War and the United States

[Faramir]

It's a personal assessment, looking back. At the time I supported the war and even voted for Bush twice.

Ha! I got you beat. I voted against Bush the first time. I voted libertarian. The second time around I did vote for Bush because of the Libertarian stance on the war (that I now agree with).

The Iraq War happened in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. America felt a new sense of vulnerability. The Patriot Act was actually a more reasonable response because the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with WMDs or foreign state sponsorship of attacks. 9/11 was about Muslim terrorists coming up with a clever way to kill Americans with the tools already here in the States. The Patriot Act was intended to improve the effectiveness of US Intelligence in detecting and disrupting such attacks. (Obviously some of the details of the Patriot Act are of questionable effectiveness relative to loss of civil rights.)

But there was another result: the worry that hostile states could assist terrorist groups with technology. This despite the fact that such assistance was just proven unnecessary. Saddam Hussein was well known for both his anti-American rhetoric and his unwillingness to cooperate with international inspection teams. There was plausible (but not solid) intelligence that he may have been developing usable WMDs. He had also murdered a number of his own people. A real awful guy all around. Of no small significance, he wasn't well liked by religious Muslims, so attacking him would be much less risky than attacking Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 hijackers came from).

From the average war-supporting citizen's point of view, Iraq was about the military kicking some butt in the name of protecting America from terrorists...even though the connection was very tenuous. Bush constantly talked about 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentences which strengthened the conceptual connection without actually saying Iraq was connected. From the administration's point of view, Iraq was about trying to gain political power in the region by setting up a friendly democracy.

Opposition was most noticeably focusing on bad-faith style arguments. The US just wanted Iraq's oil. Bush wanted to continue the fight on behalf of his father. Bush knowingly sold the war on false evidence. That kind of thing. These arguments pushed me in favor of the war because they were so bad. (Same as how terrible Republican arguments against the health care bill pushed me to support it.) The better arguments against the war recognized that Bush may have been acting in good faith and that encouraging democracy may in itself be a good thing, but questioned spending so much in money and lives to meddle in the affairs of another country. Neither the arguments for nation building nor for attacking countries antagonistic to the USA were being applied in a principled way.

That's why I say Iraq was more about being a relatively easy target with a regime no one would defend than a real threat to American lives. In fact, it probably cost more American lives to attack Iraq than it would have to continue with a diplomatic posture.

I pretty much agree with all of that (except about the bad arguments from the Repubs on health care. Not that they didn't have some stinkers, but none that were bad enough to make me go the other way.)

It is speculation or, as you put it "personal assessment", but I think it probably accurate.

[PsychGuy]

Sean, that actually fits nicely with the suspected motivation of increasing general US political power in the region. 9/11 and the public's new willingness to do anything in the name of counter-terrorism provided the excuse.

I still think Bush himself was honestly sold on the danger and concerned about the freedom of Iraqi citizens. I still can't help but like the guy. I just think there were more cynical people around him who played on his ideals and sense of duty.

I sincerely applaud the level-headedness you have on this, Sea. So many people (liberals, in particular) appeal to character assassination when they critique Bush policy. To me, the explanation you provided there in the second paragraph makes so much more sense than, "Bush lied." All the people working for him told him the same thing: Saddam's got weapons. Saddam hates America. Put two and two together, George. Whether you think the evidence was solid or not is not my point...it's just silly to claim he intentionally tried to deceive the American people.

[seanD]

.

I still think Bush himself was honestly sold on the danger and concerned about the freedom of Iraqi citizens. I still can't help but like the guy. I just think there were more cynical people around him who played on his ideals and sense of duty.

I agree. I don't think Bush's intellectual ineptness was an act, which made him gullible and easy to manipulate, particularly by his counterpart Cheney.

[Cow Poke]

Sea's statement is pure conjecture. At the time, the justification for going was that Saddam was harboring terrorists (true) and was developing weapons of mass destruction (also true), and the combination of the two represented the greatest threat to both the region and the world.

There is the lingering element that Saddam invaded Kuwait1 in 1991, and the cease fire was never really observed by Iraq, and this may have been an excuse to clean up that mess.

People accuse Bush of invading Iraq for his "oil buddies"... not sure how that would have benefited them, tho.

Michael

Amen!

Saddam had every opportunity to dialogue - it was not a "sudden attack". He perpetuated the myth (if you want to call it that) that he had WMD. He constantly manipulated and obfuscated the efforts of the International Community to prevent them from determining the intent of his "technology" research.

You can find, if you bother to look, numerous quotes from some of Bush's greatest critics who said, prior to the war, Iraq had WMD. They expressed it in absolute terms.

[technomage]

I don't think Bush's intellectual ineptness was an act

Bush was not, and is not, intellectually inept.

Bush would have, in my opinion, been a stellar peacetime president. Before 9/11, he was doing a good job--not without mistakes, certainly, but I don't believe I've ever heard a constitutional requirement that the president be superhuman.

After 9/11, however, the picture changed. The Bush administration was in over its head, but in all reality, I do not think that any person or administration could possibly have faced the events of that day, and the resulting necessary political paradigm shifts, and handled them in a flawless manner. It is doubly foolish to expect that the changes necessitated would please all parties.

Bush did the best he could do--and while I disagree with many of the specific things that were done, in the end, that is all we can ask of our elected officials.

[seanD]

Bush was not, and is not, intellectually inept.

Bush would have, in my opinion, been a stellar peacetime president. Before 9/11, he was doing a good job--not without mistakes, certainly, but I don't believe I've ever heard a constitutional requirement that the president be superhuman.

After 9/11, however, the picture changed. The Bush administration was in over its head, but in all reality, I do not think that any person or administration could possibly have faced the events of that day, and the resulting necessary political paradigm shifts, and handled them in a flawless manner. It is doubly foolish to expect that the changes necessitated would please all parties.

Bush did the best he could do--and while I disagree with many of the specific things that were done, in the end, that is all we can ask of our elected officials.

Whoo-wee! The "amens" are gonna abound for you here with that one, my friend. You might even get an honors

[Cow Poke]

Whoo-wee! The "amens" are gonna abound for you here with that one, my friend. You might even get an honors

How was that?

[technomage]

Whoo-wee! The "amens" are gonna abound for you here with that one, my friend. You might even get an honors

The agreement of others is unimportant when one is seeking the truth, Sean.

[Cow Poke]

The agreement of others is unimportant when one is seeking the truth, Sean.

Ah, come on... it never hurts to get a thumbs up!

[technomage]

Never hurts? Absolutely, and I do thank you for it. But if I had to choose between the truth and the condemnation of every single person on the globe, three guesses which I would choose--and the first two don't count.

Veritas contra mundi.

[Cow Poke]

Never hurts? Absolutely, and I do thank you for it. But if I had to choose between the truth and the condemnation of every single person on the globe, three guesses which I would choose--and the first two don't count.

Veritas contra mundi.

Correcto mundi!

[jordanriver]

This is something that has been on my mind for a while now. All stemming from the following: We were attacked September 11, 2001. The Bush Doctrine was developed. We invaded the Middle East to search for weapons of mass destruction. As of today we've killed 44,206 innocent civilians. A study by Lancet released in 2006 suggests that approximately 655,000 people have died due to our 2003 invasion. My question: At what point have we become the enemy?
We are fighting for world peace (talk about hypocritical). Everyone knows we have nuclear weapons. Not to mention we are the only country to ever use them (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So someone please tell me how we justify fighting a war against WMD's when we won't give up our own.

VI. Weak Points and Strong
2. Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.
The Art of War By Sun Tzu

Hope this helps

jr

[themuzicman]

Bush was not, and is not, intellectually inept.

Bush would have, in my opinion, been a stellar peacetime president. Before 9/11, he was doing a good job--not without mistakes, certainly, but I don't believe I've ever heard a constitutional requirement that the president be superhuman.

After 9/11, however, the picture changed. The Bush administration was in over its head, but in all reality, I do not think that any person or administration could possibly have faced the events of that day, and the resulting necessary political paradigm shifts, and handled them in a flawless manner. It is doubly foolish to expect that the changes necessitated would please all parties.

Bush did the best he could do--and while I disagree with many of the specific things that were done, in the end, that is all we can ask of our elected officials.

And Bush was the better choice from the 2 major candidates in 2000.

Michael

[technomage]

And Bush was the better choice from the 2 major candidates in 2000.

Oy! Thinking of Gore (or Kerry) in office is absolutely terrifying. Gore may have done more-or-less as well as Bush before 9/11, but after? The mind boggles.

Don't get me wrong--again, I think Gore would have done his best. I'm just not certain his best would have been even as good as Bush.

[Seasanctuary]

Saddam had every opportunity to dialogue - it was not a "sudden attack". He perpetuated the myth (if you want to call it that) that he had WMD. He constantly manipulated and obfuscated the efforts of the International Community to prevent them from determining the intent of his "technology" research.

You can find, if you bother to look, numerous quotes from some of Bush's greatest critics who said, prior to the war, Iraq had WMD. They expressed it in absolute terms.

I haven't said anything which conflicts with that.