that was in reference to the occupation and subsequent cold war, ie your refernce to “being there for over 60 years with no “end in sight’”

Yes, the US is still in Germany and Japan 60 years after WW2. But the commentor would have us abandon Afghanistan after about 9 years because THAT length of time is just too long.

Myself, earlier: We now have an ally strategically located in the middle of the Middle East whereas before we had a dedicated enemy.”

The commentor: We don’t have an ally because we are still occupying the country militarily, since the civilian government is divided an unstable. Its unclear if they can rule if we leave, never mind ruling democratically. An ally is a functioning govt. We don’t have that.

I have a different, more practical, perhaps more Machiavellian definition of an ally. An ally is a nation that is not hostile to my nation. Iraq is not hostile. I don’t much care if Iraq is “functioning.”

Me, earlier: This ally has the most free and open society of any Islamic nation in the Middle East, even including free speech, newspapers and elections, all of which serve as an example to the rest of the miserable and downtrodden populations under the rule of Islamic despots.

The commentor: According to Foreign Policy magazine, Iraq is a failed state—ie, unable to perform basic governmental functions like security or education due to fractious violence and a non-functionig economy. They are number 6 (somailia is #1, to give you an idea how bad it is.) Your innane assertions … [blah, blah, blah] … This inablity to grasp basic conservative ideas is why the bush presidency failed … [blah, blah and more blah]. … jesus, don’t right-wingers read machiavelli anymore?

Well, I don’t consider myself much of a “right-winger” but I HAVE read Niccolé² Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” Perhaps the commentor could give us a learned discourse on just what part of that book applies to the debate at hand instead of his pointless literary name-dropping. We would want him to link to the parts from which he draws his conclusions, wouldn’t we, readers? So we could ALL enjoy the benefit of the commentor’s intellect and comprehension of literature?

On the Failed State List: Pakistan is there, as is Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, Algeria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan and Kuwait. In fact it seems that if a nation is located in the Middle East it’s more than likely to be somewhere on the Failed State List. Iraq joins a rather large group in that respect.

Some others on the Failed State List: North Korea, China, Colombia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Cambodia, India, Cuba(Oh, Fidel!) Nicaragua(someone needs to tell Daniel Ortega), Venezuela(of Hugo Chavez fame), Honduras(poor Zelaya), Ecuador and Russia. I found the failed state list mildly interesting but am puzzled as to exactly why the commentor believes inclusion on the list means anything really pertinent to my viewpoint.

Also, I believe the commentor may actually misunderstand my viewpoint. You see, I don’t really care if Iraq is a “failed state.” US forces are in Iraq, centrally located in the Middle East, right next door to Iran and close to other rogue states, where we can get at them with our military should the need arise. MY state is certainly NOT “failed,” and that’s all I really much care about. I wonder … could my view on this be considered Machiavellian?

Nevertheless, although the commentor may not value such things, the Iraqis now have elected leaders, a free press and can publicly voice their opinions, which makes them the most free and democratic Islamic nation in the Middle East. Call me crazy but if I were an Iraqi I would call such a situation a BIG improvement over Saddam’s murderous dictatorship. And hey, unlike during the Saddam years, they are NOT trying to develop nukes. I call that a worthwhile improvement. Not “functioning” to the commentor’s satisfaction? Who cares?

Me, earlier: And — although the yellowcake may have been “known,” it was certainly NOT “secured.” I refer to the article linked to earlier.

The commentor replies: It was secured until the invasion, when the bush admin inexplicably then faield to secure nuclear sites.

Oh my, did Bush make a mistake in a war? On securing the nuclear sites? Yes, perhaps a mistake was made, just as did Churchill, FDR and just about anyone else who has ever conducted a war. And this is the stuff on which the commentor bases his viewpoint? Readers, the only thing surprising in any war would be if no mistakes were made. THAT would be REALLY strange.

The aricle you rely on is not factual, its an opinion piece. You need to learn to distingusih propaganda from facts.

I linked to the article because it was well-written and factual about the subject of the yellowcake. But let us go to the report of the IAEA itself — which is used as a primary source for the article:

During the second IAEA inspection, Iraqi military authorities denied or restricted access to an IAEA inspection team at various sites designated for inspection by the Special Commission of the UN Security Council pursuant to Part C of UN Security Council Resolution 687. After protests, full access was granted on Wednesday, 26 June 1991, at which time activities which had been observed from a distance during the first visit had ceased and objects that had been seen had been removed.

This circumstance disturbed the IAEA inspectors and a high-level IAEA group was dispatched to look into the situation:

The mission was to discuss with senior officials of the Iraqi government the visit by the inspection team to different locations near Baghdad which encountered refusal of access to designated sites and witnessed removal by Iraqi personnel of equipment and materials from such locations to unknown sites.

The group made objections but their protests were ignored by Saddam. Later on the document relates this interesting tidbit:

An initial examination by the IAEA indicated the existence of three parallel programmes for uranium enrichment and related equipment and facilities.

And this is what the commentor characterizes as “secured,” what he dismisses as insignificant and not worth the worry, what he belittles as propaganda? There’s much more but I don’t want to make this comment into a book. Things were “removed,” and “activities” observed at a distance by IAEA before Saddam’s hindrances were ceased after Saddam refused the inspectors access, undoubtedly so he could have enough time to cover his tracks. Doesn’t sound very secure to me, readers. Read for yourselves the official record of Saddam’s constant deception and obstruction about his nuke program:

http://tinyurl.com/bdzcb

Me, earlier: These are simple questions only requiring simple answers. Once again: I agree that Pakistan, North Korea and Iran pose a risk. Is it the contention of the commentor that Bush should have invaded these countries and deposed their leaders? Is it the contention of the commentor that Obama should invade them?

The commentor’s pathetic response: That says it all. This is why bush and his fanboys are ill-equipped for foreign policy.

Nope. Ain’t gonna be no simple answers from THIS commentor.

Me, earlier: And Afghanistan is not a “failed” war — not in any sense of the word.

Ok, Iraq is a failed war b/c it was not in our national interst (no WMDs, and Saddam was far away from reconstiutiong his programs not to mention giving WMDs to terrorists).

Aside from the curious fact that the commentor ignores my question about Afghanistan and chooses instead to ramble on about Iraq, it is evident that the commentor is still doggedly sticking to his memes: There was no WMD(just “three parallel programmes,” according to the official IAEA report) and Saddam was far away in time from reconstituting his programs(according to intelligence the commentor himself characterizes as “wrong”). And of course, once developed, the commentor is dead-sure that nice fellow Saddam would never, ever allow the nukes to be used by terrorists, I guess because Saddam was known to be such an admirer and lover of the US. Right, dear readers?

Bush left Afghnistan in a decaying sitution as McChrystal warned that the war may be lost if more troops were not sent.

I think during war troops are sent by Commanders in Chief to various fronts as needed, according to their strength and numbers, their availability and the strength and locations of the enemy.

Saddam needed to be deposed so we sent what forces weren’t needed in Japan and Germany(60 years after WW2) and other places around the globe to Iraq to take care of Saddam, and left enough forces in Afghanistan to hold the place until such time as we would want to get back to that front. To me it seems so ordinary and simple, the most basic of strategies – but the commentor cares not for simplicity.

Earlier I asked: Is it the contention of the commentor that Obama should pull all troops out of Iraq and concentrate only on Afghanistan? Is Iraq that unimportant in the commentor’s mind?

We sadly have to stay in Iraq to avert a civil war and humanitarin crises. other than that its not importnat since saddam did not pose much of a threat.

Oh, I forgot. The commentor has already declared that even Saudi Arabia posed more of a threat than Saddam. But at least the commentor himself apparently believes we should now stay in Iraq, although he doesn’t exactly overwhelm us with his enthusiasm.

One of the greatest blunders in US foreign policy history.

One of the silliest statements by the commentor — so far.

I contended earlier: The commentor admits that the intelligence was faulty. So his implication is that Bush should rely on faulty intelligence to inform Bush when the nukes developed by Saddam was “imminent.”

The commentor’s sage reply: Its the executives job to make sure the intelligence is accurate. you can’t operate on faulty inelligence, though it will never be perfect. The problem here was the intelligence was off the charts wrong, and some people were warning the US of that.

Readers, there’s always someone “warning the US” of something or other. Obama is probably being subjected to conflicting warnings of many different types at this very moment. It’s all very well to say that Bush should have made sure the intelligence was accurate. Perhaps Bush knew that Western intelligence agencies, including the CIA, have never been very accurate in the assessment of the progress of other nations’ nuclear programs.

Russia, China, Israel and Pakistan: The CIA was caught by surprise by ALL of their nuclear programs. In fact, I can’t find where the CIA has been accurate on ANY assessment of this type. The most that can be expected of the CIA is that they are sometimes accurate on whether a nation is trying to develop nukes but if past CIA predictions are any yardstick — that’s about ALL the CIA can be trusted for – sometimes.

We must not forget, dear readers, that just a year ago an official government report(National Intelligence Estimate) which included CIA input emphatically declared that Iran had ceased developing nukes in 2003. It was a BIG boost to the Obama campaign and various Bush-hating politicians, intellectuals(so-called), liberal foreign policy “experts” and pundits. That particular assessment has since been tossed into the False Meme Dumpster and thoroughly erased from the memory of various anti-war brains.

And who were these “people” who were warning Bush that the CIA’s intelligence was wrong? The commentor is rather vague on this point, as on some of his other points. It certainly wasn’t Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. In a report to the UN Security Council in January of 2003 Blix had this to say:

Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

http://tinyurl.com/65ewxz

But WMD was only one issue among many in regards to toppling Saddam, although the anti-war folks choose to make much of it and ignore the others. Sooner or later Saddam was going to become an unsolvable problem. The US can’t wait until rogue despots have a working nuke before taking action — because then it will be too late. All the rats in this world can’t be exterminated but we are much better off exterminating those that we can as soon as we can. Saddam is one less rat to worry about.

bush may have made an honest mistake but his judgemnt was flawed at the end of the day. if bush had doubts the only responsable response would have been to fix the flaws b/f proceeding. he had the time obviously. even he didn’t thnk there was a real immant danger from saddam, and as it turned out there was no credable evidence that saddam had reconstituted a significant WMD capability.

Like I’ve noted before, there were many reasons given for deposing Saddam. That Saddam apparently did not possess a working arsenal of nukes is no reason not to depose him. He was certainly TRYING to develop nukes. I say it would have been folly to have dawdled until it came to pass. When we can, we must not wait until a conflagration occurs before taking action. History will note that Bush was wise to have toppled Saddam.

that was in reference to the occupation and subsequent cold war, ie your refernce to “being there for over 60 years with no “end in sight'”

“We now have an ally strategically located in the middle of the Middle East whereas before we had a dedicated enemy.”

We don’t have an ally becasue we are still occupying the country militarily, since the civilian governement is divided an unstable. Its unlcear if they can rule if we leave, nevermind ruling democraticaly. An ally is a functioning govt. We don’t have that.

“This ally has the most free and open society of any Islamic nation in the Middle East, even including free speech, newspapers and elections, all of which serve as an example to the rest of the miserable and downtrodden populations under the rule of Islamic despots.”

According to Foreign Policy magazine, Iraq is a failed state–ie, unable to perform basic governmental functions like security or education due to fractious violence and a non-functionig economy. They are number 6 (somailia is #1, to give you an idea how bad it is.) Your innane assertions about “free speech” is an example how the american right has descended into liberal happy talk. Every conservative should know the first function of government is to provide security and other basic functions, without which civil liberties (freedom from governemnt force) are meaningless because your freedom is threated by the hobbsean “war of all against all”. This inablity to grasp basic conservative ideas is why the bush presidency failed. Rumsfeld inabilty to secure iraq after the inital invasion is an example of this fundamental failure, especilly paul wolfowitz babbling on about the iraqis greeting us as liberators becasue we freed them from saddam. The world is more complex than this simplistic narrative. jesus, don’t right-wingers read machiavelli anymore?

“And — although the yellowcake may have been “known,” it was certainly NOT “secured.” I refer to the article linked to earlier”

It was secured until the invasion, when the bush admin inexplicably then faield to secure nuclear sites. The aricle you rely on is not factual, its an opinion piece. You need to learn to distingusih propaganda from facts.

“These are simple questions only requiring simple answers”

That says it all. This is why bush and his fanboys are ill-equipped for foreign policy.

“And Afghanistan is not a “failed” war — not in any sense of the word”

Ok, Iraq is a failed war b/c it was not in our national interst (no WMDs, and Saddam was far away from reconstiutiong his programs not to mention giving WMDs to terrorists). Bush left Afghnistan in a decaying sitution as McChrystal warned that the war may be lost if more troops were not sent.

“Is it the contention of the commentor that Obama should pull all troops out of Iraq and concentrate only on Afghanistan? Is Iraq that unimportant in the commentor’s mind? ”

We sadly have to stay in Iraq to avert a civil war and humanitarin crises. other than that its not importnat since saddam did not pose much of a threat. One of the greatest blunders in US foreign policy history.

“The commentor admits that the intelligence was faulty. So his implication is that Bush should rely on faulty intelligence to inform Bush when the nukes developed by Saddam was “imminent.” ”

Its the executives job to make sure the intelligence is accurate. you can’t operate on faulty inelligence, though it will never be perfect. The problem here was the intelligence was off the charts wrong, and some people were warning the US of that. bush may have made an honest mistake but his judgemnt was flawed at the end of the day. if bush had doubts the only responsable response would have been to fix the flaws b/f proceeding. he had the time obviously. even he didn’t thnk there was a real immant danger from saddam, and as it turned out there was no credable evidence that saddam had reconstituted a significant WMD capability.

Where did I say it wasn’t a hot war?

The commentor’s own words: Those[Germany and Japan] weren’t hot wars.

WWII served our national interest. Iraq did not. We stayed for nation building and then as part of the cold war. In Iraq, its just nation building with an insurgency to boot. nation building is not a good reason in and off itself to go to war.

We now have an ally strategically located in the middle of the Middle East whereas before we had a dedicated enemy. This ally has the most free and open society of any Islamic nation in the Middle East, even including free speech, newspapers and elections, all of which serve as an example to the rest of the miserable and downtrodden populations under the rule of Islamic despots. When this country was ruled by Saddam he was constantly working, from the commentor’s own admission, many years to develop WMD. “Just nation building?” Dear me, if the commentor cannot see the benefit I can only feel sorry for his myopia.

Me, earlier: The fact that the yellowcake was “pre-1991” is irrelevant.

The yellowcake was known and secured. It was also not weapons grade. It would require further enrichment beyond Saddam’s capabilities.

And this is the commentor’s counter against the argument that just when Saddam began his development of a nuclear arsenal is irrelevant? Because the yellowcake had not yet been developed into a warhead when Bush stopped Saddam’s nuclear development? Wow.

Like I said before, folks of the commentor’s mindset would have dawdled until Saddam had nukes, no doubt cautioning all the while, “Not yet, not yet,” and then, finally, “Oops, too late, so sad, too bad.”

And — although the yellowcake may have been “known,” it was certainly NOT “secured.” I refer to the article linked to earlier:

Keeping track of the material was made extraordinarily difficult by the Iraqis who regularly impeded IAEA officials from carrying out even the most routine inspections.

Furthermore, the IAEA was and is a feckless organization that was headed by those who seemed to be biased against the US and sympathetic toward Saddam. I wouldn’t trust them further than I could throw 500 metric tons of yellowcake.

As for “beyond Saddam’s capabilities”: Enrichment requires centrifuges, a centrifuge was found buried in the backyard of one of Saddam’s nuclear scientists. How many more lie buried we cannot know. We only learned of this example because the scientist himself led us to it – otherwise it would no doubt still be buried.

Yes, of course yellowcake requires “further enrichment” but Saddam was obtaining and hiding the technology that would have allowed him to enrich the yellowcake. I apologize to the readers for seeming to be so tediously elementary but the commentor seems unable to see that 2 + 2 = 4.

http://tinyurl.com/2xe2wq

Pak, NK, and Iran pose an infinitely greater risk than Saddam who was very far away from WMDs and had less connections with Islamic radicals than the other regimes. I don’t necessarily advocate an invasion of these countries (well, you can’t invade NK) but an invasion could be justified, as one could have been against Saddam, if he possessed the WMDs we though he did. But he didn’t. Bottom line.

I wish the commentor would stop waffling and answer my questions simply and directly. Once again: I agree that Pakistan, North Korea and Iran pose a risk. Is it the contention of the commentor that Bush should have invaded these countries and deposed their leaders? Is it the contention of the commentor that Obama should invade them?

These are simple questions only requiring simple answers, not the, “I don’t necessarily advocate an invasion of these countries (well, you can’t invade NK) but an invasion could be justified …” that the commentor tries to pass off as an answer to the readers.

I’ve noticed during my many debates with them that one of the rationales of the anti-war folks goes like this: The US was not justified in stopping the development of WMD in Iraq. Why? Because up until such time as Saddam had developed nukes the US did not have the moral right or obligation to stop him. Of course, AFTER the nuclear arsenal would have been developed there would have been little the US could do because of the danger of a nuclear conflagration. Thus, the subtext is that the US should stand idly by until all the rogue nations are nuked up.

An earlier question: What would we do when Saddam reconstituted his nuclear program to counter Iran’s program?

You have time to deal with that when and if it becomes imminent. But is was far away. The intelligence was wrong.

Dear readers, please consider this: The commentor admits that the intelligence was faulty. So his implication is that Bush should rely on faulty intelligence to inform Bush when the nukes developed by Saddam was “imminent.” Yes, Bush should have waited until such time as the fallible, faulty intelligence community gave him the news that Saddam had ALMOST but not quite developed a nuclear arsenal. Sweet. Illogical but sweet.

Me? I don’t think it’s possible to cut it so fine. The intelligence is too often wrong. I want my President to be more prudent and to always err on the side of caution — otherwise many Americans could die, because frequently, yes, as the commentor himself asserts, the intelligence is “wrong.”

In the meantime we had too little troops in Afghanistan, which has much more connections to al Qaeda and 911 and is right next door to an unstable Pakistan which possesses nukes.

It’s interesting to me that the anti-war folks alternate easily between the argument that the Iraq War was/is wrong because it was/is a magnet/generator for and of terrorists and terrorism — that the Iraq War actually CAUSED or CAUSES more terrorism – to the argument that the terrorists were actually someplace else, someplace that Bush was ignoring while he was chasing non-existent terrorists in Iraq. They never seem to realize the inconsistency of such a stance.

The 9/11 connected Taliban government which harbored al Qaeda was toppled and driven from power by Bush and Afghanistan ceased to be a 9/11-style threat. They are still out of power. A Commander in Chief marshals his forces, arrays his troops and sometimes has to fight a 2-front war. Is it the contention of the commentor that Obama should pull all troops out of Iraq and concentrate only on Afghanistan? Is Iraq that unimportant in the commentor’s mind?

And do you notice, dear readers, that they(not necessarily the commentor) ALWAYS imply or sometimes even state outright that somehow the US and/or Bush is somehow responsible for an “unstable Pakistan?” They know nothing about the history of the region or they would know that Pakistan has been “unstable” since its creation. Condemning Bush for the instability of Pakistan is like condemning Bush for the weather … er … global warming … er … climate change … er … hurricanes — oh hell — I give up. They blame Bush for everything.

All of this got worse under bush as he was distracted by Iraq, a sideshow. hell, Saudi Arabia is more dangerous … 2 failed wars that Obama inherited.

Holy Smokes! The commentor believes that Saudi Arabia, one of our allies, is “more dangerous” than Saddam was and that Iraq is a “failed” war. Jesus — even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has stopped calling Iraq a “failed” war. And Afghanistan is not a “failed” war — not in any sense of the word. But readers, don’t we see this kind of wishful thinking all the time? Folks that dearly wish for disastrous wars and for America to fail so much that they actually invent failure in their minds and that no matter what is actually happening that they go around gleefully proclaiming failure where none really exists?

A further question: Would sanctions and diplomatic pressure work as well on Saddam as it has on Iran and North Korea?

er, North Korea has nukes and has been testing it since the early 2000’s.

Here again we see the curious logic that if a rogue state starts the development of nukes early enough(“early 2000’s”) that somehow those states are exempt from the debate. The question’s point was that sanctions did not work on North Korea and are not working on Iran, thus it was doomed from the start with Saddam. Sanctions and diplomacy was tried with North Korea ad infinitum. Sanctions were tried with Saddam for 13 years for God’s Sake! Sanctions don’t work with rogue states. But the question goes completely over the head of the blissfully unaware commentor.

I guess this sums up our difference. You see it as either/or; you are ether pregnant or not. I see it as matter of degree. Saddam funded terrorism and wanted WMDs, but he was a small fish in these areas. Even Saudi Arabia, our ally, is a bigger problem vis a vis terrorism. The Taliban, Pakistan, Iran and NK all have much more connections to terrorism and have much more advanced WMD programs. In realpolick, you pick your battles and let some evil go.

But Bush failed at Realpolick. Had we discovered the caches of WMDs he spoke of b/f the invasion he would’ve gone down as a Churchill. Instead, he’s LBJ.

I believe they are referring to this.

We would’ve been better off with the UN inspecotrs status quo or even making a deal with saddam.

The Oil for Food program shows how feckless the UN was with regard to Saddam. Saddam was able to flout with ease the restrictions of THAT UN program.

Moreover, for years, Russia and France had been pressuring to stop sanctions on Saddam. That also means that they would have been inclined to look the other way with regard to his importing banned materials. It is doubtful that sanctions could have been maintained indefinitely, or effectively maintained indefinitely.

Look how effective the UN has been in stopping Hezbollah from rearming in southern Lebanon. Sorry, I lack your faith in the UN. 

He wasn’t on his way to WMDs adn had very littel contact with al quada or other islamists.

After we invaded we found out that the infrastructure for researching and/or making them was intact. With either the end of sanctions or Saddamn’s being able to flout the sanctions, as shown by what happened with Oil for Food, Saddam WOULD have been on his way.

Your statement about “littel contact” reminds me of someone being “a little bit pregnant.” Saddam funded terrorism by sending money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Recall his Salman Park training center.

the tone has changed! this is expected! this is politically normal to ease out the injury done through the result of the election.

Where did I say it wasn’t a hot war? WWII served our national interest. Iraq did not. We stayed for nation building and then as part of the cold war. In Iraq, its just nation building with an insurgency to boot. nation building is not a good reason in and off itself to go to war.

“The fact that the yellowcake was “pre-1991” is irrelevant”

The yellowcake was known and secured. It was also not weapons grade. It would require further enrichment beyond saddam’s capabilities.

“I agree that Pakistan, North Korea and Iran pose a risk. Is it the contention of the commentor that Bush should have invaded these countries and deposed their leaders?”

Pak, NK, and Iran pose an infinitely greater risk than saddam who was very far away from WMDs and had less connections with islamic radicals than the other regimes. I don’t necessarily advocate an invasion of these countries (well, you can’t invade NK) but an invasion could be justified, as one could have been against saddam, if he possessed the WMDs we though he did. But he didn’t. Bottom line.

“What would we do when Saddam reconstituted his nuclear program to counter Iran’s program?”

You have tme to deal with that when and if it becomes immanant. But is was faaar away. the intelligence was wrong. In the meantime we had too little troops in afganistan, which has much more connections to al quada and 911 and is right next door to an ustable pakistan which possses nukes. All of this got worse under bush as he was distracted by iraq, aside show. hell, saudi arabia is more dangerous. ie, 2 failed wars that obama inherited.

“Would sanctions and diplomatic pressure work as well on Saddam as it has on Iran and North Korea?”

err, north korea has nukes and has been testing it since the early 2000’s.