The President lied to start war

People call everything "convenient". Remember how people said finding Saddam was "convenient" for Bush's reelection? Well who really thinks that now?

I know this makes me a bit of a smart ass but I think calling everything "convenient" is a bit "convenient".

 

My point in giving the right wingers argument for withdrawal was to give balance, I’ve also made it plain at least twice that the withdrawal of security forces (and later peacekeepers) is not a policy that I personally advocate.

 

My argument here is that the people that argued for the invasion didn’t have the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart. That they also cynically used the murders of their fellow citizens to push for an operation they had wished for a long time before 9/11. My charge is that they manipulated the new American ‘aim’ (the War on Terror) for their own ends, (something I say has happened many times in the past in US foreign policy.)

The neo-cons wished to set up a pro-American state in the Middle East from which the US could monitor and control the region in line with what they perceived to be the best interests of the US.

I have always wanted the removal of Saddam, but my argument is that the people who planned it had an over simplistic idea of what was a complex situation, because the goal blinded them to those complexities.

They believed that being anti-Saddam and an arrogant belief in American firepower were enough (like other leaders thought being anti-Communism and firepower were going to be enough in Vietnam).

Because of this they made many fundamental mistakes that many people warned them against, but in the arrogant belief in their ‘plan’ was perfect they disregarded all dissident voices. I have discussed many of these mistakes before so I don’t think there is a need to catalogue them all.

A point that I am trying to make is that many of the mistakes can be blamed on the defective neo-con ‘plan’. To me the problem is that the ‘plan’ is dependent on Iraq having a pro-American government.

The problem is that the US hasn’t the most popular policies in the region. In Iraq only in the Kurdish north can the US said to be popular, this is historical as it is due to the allied ‘no fly zone’ (which according to John Major was forced on the reluctant US government by the UK). But it is also political because some of the US’s policies fit in with their own.

The thing for many Arabs is that two of the main tenets of American foreign policy are support for Israel and hostility toward Iran. For the Shia’s in the south Iranians are fellow Shia and few people on the ‘Arab Street’ like the Israelis treatment of Palestinians. The southern Shias also didn’t trust and even bared a grudge against the Americans for not supporting the rebellion at the end of the Gulf war.

As for the Sunnis, it is clear they were seen by many as the ‘enemy’ from the beginning. Saddams regime was Sunni heavy and many officers, civil servants and the ‘middle class’ came from this group. They lost jobs and property in the fall. Also many in the UK military believed that the US military’s heavy-handed approach in the Sunni triangle had much to blame for the situation getting so bad.

Before the mistakes the planners believed that the US toppling of Saddam (the liberation effect) and the ‘popluar’ exiles they had brought with them would be enough to install a pro-American government. Well the genuine popularity and thanks for America didn’t last long and it turned out the exiles were not in any way popular (something that many Iraqis analysts had said already, as had the US State Department).

But the effect of all the mistakes are that now American popularity - that was not great to begin with - is now very low. So how is the ‘plan’ to work so that a pro-American Iraq government will come to power?

I have argued that the US leadership went into Vietnam with an overly simplistic policy, to stop Communism’ and that policy meant they lost sight of what the people wanted and what they could have done for them. They believed just being anti-Communist and have great military power were enough. They supported governments that were ‘anti-Communist’ but did not do things that made them popular and were seen as puppets of the US. There reaction to many situations were aggressive and heavy handed.

In South Vietnam many wanted social and economic reform, and dreamed of Independence. In Iraq it was always a lot more complicated, Iraq is not inhabited by an ethical and culturally homogenous Iraqi people but by three main distinct groups, which are themselves split by factions, all of whom have their own aspirations and agendas.

In my view the ‘plan’ is over simplistic and the continued efforts to force this plan on the Iraq’s complex situation I believe will only lead the US into more mistakes, which again will not be in the Iraqi peoples best interests.

So I would argue that only when the ‘plan’ is dropped and more importantly is seen to be abandoned and a new plan in which the US is seen to want nothing out of Iraq but is willing to give generously to it will some type of fitting solution be found for the Iraqi mess.

 

Huck

We have agreed that we wish the best for Iraq.

But as I have said you were against the US’s Vietnam policy but how would you have argued against it AT THE TIME?

Many Americans believed that the US’s Vietnam policy was right because the aims seemed right only later when the horror of the war became clear and after an accurate assessment of the US situation was learnt was that mood changed (and for some it never has).

But what if someone in an argument had described accurately everything that was going to happen at the beginning or in 54 or 64?

Would then someone who didn’t seem to have a counter argument have declared -

"Time will tell. I think it's a bit premature to declare defeat" or "Time will tell. I think many "peaceniks" hope for the worst"

I argued that the US’s Iraqi policy (not the aim) should be changed and I give my reasons are you honestly saying that the only argument you have is a reason-less ‘time will tell’?

**

But I’m sure you do have an argument but I have had the same thing from people that I’m not so sure did have one and this is another reason why I think many Americans political views can be manipulated.

They believe that other people must have thought about a policy, which means they don’t have to, they take it on trust, and many times it seems they do this because it is presented to them as part of an ‘aim’. One of the aims is to bring democracy to ‘so and so’ therefore that is what the policy is working toward.

Vietnam – (aims) stopping evil Communism, halting the domino effect, saving the world for democracy, freedom and the American way of life.

‘The regime in South Vietnam now might not be the best or have a mandate but it is better than communism and the US wants something better and you will see, time will tell’

Iraq – (aims) stopping evil terrorism, setting up a secular moderate state in the Middle East to stop Islamic fundamentalism, saving the world for democracy, freedom and the American way of life.

The regime in Iraq now might not be the best or have a mandate but it is better than Saddam and the US wants something better and you will see, time will tell

The aims are seen as good, so somehow the policy must be. But what if the policies are flawed and that goes unnoticed. What if people are so involved in defending how good the ‘aims’ are that they forget looking at the ‘plan’.

 

You need to make a further distinction though, Balbus, between the "stated" aims and the actual aims. Our interventionism is always sold as "bringing democracy" to so and so, when in reality we have overturned democracy and self determination to suit big money interests in numerous theatres of US involvement (overtly and covertly).

 

US foreign policy is rarely, but not never, driven primarily by humanitarian objectives. The intervention in Somalia is a rare example of a humanitarian only mission. But what is much more common is for US interventions to occur when humanitarian and strategic interests converge - for example Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo (the latter two strategic only using a generous interpretation of the term).

So whereas some crimes (Rwanda) will go unpunished, others (Bosnia) will be punished.

It is pretty hard to say that the US didn't TRY to create an Iraq or an Afghanistan that would be better for Iraqis. A middle east which "serves american interests" is pretty much a region that serves everyone else's interests too - one that is democratic, free, stable, peaceful, and open to trade.

I think this is an attempt to simply disregard an inconvenient part of the picture - US "nation building" in the Kurdish regions was successful. We didn't build an oppressive, strongarm dictatorship which served our interests - we built a fairly decent government given the circumstances.

This doesn't mean much to me. There is no technocrat solution which will solve everyone's problems, and you haven't shown how being determined to create a pro-America regime has in any way affected US policy choices in Iraq. As long as we can put together a democratic government which can rule legitimately, I think we are successful, and we can get out.

 

The historical context of Vietnam was very different from Iraq. Many in the early '60s accurately predicted that our intervention would be disastrous. While there have been serious problems in Iraq that Bush foolishly underestimated, I think that comparisons with Vietnam are almost meaningless. Ousting Saddam Hussein has little in common with trying to suppress a decades-old insurgency against colonial rule.

I asked you for some specific policy proposals, and I commented on the ones you provided. My "time will tell" response was directed only at your dire predictions for the future. I'm not going to counter with predictions of my own.

 

Point

The thing as I have pointing out is where American interests are concerned the US has a long history of ignoring the best interest of any other people, let us change just two words in your statement -

A Latin America which "serves american interests" is pretty much a region that serves everyone else's interests too - one that is democratic, free, stable, peaceful, and open to trade.

So where is that long list of U.S. Interventions in Latin America that so often resulted in the people of the area having democratic, free, and peaceful lives.



http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

**

The Kurds are mainly responsible for their own ‘nation building’ the US involvement mainly involved the ‘no fly zone’ (asked for is seems by the British) and the CIA trying to get Kurds killed by attacking Saddam forces something the Kurds mainly refused to do.

The government is dominated by two factions (more tribal than political) and it wasn’t all plain sailing when the two faction fought each other in the mid 90’s one side asked in Saddam’s troops to hurt the rival. They took at town together and ‘rebel’ Kurds were executed. The two leaders later made up and the government of the area is split between them.

**

 

I’ve talked of ‘aims’, the supposed ‘good’ goals that the US establishment has used, in my opinion, to manipulate the American people.

I have said that I believe these simplistic ‘aims’, that are little more than slogans, are used by many people as a way of not having to think about the complexities of any situation. So when any action is looked at and the weak arguments that are used to defend an ‘aim’ based action that seems a mistake or dishonourable become difficult to hold up the aim is always pulled out.

During the discussion on the policies and actions taken in Vietnam and the US support for South Vietnam, Point in the end defended them because they were anti-communist and seem to accuse people that criticised the policy and questioned the method of being in favour of ‘evil’ communism. This was the same for Afghanistan and Chile.

This dependence on the aim over any real debate was commented by me on page 7, "Increasingly you (pointbreak) come back to your simplistic response of left wing wrong, right wing right."

The problem is that that simplistic response is about all we got from him from them on he stopped at that point defending his position in any other way claiming (it seemed like to me) that he just couldn’t be bothered.

Since then he has done little more than snipe and quibble over minor points, it’s rather sad. But as an example of how some people (even ones that think they are involved in political debate) have been seduced by the simplistic ‘aim’ argument it is interesting.

 

Huck

I keep telling you that I’m not trying to compare two events, I’m trying to show that the attitudes and viewpoints of the differing times coloured the arguments about how and what actions are taken. I have gone on to argue that I believe that the US leadership manipulates those attitudes.

**

That is why I asked you to put yourself in the position of someone arguing against the US policy toward Vietnam.

Let us look for example at one of your statements from your last post.

Many in the early '60s accurately predicted that our intervention would be disastrous.

I said Quote:

It was pointed out by many defence and security analysis (including the UK governments) that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was likely to increase the growth of extremist Islamic terrorism, since western troops especially Americans would be seen as Christian ‘crusaders’ and also that the it would have an destabilising effect on the area.

To which you replied

"Time will tell. I think many "peaceniks" hope for the worst, fearing that the emergence of a stable and democratic Iraq will vindicate Bush."


I mean wouldn’t the same type of argument you used be used against your 60’s analysts? That they should wait and see and not be so pessimistic that the US was on the case and would sort things out? Wouldn’t they have been dismissed as only "dire predictions for the future" that carried no weight?

I would agree that the ‘historical context’ of the two actions are very different but the attitudes of those supporting the government and establishment case are similar and therefore it seems to me that the argument used are very similar. In both cases people believed the ‘aim’ was right and the US was rich and powerful enough to force the situation the way they wanted it.

Many of the very arguments that were used against dissenters then have been used against them now.

If people were not for it they were supporters of Saddam (Ho) or terrorism (communism)

If people bought up the dead they were told that it was war and that was what it was like and that the outcome would justify the suffering and that anyway the alternative rule by the other guy was worse.

And when people bring up their worries and conjecture that given the complexities and forces involved the policies being undertaken might not be the most prudent, they are told just to wait and see.

(if you had been one of those people in the 60’s who’d predicted disaster over Vietnam and had been told that ‘time would tell’ would you have given up arguing or continued trying to change things?)

**

But I’m not limiting myself to Vietnam because this is about the ‘aims’ not the single action that happened as a result of the aims. US governments used the aim of halting ‘evil’ communism for many actions that many seen now as dishonourable.

The thing is the same arguments were used to silent dissent over those actions as well.

Governments, regimes or groups that the US government and establishment painted as communist came to be seen as fair game to the American people. It was in my view a way of putting a limit on the peoples understanding of any given situation. People grasp and understand the simplistic aim which is pushed by the establishment and it give a comforting barrier against complexity, and any need to look deeper into the why, way and means of any action.

The new American ‘aim’ is the War on Terror, part of this is meant to be the establishment of a democratic, free country in the Middle East that will help halt terrorism.

Thing is the American people were sold many years ago the belief that the establishment of a democratic, free country in Vietnam would halt communist domino effect.

I believe that the policy and actions taken in relation to Vietnam were wrong, that is not to say that I thought the Hanoi government great, but given the history of the people I thought that way the US’s chose to act was likely to make a bad situation worse. In that case we know what happened. Today I believe that the policy and actions taken in relation to Iraq are wrong and given the history of the region and the US I fear what could happen if the present policies are continued.

The thing for me is that when I sent forth my views what I get in return is hope not argument, the assertion that since the aim meant to incorporate ‘good’ things that is what will happen seem simplistic to me.

But I would ask which of the aims in the end is the more important one to the US establishment? The one that is not trumpeted but seemingly understood of US interests and the other ‘good’ ones that are loudly asserted about democracy and freedom? If there is a conflict between them which one will the US establishment go with?

 

Balbus,

You're glossing over my main point(s). It doesn't appear to me that the Iraqi "resistance" represents anything close to a popular grassroots insurgency, unlike the Viet Minh. Conversely, the aim of the new Iraqi government does appear to genuinely be to build a moderate and democratic society, unlike the repressive and corrupt South Vietnamese regime.

 

Most US intervention in Latin America was bad, and was based on the "anything but communism" theory. Latin America was gripped by extremist movements, right and left, and we supported the right. Personally, I think Chile would have gone to ruin under Allende, but since he was only in power for a few years, all we can prove is that he brought it to disaster. Whether communists would have come to power in other Latin American countries without US support for right wing regimes, I don't know. How bad they would have been, I don't know either. All we know is that the US supported and/or turned a blind eye to many odious regimes. That is not a proud history.

On the other hand, interventions in Bosnia, and Kosovo were humanitarian interventions. They were on the whole successful, but anyone that wanted to apply the same confuse-obfuscate-doubt technique that you apply to the US success in supporting Iraqi Kurds could easily point out the many serious problems that are left in these countries and try to give the impression that they are failures. But my point is that going in with the best intentions does not guarantee the best results, so results do not prove motivations. Haiti might be a good example.

You often bring up the "either / or" argument but a more extreme version of it is the "pure opposition" argument. Many people here have no real ideology except opposition to the US, at best they profess adherence to vague utopian ideologies. For example a certain person is opposed to US intervention in Kosovo, yet blames the US for not intervening in Rwanda. They blame the US for not trading with Cuba, and they blame it for trading with China.

So being against the Iraq War 2 is not being pro Saddam. But what is being against Iraq War 2, against sanctions, and lukewarm for toothless inspections which are in any case criticised as hypocritical? Its not pro-Saddam, it just happens to give him everything he wants. As is always the case, anyone who actually stands for something is easily attacked by the utopians who proposed nothing to deal with Saddam, comfortable in the knowledge that any further crimes he committed could be blamed on America, which is all that really matters anyway.

Ultimately you keep saying that we take a "simplistic" view to a complex situation. Well that's what left wing technocrats would say, they always want to sit around and debate to infinity how complicated things are as if eventually we are going to discover some vastly complex solution which is guaranteed to work. There is nothing illuminating about pointing out that things in Iraq are complicated, and Bush's simple story vs. Bremer's exceedingly complicated mandate are not at all related.

I honestly cannot see any outcome in Iraq which would benefit the US other than a stable, democratic and free country, or at least as close to those ideals as possible. That means we will try to steer the country away from political developments which would lead to an Islamic state or ethnic dominance by any one group. If the choice is a functional but authoritarian state or a one time election of lunatic fundamentalist regime as in Iran, we'd choose the former. If the choice is between a resentful anti-us coalition of moderates and the authoritarian state, i'd hope we'd choose the former. I'm still waiting to see how the elections shape up.

 

But my point is that going in with the best intentions does not guarantee the best results, so results do not prove motivations

And my point is that I’m not convinced that the way the war was sold to the American public and what I see as the real reason for going there were entirely honourable. That reminds me more of the US involvement in Latin America and Indochina than it does ‘no fly zones’ and Bosnia.

The Iraq action was sold as an outcome of the 9/11 attacks, as a means of halting terrorism, with Saddam as the clear and present threat to the USA. I believe that all along its true intention was the seizing of a strategic base from which to monitor, and if needed control a region. Just as the strategic importance to the US of the Panama cannel was used as a reason for involvement in Central American politics. (And I’m not forgetting as it was with the Suez cannel etc for European powers in earlier times).

My view is that the leadership used the ‘aim’ of the ‘War on Terror’ as past leaderships had used the ‘Cold War’ aim to push agendas that in reality had little to do with it.

While the policy could be sold as part of the ‘aim’ amongst many Americans as they have a history of accepting such ideas, it would be seen in the wider world as aggressive and perceived as self-serving.

In many peoples view the way it was pushed and US actions since have only re-enforced that viewpoint.

However I think the leadership has little regard for the views of the outside world (or those of the region) because they have the belief that the US, as the richest and most militarily powerful nation, could force the outcome it wanted without much co-operation from the world.

The thing is that this wasn’t a Bosnia or Kosovo the time that Saddam was at his bloodiest was already in the past and coincided with the time that the US was supporting him. By the time of the invasion he was in many ways contained still very much a viscous bastard but his brutality was about at the same level at the present Uzbekistan regime that this US admin supports. If the US had gone in and set up a Kurdish safe haven in the 80’s I would probably have supported it as it was I criticised Rumsfeld going there to shake Saddams hand.

**

Haiti might be a good example.

In what way?

http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_94.shtml





**

You often bring up the "either / or" argument but a more extreme version of it is the "pure opposition" argument. Many people here have no real ideology except opposition to the US, at best they profess adherence to vague utopian ideologies. For example a certain person is opposed to US intervention in Kosovo, yet blames the US for not intervening in Rwanda. They blame the US for not trading with Cuba, and they blame it for trading with China.


Well this is the nature of the place, and the either/or argument can work both ways with some people wholly for and those against the US. What you have to look at in these cases is the argument. I am always happy to discuss my views and why I have them.


**

So being against the Iraq War 2 is not being pro Saddam. But what is being against Iraq War 2, against sanctions, and lukewarm for toothless inspections which are in any case criticised as hypocritical? Its not pro-Saddam, it just happens to give him everything he wants. As is always the case, anyone who actually stands for something is easily attacked by the utopians who proposed nothing to deal with Saddam, comfortable in the knowledge that any further crimes he committed could be blamed on America, which is all that really matters anyway.


The thing is there are many choices and possible actions. The west had the choice to support Saddam back in the 80’s, there were those opposed to that policy (in the UK at least) and I supported them. The US and allies had the choice not to have supported the Shia rebellion I would have wanted them to, I supported the introduction of the Kurdish no fly zone but wanted it brought in sooner than it was and have wanted one (and a safe haven) in the south as well. I didn’t like the way the Iraqi sanctions were being run and said so at the time. I was for the UK action in Sierra Leone. I could go on and on showing how the choices could have been worse and could have been better.

My argument for my opposition to the US’s Iraq policy is that was misconceived as it was mainly based on a desire for strategic advantage and not on a realistic assessment of the region and the best interests of the Iraq people.

As to how I would have treated Saddam, well I wouldn’t, I would have become involved in looking at the region, I think it is possible to become transfixed by the narrow goal and loose sight of the bigger picture. In the north I would have become involved diplomatically with the Turks with the long-term goal of getting a Kurdish State (or authority) recognised. In the south I would have tried to get the scope and remit of the southern fly zone expanded. I would have done more for the Palestinian people. I would have held my nose and tried to help the moderate Iranian clerics in their efforts at reform. Put more money and expertise into Afghanistan. It would be about trying to gain the trust of the people of the region.

You talk disparagingly of Utopians well I hope that all of us are in some way utopians that hope that at some time in the future things could be better. What is the point of getting involved in politics if it is not about trying to improve things. Otherwise I would guess it is only about a personal grasp of glory and power. But being true to your dreams and principles does not necessarily mean that you have to give up being practical and pragmatic.



**


Ultimately you keep saying that we take a "simplistic" view to a complex situation. Well that's what left wing technocrats would say, they always want to sit around and debate to infinity how complicated things are as if eventually we are going to discover some vastly complex solution which is guaranteed to work. There is nothing illuminating about pointing out that things in Iraq are complicated, and Bush's simple story vs. Bremer's exceedingly complicated mandate are not at all related.

I’m not sure of your point, but my argument is that the planners of the invasion wanted Iraq as a strategic base and that to me was overly simplistic. How were they to get what they wanted used the most simplistic of methods, force. My fear is that they will also use the simplistic method to insure they hold onto it. I hope like you that the Iraqi people can vote in a popular government, and that even if the government doesn’t favour the policies of the US it is accepted.

**

I honestly cannot see any outcome in Iraq which would benefit the US other than a stable, democratic and free country, or at least as close to those ideals as possible. That means we will try to steer the country away from political developments which would lead to an Islamic state or ethnic dominance by any one group. If the choice is a functional but authoritarian state or a one time election of lunatic fundamentalist regime as in Iran, we'd choose the former. If the choice is between a resentful anti-us coalition of moderates and the authoritarian state, i'd hope we'd choose the former. I'm still waiting to see how the elections shape up.

You know the history of US involvement in Latin America. Many US administrations both R and D, did what they did their for strategic and often for financial interests. The humanitarian conflicts the US has undertaken have often had a political advantage attached to them but rarely a strategic one.

**

 

Huck

And I could hear some 1950’s –60s government official telling the press that -

It doesn't appear to me that the Vietnam "resistance" represents anything close to a popular movement.

Remember LBJ called the South Vietnamese government a democratically elected government, Americans believed rightly or wrongly that the SVG was ‘elected’. So it stood to reason to many of them that the Viet Minh was not a popular movement otherwise they would have been elected. As Point has pointed out how could they have been popular they were communist.

That is someone now, back then it would have been very difficult to convince many Americans that the Veit Minh had legitimacy. In fact the American public didn’t thing any ‘communist’ group or government was legitimate or even acceptable, how can you accept ‘evil’?

Also remember later when any Vietnamese person killed by Americans in a firefight was categorised as a VC, and how this seems to be happening again in Iraq. In such places as Falluja and Samarra, with commanders calling all the people killed ‘terrorists’ from outside of Iraq, while reports on the ground seem to indicate otherwise.

Is the US presence in Iraq popular amongst the Iraqi population? Is the policies they are following popular?

I’m not trying to directly compare Vietnam and Iraq as I’ve said before that shouldn’t be done. What I am trying to do is say that the American people should be very cautious about what their government tells them, my fear is that they have been manipulated again, and many do not realise what they have got themselves into.

 

Point

I thought I would answer this post from another thread here or do you really what your own Pointbreak thread, but we know what that would end up being ( "and so here tonight on the Lick and Point show")

Some arguments, especially those based on opinion, reach deadlock. Some I lose interest. I do not share your enjoyment of writing massive philosophical posts and endlessly debating interpretations of historical events. That's just how it is.

The thing is that your opinion will dictate how you view many subjects. Your views on many subjects are what I would call right wing but often like a fox news anchorman you profess unbiased objectivity and I therefore wish to understand your opinions as a way to understand why.

I’m sure you don’t believe that your right wing views are genetic like having blue eyes or a third nipple? So I just think they must have some other reason for being there and I’m wondering if you know what those reason are?

Many times I think I’m getting close and then you slip away, time and boredom (you say) overcoming you.

 

i don't want you to think i am bailing out of this, but it is going to have to wait.

tomorrow is my last day at my job and saturday i'll be leaving for a remote village in a far off tropical land for a few weeks. the likelihood of me checking into hipforums during that time is zero.

so i hope everyone enjoys my absence... because i will be back!

 

dumping up for the other vietnam thread

 

We as the US do not have the responsibilty to police the world. we had no right to go into iraq, the fact is we lied to go and you and the assholes like you are not being held responsible. your arguments are tired old tricks used by every member of the bush regime, attack credibilty without having any your self then ignore certain points in posts like the ones huckfinn makes and change the subject.things were not great in iraq, i'll give you that, but we should worry about making things better here before we decide another sovereign nation needs to be invaded for there own good. fianlly, if you can show me...no, if you can PROVE to me that the US had nothing to do with supllying iraq with weapons or chemical agents (when most weapons used around the come from the us) then i might take your foolish comments seriously. i am really disapointed to share the same planet with ignorant beings like yourself.

 

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf


This table shows that less than 0.5% of Iraq's weapons were purchased from the US.

 

Ah, PB, I see youre practicing the same "cut and paste" for which you condemn others. How wonderfully hypocritical of you!