many THOUSANDS of Palestinian civilian men, women and children in their custody, who were never charged with anything and will receive no trial. They refuse to let any of them go and you want to talk of a couple fascist Israeli soldiers. You all sound so mentally impaired and yet have no clue that you do, and are.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:42 am#8 – Actually, you sound as though you are mentally impared (or at least unknowledgable about the actual situation).
Hezbollah currently has 2 IDF soldiers. Hezbollah operates in Lebanon and Syria with the support of Iran.
Hezbollah is not a Palestinian organization, so the release of every Palestinian in Israeli custody would likely have no effect on Hezbollah.
I would agree that Israel should release some of their captives, but only after a ceasefire is secured. And to secure the ceasefire, Hezbollah is going to need to let go their 2 captives first.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:48 amI would agree that Israel should release some of their captives, but only after a ceasefire is secured. And to secure the ceasefire, Hezbollah is going to need to let go their 2 captives first.
So the Isrealies can continue to murder civilians until some nutbag extremists comply with their demands?
First we had 2 kidnapped soldiers, now we have 230 dead civilians on both sides? Israel allows every wackjob with a rock an effective veto on peace, they’ve been at this for 60 years, lets have a change of tack ‘eh?
Binding global law is the only way to resolve such issues, not unilateral murderous rampages that have never worked. It might help if the US simply stopped financing the Isreali war machine, it’s too easy for them to resort to industrial scale carnage.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:02 amLast night on NPR’s Fresh Air there was an interview of a NYT reporter who has been writing on the middle east for years. I was impressed because he spoke about many theories working their way around the media but said he had not proof of any of them so he could just relay what they were and could not provide evidence of any of them. This impressed me as it is unlike so many in the media Fox News being a HUGE culprit) who latch onto some rumor, without proof, and run with it.
One of these theories is that Iran started this from behind the scenes and is pushing this “war” to continue as it gets the pressure from the UN off of Iran to stop their research into the development of nuclear power. The UN has other issues on its collective mind at the moment. This is interesting as many here seem to think Iran does not want this war to escalate. Perhaps they do.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:03 am#6 Russia and China won’t involve themselves in this region except to negotiate a ceasefire. They have no interest beyond Iran’s oil. – Chase.
You mean, the recently signed contract with Iran to sell oil to them? And, wasn’t the war against Iraq based on oil? Why dismiss so quickly an enlargement of the conflict if there are valid motives to think about it?
July 18th, 2006 at 10:05 amJason & Chase,
I’m sure your towns have military recruitment centers. I’m sure you could be of assistance to your country in this matter.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:09 am#12 – The contract is the precise reason China and Russia want to keep Iran out of a shooting conflict. A war means oil production is treatened (I think we are aware of this now).
They will use all their clout to keep Iran out of a war.
#10 – Israel has only attacked in Hezbollah controlled south Beirut. Northern Beirut is undamaged.
The civilian deaths in Beirut, while horrible and unfortunate, occured because Hezbollah is using human shields to protect themselves and their weapons caches. For that to stop, Hezbollah must release the troops.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:14 am#13 – Why is that always the fall back? “Go join the military”.
Can you not discuss foreign policy without resorting to that?
By the way, the US military is not involved in the conflict yet.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:15 amThere are 2 different fronts. The Palastinians to the south and Hezzbolah to the north. They will be treated differently. I agree with Chase on what needs to happen in the short term. Israel does not want the UN to have a say in this so there won’t be any unified world input. The US can and should put pressure on Isreal to get to the table with Lebannon and push them to deal with Hezzbolah.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:18 amBy the way, the US military is not involved in the conflict yet.
Comment by Chase
The key word in your sentence is yet. Why so opposed to the idea of military service? You are some of the freshest cannon fodder available.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:25 amI hear a lot about how awful it is that the militants are using Syria and Iran supplied rockets against Israel – but – I dont hear shit about Israel using USofA rockets against the militants.
Why is that I wonder?
I hear a lot about the need for the militants to release captured soldiers – but – I dont hear shit about the need for captured militants to be released.
Why is that I wonder?
July 18th, 2006 at 10:27 amKristol is a pure evil PNAC Neo-Con war monger! IT is NOT his family who will fight and die! ALL Zionist Neo-Con pro war aholes SUCK!
July 18th, 2006 at 10:32 amKristol and other Neo-Con Con artists and war mongering jerks are pure evil and don’t give a damn if they mass murder innocent people! All these ILLEGAL, IMMORAL WARS ARE BANKRUPTING AMERICA BUT AHOLE NEO-CONS DON’T CARE AS THEIR LOYALTY IS TO ONLY ISRAEL AND NOT AMERICA!
July 18th, 2006 at 10:35 am#17 – I’m not opposed to military service, it’s just not my career path.
If a draft is instituted in the future, and I were called to service, I would of course serve.
I think you are using this as a distraction because you are unable to debate the issue.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:39 am#4 sure – defeat the ‘terrorists’ – just like the us is doing so well at in iraq. won’t happen – israel has had 40 years to defeat popular opposition by palestinians and has failed and in lebanon they’ve invaded several times, creating hizbollah by its 1982 invasion, and simply succeeded in making opposition stronger each time.
israel has taken the ’stupid pill’ just like the us. it will end badly if at all. http://www.alternet.org/story/39081/
July 18th, 2006 at 10:46 amI think you are using this as a distraction because you are unable to debate the issue.
Comment by Chase
I think you are debating this issue because you are unwilling to get your ass shot off for your high ideals.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:47 amNeocons want war on every Islamic nation, including Saudi Arabia, but none of them intend to personally fight on the front lines as soldiers! They enjoy causing the warfare, profitting from it as well, and watching the bloodshed on TV from their comfortable living rooms!
July 18th, 2006 at 10:51 am#24 – Really Jay.
“Neocons want war on every Islamic nation, including Saudi Arabia”
I assure you that’s not what I want. If I had a magic wand and dictate what happened in the Middle East, tomorrow popular elections would be held in every Islamic country and each country would have free press, free speech and civil rights protections (for women and religious minorities).
July 18th, 2006 at 10:58 amPost 25 Chase > I never said that YOU are a Neocon > I am referring to them only!
July 18th, 2006 at 11:05 amYES and we all know liberals love Stalin.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:05 amTake of the blinders, chief, er Chase.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:09 amIf you waved your magic wand to institute popular elections in every Islamic nation, your still not going to guarantee peace because Islam extremism might win the majority of elections in MANY nations. Democracy is NOT the answer, diplomacy and fairness is, and if the U.S. would stop letting the CIA run it’s covert foreign policy agendas, we’d all be better off.
#25 but chase – the palestinians are as close to a democracy as they could be in the circumstances. hamas was elected and hizbollah has seats in lebanon’s parliament – you remember chimpy and rice praising the ‘cedar revolution’ don’t you? so despite holding popular elections, israel gets chimpy’s free hand to bomb the crap out of these democracies. oh the irony. democracy is great when you win eh? stinks if the people vote for someone you don’t like. the us uses the word ‘democracy’ the same way the soviets talked about ‘peace’.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:27 am#26 – I’m a quasi-neocon, I believe.
I am very attracted to the democratizing and freedom-granting aspect of their ideology. I understand any political ideology can be hijacked by those with ulterior motives but in my experience (including a summer at the Project for a New American Century) I couldn’t identify any of those as the kind of “too hell with brown people, give us the oil and be gone with you” types they are caracatured as.
What’s more, I will say that the academics and intellectuals inside the PNAC and AEI are just as fed up with the Bush administration as many at the liberal end of the spectrum (if not more). Yes, the advocated the military invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam but their plan was not adequately implemented. The size of the groundforce was 1/3rd of what they calculated as necessary and the coordindate efforts (such as sealing the Iranian border) was put on the backburner.
Publically they are much more polite they they were around the office then and on group emails today.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:29 am#21 Chase, I am not so sure that Zooey is simply providing a distraction. I have only read a few of your recent posts – but they seem to be primarily pro-Bush administration.
I am sure you can point out cases where you differ with the Bush administration – but you can save yourself the typing and bypass that. I’ll just take your word for it that you do differ with them here and there.
I haven’t read all of your posts, so I am mainly interested in your stance on Iraq.
Did you support the Iraq invasion?
This may seem off topic, but it isn’t. Bill Kristol and his ilk had their view re: Iraq and they are displaying a similar mindset with the current issues in the Middle East. I am interested in knowing if your mindset re: the Middle East is similar to Bill Kristol’s.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:35 am#31 – I did support the Iraq invasion. I still do. My rationale doesn’t exactly match the stated reasons put forth by the Bush administration, so I’ll explain them here.
- First, I (like everyone else) was sure Saddam had nuclear, chemcial and/or biological weapons programs. Not only was he acting very suspicously by preventing inspectors access to some sites, delaying access at others and eventually expelling them, he had used chemical weapons on his own population before.
I was suprised (again, like everyone else) when no WMDs were found. I find it hard to believe all the intelligence to the contrary was incorrect, but if that was the case, I’ll accept it.
In any event, I don’t think the lack of a WMD program makes the invasion a lost cause.
- Saddam was a brutal dicator with an openly avowed desire to do harm to the US and our interests abroad. He lived in opulance while the rest of Iraq staved and suffered from his brutal oppression. He punished political dissent with long prison sentences or in some cases, summary execution. Any outward stability he projected was at the price of a brutal oppression that mocked humanity.
I think removing him from power was the “right” thing to do.
- Saddam (as I mentioned above) represented a real threat to the US and our interests. Was he an imminent threat? No. Had Saddam been appeased longer, and he obtained WMD (either through his own domestic programs or on the black market) he had access to the delivery systems that made his threat very real.
I recognize he liked more than anything to shoot off at the mouth and project more power than he had. However, waiting around for him to obtain WMD was unacceptable.
[ The current situation in Lebanon ]
I don’t agree with Kristol here. I think he is jumping the gun, proposing an attack on Syria. If things escalate and Syria becomes an aggressor, then I have no problem attacking.
I support Israel in defending their territory and their effort to recover their kidnapped soldiers. I don’t like the fact that some innocent civilains have died in the effort. But I have faith that their millile attacks are designed to be as surgical as possible, and they do everything they can to minimize civilian death. When the enemy comingles with the population, there will always be civilian casualties.
I cannot accept Hezbollah, on the other hand, firing Kaytusha rockets into Haifa with no other goal than terror and the killing of innocents. Where Israel attempts to minimize civilian deaths, Hezbollah has that as their goal.
Anyway, I would prefer Kristol exercise more patience before calling for strikes on Syria and Iran. I understand his rationale, considering appeasement and containment are policies not well adapted to guerilla and terrorist warefare. I just don’t think we are at the point yet where diplomacy would be fruitless.
I hope this helps. I’m very interested to hear what you have to say on the same topics.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pmThe civilian deaths in Beirut, while horrible and unfortunate, occured because Hezbollah is using human shields to protect themselves and their weapons caches. For that to stop, Hezbollah must release the troops.
Bollix. Both sides must stop fighting, and then negotiate. Before Isreal started wrecking Lebanon and murdering Lebanese civilians we had a crisis, and a few guys kidnapped.
The responsibility for each action belong with those prosecuting it. Hizbollah are responsible for killing roughly 24 Israelies, and the IDF for killing 230 Lebanese. When a terrorist blows up a bus no one wants to debate motive, but when the IDF murder 230 civilians we have to be sympathetic, and “understand” their position.
BullSHIT.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:12 pmI cannot accept Hezbollah, on the other hand, firing Kaytusha rockets into Haifa with no other goal than terror and the killing of innocents. Where Israel attempts to minimize civilian deaths, Hezbollah has that as their goal.
Oh for Gods sake!!!! You can’t be this naive!!!
July 18th, 2006 at 12:14 pm#21
Well, with recruiting numbers way down and initiation of the stop-loss program, it would seem that your country currently needs you as much as it would in a draft.
However, I can respect your reason for not joining the military. At least you didn’t say you were staying over here to fight the cultural or ideological war. It’s not always about “Oh I want to fight for my fellow Americans’ freedom” or “I want to fight for my country.” And nor should it be. People join the military for different reasons. Several months ago a 22 year old guy from my hometown was killed in action; he had been married a little over a year, and his daughter was born a few days before his funeral. His reason for joining the military as stated by his wife? He wanted to prove to his friends and family that he could make it on his own.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#33 – I have a problem with the concept that the death tolls must be equal on both sides. In fact, I reject that ideology.
And what is the goal of firing unguided Katyusha rockets into a city if not terror and killing civilians?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pmBrian said:
The responsibility for each action belong with those prosecuting it. Hizbollah are responsible for killing roughly 24 Israelies, and the IDF for killing 230 Lebanese. When a terrorist blows up a bus no one wants to debate motive, but when the IDF murder 230 civilians we have to be sympathetic, and “understand†their position.
Right on. Perfectly said.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:30 pm33 – I have a problem with the concept that the death tolls must be equal on both sides. In fact, I reject that ideology.
Well I have a problem with death tolls of the uninvolved. Lebanon did not attack Israel.
And what is the goal of firing unguided Katyusha rockets into a city if not terror and killing civilians?
What is the goal of destroying bridges, hospitals and schools if not to terrorise?
What they are engaging in is indistinguishable from putting a random group of people up against a wall and shooting them as “punishment”.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:34 pm#32 Chase
Thanks for the reply.
Most of my thoughts on the matter parallel the thoughts of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s essay ” Can Saddam Be Contained? History Says Yes”
I imagine given your exposure to the “think tank” world that you are familiar with them and the essay.
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype+paper&item_id=361
(If this link doesn’t work – just google “Can Saddam be Contained” “Mearsheimer”)
For those not familiar – John J. Mearsheimer a distinguished professor at the Univ. of Chicago and Co-Director of the Program in International Security Policy. Stephen M.Walt is Academic Dean at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Chase, I assume you are familiar with the essay. If not, why don’t you read it and tell me where you differ.
I understand that this is kind of a big request for a “blog-site” participant – but I think it would contribute to a robust and productive exchange on the issue.
Best Regards,
KW
July 18th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI just tried the link and it did not work completely. It will only take you to the Belfer Center site. At this point just type in “Saddam” and “Walt” into the search window and then pick the essay from the list provided.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:41 pmMost of my thoughts on the matter parallel the thoughts of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s essay †Can Saddam Be Contained? History Says Yesâ€
———–
Indeed.Before 9-11,Cheney and Rice said Sadaam could be contained.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#39 – I have not seen that article, but I am very familiar with the work of Mearsheimer and Walt.
My experience with them involves their article on the “Israel Lobby” that appeared in the London Review of Books. The article, if your not familiar with it, describes and condemns virtually every action of Isreal while explaining their enemy’s actions as “understandable”. They try and use this as evidence of the moral failing of Israel – but they presume their conclusion in their evidence. It’s an adademically dubious effort.
However, I will read through the article you mention above (I’m at work, I’m gonna have to “mix it in” so it might take a while). I’ll warn you, I’m highly suspicious of this pair but I’ll give it a shot, if that’s fair enough.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:46 pmI’m not opposed to military service, it’s just not my career path.
————-
Elitist rationalization.
So,when someone asks you if you support the Iraq invasion–your honest answer should be:”I pay mere lipservice.”
July 18th, 2006 at 12:51 pmI’m not opposed to military service, it’s just not my career path.
The problem with this attitude is it shows that this person doesn’t understand the gravity of war. If you support a war, you are supporting killing people, destroying economies, families, and lives. You should only support a war if war is the only solution to a problem so important to you that it dwarfs everything else in your life.
In contrast, this person supports war and thinks it’s nothing other than a “career path.” Clearly, he does not understand the gravity of his choices.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pmIn contrast, this person supports war and thinks it’s nothing other than a “career path.†Clearly, he does not understand the gravity of his choices.
It’s my experience that many people have no capacity to truly grasp what they are discussing. They paper over their emotional detachment with a veneer of world weary sophistication. They are the “this is the way it’s always been” crowd, the grease that facilitates the wheel of fascisim. Poor saps don’t even know they’re doing it.
They are the coppertop of the matrix.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:13 pm39 KW
Good link. All the more true because of what has transpired since.
44 dan7000
July 18th, 2006 at 1:13 pmWell said. The logic of your comment underlies my concern with the belief that you have to be a military/war veteran to understand the gravity of war. While those who have had direct experience with war certainly may have a more emotionally and intellectually impactful message regarding war, those who have not served can nonetheless understand.
#42 Fair enough, Chase.
Re: their reputations – there are many people who I “generally” disagree with. But if they make a good point, I try to acknowledge that they have made I good point. I may consider it a rare occurence and I may not expect it to happen again soon :-) but I try to acknowledge it nonetheless. So it is “fair enough” as long as you try to do the same with this essay.
#46 – glad you enjoyed the link.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:31 pmI don’t want to pile on, but I absolutely agree with Steve53. War is supposed to be the last resort. Going to war for something means that it is so desperately important that Americans need to die to make it happen. And those who say war is necessary (or “interesting”) should consider how much they themselves would be willing to die to make what they want happen.
BTW the WWIII talking point that’s going around is there to scare you into staying the “course.” As someone who remembers the Cold War I never thought anybody would be bold enough to say those words with a straight face. Now it’s a slogan.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:03 pm#31 – My point, exactly, Killer Whale. Chase knows that, he’s just practicing his FOX technique.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:16 pmChase:
I was very interested to read that you spent a summer at PNAC. That statement gives me insight into your views.
I only read the final PNAC document. I doubt that I would have lasted a summer with them or even a week as I would have been arguing the whole time.
I can well believe that some of the PNAC people are idealists and believe what they are saying. But what they say is anathema to me. They envision a future where America is the “benevolent hegemon”. The problem with this is that we have our good moments and our bad, our good people and our bad, just like any other country or group of people. There is no guarantee that America is or will always be benevolent, any more than any other country or group of people.
I think our most shining moment internationally was when we promoted the Marshall Plan and helped our former enemies rebuild. The result has been stalwart allies.
But our history is also replete with blood; consider the treatment of the native American groups, slavery legal until the Civil War, etc. Since WWII we deposed a democratically-elected government in Iran, and have supported various vicious dictators such as Pinochet, Rios Montt, Noriega, and yes, Saddam, as well as others.
PNAC envisions, as I understand it, vastly beefing up our military. I read detailed plans for all four branches. Then using this beefed up military to, essentially, rule the world. The idea is that all countries will then become democracies and will therefore no longer wish to make war. This is idealism which ignores what actually occurs.
As for Saddam, first of all, I get seriously pissed when I read that “everybody” believed he had WMDs. Please don’t continue with that meme; it is flat-out incorrect. I didn’t believe that and many other people didn’t also. Scott Ritter didn’t. Hans Blix had serious reservations. The IAEA said that their findings were being misinterpreted.
I wrote a letter in September 2002 to all seven of Arizona’s congressmen at the time, urging them not to support a war. I said that it would inflame the Arab world, which has come to pass. I said that Scott Ritter and the inspectors had said that essentially all of the weapons had been destroyed when they left in 1998, and they were withdrawn by Clinton; Saddam did NOT kick them out.
I asked how it would be possible that Saddam could reconstitute weapons in any serious way, for several reasons. 1. He was under international interdiction and attempts to smuggle parts for weapons would have been noticed. 2. He was under satellite surveillance and building of factories would have been noticed, and that includes underground building. In fact, the surveillance was so hairtrigger that Clinton actually mistakenly bombed what turned out to be, if I recall correctly, a hospital.
As for bioweapons, the idea that “canvas-sided” trailers could be such labs was ludicrous to anyone who knows about producing bioweapons. There are two large repositories of pathogens with this capability in the world, the CDC and Bioapparat in Siberia, for good reasons. Biolabs require SERIOUS equipment and structures. When you work with the pathogens, you wear hazmat suits with their own air supplies, and you go through airlocks into laboratories with reverse airflow, where outside air is pumped in at a higher pressure than air already in the laboratory, to minimize likelihood of airborne pathogens escaping the laboratories. The so-called mobile labs would have meant no realistic protection for the scientists working with them, not to mention the surrounding populations.
The whole Nigerian yellowcake uranium thing had already been exposed as a fraud by La Repubblica in Italy.
Moreover, the Bush Administration was saying at the time that the invasion would be a cakewalk and would last at most 6 months. If Saddam was such a threat why were they also saying this. Also Andy Card had said that you don’t “market” a war in the summer months. If a war is truly necessary you don’t need to “market” it. After Pearl Harbor, FDR didn’t need to “market” WWII. It was almost universally supported and guys were volunteering in droves.
In other words, I was and am a nobody with no access to classified information, and I knew, as did many other people, that Saddam was not the threat he was made out to be. I knew this because I was paying attention and was reading sources from abroad as well as in the U.S. And if I could do it, so could others.
Finally, WE invaded Iraq and we had no right to. PNAC’s whole premise is that there would be all these democracies and how would this come about? We would have to impose them, as we did in Iraq. How can you not see that imposing a democracy at gunpoint is an oxymoron?
I do believe that all peoples of the world, given the choice, would prefer a representative form of government, but it has to be something that they choose for themselves, on their own terms, and on their own timetables. Otherwise, it’s a sham. And those representative forms may not be to our liking, as it is increasingly appearing will be the case in Iraq. But it’s NOT OUR PLACE to overthrow them or to interfere.
And what the United States must do is to begin modelling what a good democracy looks like. No more spying on our own citizens. Disband Guantanamo and give everyone there a fair trial. Imprison those found guilty and release the others ASAP, knowing that yes, some of them have been radicalized and are now terrorists.
Dealing with terrorism requires recognizing root causes, and presenting better alternatives. Making war on people committing terrorist acts just increases their intransigence. Why this is not obvious to Israel, after 40 years of attempting to bomb its enemies into submission, is beyond me.
We must withdraw from Iraq as soon as we can while protecting our own soldiers to the extent possible. And for the time being, stay out of the Middle East as we’ve lost all street cred there. A new president and administration can begin making quiet overtures but Bush and his people, at this point, will inflame no matter what they do.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#50
Excellent post, Wolfdaughter.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#50 – I agree, great post. I think most of your conclusions are correct and they are all reasonable. You seem to share many of the same positions with Walt and Mearsheimer, and considering their pedigrees, says a great deal for your argument.
Nevertheless, there are a few key points I take issue with.
You are correct in one regard: the PNAC advocates building and maintaining a modern, high-tech military. Of course, our current obligations necessitate this. But the real reason the PNAC view a powerful military is what happens when the war is over.
I’ll let them speak for themselves:
This, essentially, is deterrence on a global scale. That was August 2003, and today we don’t find ourselves in too different a situation. Granted, our failure to build a stronger, larger military (through the use of increased signing bonuses and incentives) has directly resulted in our difficulty securing the peace in Iraq. It is this difficulty that has emboldened Iran and North Korea to be vocally belligerent toward the US.
Nevertheless, I don’t believe it is too late to build the necessary military to force to keep Iran and North Korea in check. A first step would be a partial redeployment from Iraq to an area outside the “hot zone” to regroup. This, however, probably requires Sec Rumsfeld step aside.
I digress. Back to the initial invasion.
I disagree with the claim made by Walt, Mearsheimer and yourself that Saddam would have been incapable of obtaining a nuclear weapon. Whether he could have created one himself is questionable but I have no doubt in my mind that, given enough time, Saddam would have obtained at least one through the black-market (via a network similar to the one AQ Kahn had created). I think this is a threat we could not have risked.
As Walt and Mearsheimer don’t believe Saddam would have likely used it, I agree. Saddam, after all, enjoyed living the the lap of luxury as the ruler of modern Babylon. I’m not as convinced of the rationality of those in his military. What’s more: where one nuclear device exists, there are more. It’s unlikely he would stop at one, given that chance. And for every additional device he would have amassed, the risk of it falling to a ultra-radical hands increased. I feel the risk was just too high.
In the end, while I don’t disagree with the Iraq invasion, I would have rather our pre-Iraq military might been focused on Iran.
My apologies for the scattered nature of this comment – I’m a little distracted.
Knowing I missed things, let me know what you are interested in hearing about and I’ll do the best I can.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:48 pmChase: Your PNAC hero Kristol is a craven cowardly chickenhawk who did NOT have the balls to put his body where his big-mouth is. I’m sick to death of these bastards who are so eager for wars in while they themselves refused to serve in the military themselves. Cheney too(”I had other priorities”). I was drafted to be cannonfodder while they were hiding out. You better start writing that letter to Santa Claus right now asking him for some smarts.– a veteran.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:10 pmThanks for taking the time to respond, Chase.
I have a few comments – but they will have to wait until tomorrow.
Time for some night life …
Check in tomorrow and we’ll continue this.
Later.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:11 pm#50 – Excellent post, Wolfdaughter — from another nobody with no access who knew this war was wrong.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:41 pmWolfdaughter I agree completely with your post. After 9/11 when Bush started talking about going after Saddam I was shocked because it didn’t even make sense. Afganistan I could understand but not Iraq. During the enitre build up to the war I tried to find someone in the media who would point out the insanity of Bush’s position. Wesley Clark and Scott Ritter where the only two I heard speak out against it. If there were others they were not allowed to voice their opinions. That is when I started turning to the internet to get information. Now I do not believe a thing I hear from the main stream media. They are nothing more than cheer leaders for this administration. Sadly they are starting to do it again when they allow neocons like Kristol and Woolsey spew their propaganda of encouraging the US to get into this conflict with Israel so we can go after Iran. Let’s all just hope and pray that people aren’t stupid enought to buy their B.S. this time.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:28 pmGood Afternoon Chase, Wolfdaughter, Zooey, MoMo, PLC and Ho Chi Minh – if you guys are still around.
Okay Chase – one takeaway that I hope I am getting from this is that you did not believe in the “go to war to spread democracy” stuff.
Let me know if I am right or wrong on this.
Second – you primarily supported the invasion due to fear of Saddam with nukes.
Again, correct me if I am wrong.
Since you mentioned Saddam possessing nukes in your reply – I have to assume this was the main driver for you. However, you also say that you agree with the authors that Saddam was not likely to use them if he ever got them.
Mearsheimer and Walt did not mention that we controlled air space in both the north and the south of Iraq via the “no-fly” zones.
Saddam would have to think twice about going too far over the line with U.S. war planes buzzing under his chin and over the top of his head.
In the U.S. the Nuclear Emergency Search Team ( NEST ) routinely conducts “war games” where staff members use sophisticated sensors to track deliberately planted radioactive sources, which are too weak to harm civilians. Fissionable materials can be detected from copters and planes.
With this type of detection power and the luxury of no-fly zones in the north and south – Saddam would have to concentrate his nuke efforts to the middle third of Iraq. I think this would allow for very concentrated scrutiny by our intelligence operations and make deveoping a nuke on the sly extremely difficult – as Wolfdaughter pointed out in her post.
So while the nuke thing seems scary on the surface – upon analysis it is not a credible threat at any level. And we won’t even get into the lack of delivery mechanisms and all of that stuff.
When you responded to Wolfdaughter you quoted a PNAC document which said ( if I may paraphrase ) “Winning wars is not enough … we need to be able to win the peace.”
Here is the thing – Chase. Wars are rarely won.
Using some degree of capitulation as a measure for winning a war – here is a list of post WW2 armed conflicts and their results:
1948 Arab – Israeli War: Israel was able to expand its territory. Ultimately all sides agree to negotiate.
Korean War : North Korea held in check. They ‘lose” in my mind since they did not accomplish their goal. The “proxy war” of Capitalist nations vs. Communist nations was essentially a stalemate.
Suez War: No capitulation. Negotiated settlement.
Vietnam War: No capitulation. Withdrawal.
6 day War: Some capitulation of territory. Treaty.
War of Attrition: No capitulation. Treaty.
Indo-Pakistani War: East Pakistan gains independence – becomes Bangladesh.
Yom Kippur War: Some capitulation of territory both ways. Israel gained more.
Afghan-Soviet War: No capitulation. Withdrawal.
Iran-Iraq War: No capitulation. Treaty.
Lebanon War: Weakened PLO offset by creation of Hezbollah.
Falklands War: Capitulation by Argentina. U.K. keeps Falkland Islands.
1st Intifada: No capitulation. Treaty.
1990 Gulf War: Capitulation by Iraq. Saddam contained.
1st Chechen War: No capitulation. “Feeble” ceasefire.
2nd Chechen War: No capitulation. This is despite losing, by some reports, 25% of the Chechen population since the beginning of the 1st Chechen War.
2nd Intifada – No capitulation. Israel employs the use of mass detentions. This is an issue cited by Hezbollah and their sympathizers in the current 2006 crisis.
US/Taliban in Afghanistan War – Botched Capitulation.
Iraq War – No capitulation at this point and none likely in the near future.
In addition, there are over 20 ongoing wars. And some of them have been going on since the mid ’60s ( the Columbian Civil War – for example ).
In summary – the “successful” wars were able to stop an aggression – like North Korea in the Korean conflict and Saddam in the 1990 Gulf War. And you can throw in the Milosevic campaigns as well. Otherwise you had some shift in territory.
In addition – the very few examples of complete capitulation occured via
1. A broad coalition – U.S. and broad based allies vs. Iraq
2. A critical coalition – U.S. and Northern Alliance vs. Taliban
3. A bit of a mismatch ( U.K. vs. Argentina ).
So as rare as capitulation is – it gets even rarer if you try to achieve it unilaterally.
Wars are hard to “win” because you run into the problem of the enemy willing to take on disproportionate losses when they are motivated by nationalism, religion or the real or perceived threat of genocide.
You should look up the “kill ratio” of the Vietnam War. In terms of body count – we “won” that war. Big time. They just would not surrender.
This is why I think your notion that ( if I may paraphrase ) “a larger army would have made a critical difference in securing the peace in Iraq” is wrong. A larger army would have made a critical difference in securing the safety of our troops.
Let me be clear, Chase. I am not a pacifist. War has its place. At times – it is unavoidable.
The fact is, Chase, that war is a very limited option. Look at the emperical evidence. The problem with Bill Kristol and his ilk is their reverence of this very limited option as the “go to” foreign policy option.
When you look at the reality of war – their reverence of this option is pure bufoonery.
I hope that you will put some very serious distance between your foreign policy ideas and those of the Bill Kristol / Neo-con clan. They simply are not realistic and the consequences of actually employing these ideas are disastrous.
Interested in your thoughts as well as the others who have weighed in on this.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:02 pmHaifa Wahbi
March 21st, 2008 at 10:26 amOnline Cash Advance
Easy loan program for online cash advance for US residents.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:37 pmBaby Modelling
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pmPayday Loans
If someone you know is plain on bill paying money just effortlessly apply for an online cash advance loan that is super, untroublesome, and express today!
March 31st, 2008 at 11:21 am