Obama and the global jihad
Andrew McCarthy says the Khorosan Group is not a separate entity at all. It’s just a useful construction, invented by the Obama administration for its own purposes:
…[T]here is a purpose behind this dizzying proliferation of names assigned [by the Obama administration] to what, in reality, is a global network with multiple tentacles and occasional internecine rivalries.
As these columns have long contended, Obama has not quelled our enemies; he has miniaturized them. The jihad and the sharia supremacism that fuels it form the glue that unites the parts into a whole ”” a worldwide, ideologically connected movement rooted in Islamic scripture that can project power on the scale of a nation-state and that seeks to conquer the West. The president does not want us to see the threat this way…
For a product of the radical Left like Obama, terrorism is a regrettable but understandable consequence of American arrogance. That it happens to involve Muslims is just the coincidental fallout of Western imperialism in the Middle East, not the doctrinal command of a belief system that perceives itself as engaged in an inter-civilizational conflict…
The global terror network must be atomized into discrete, disconnected cells moved to violence by parochial political or territorial disputes, with no overarching unity or hegemonic ambition. That way, they can be limned as a manageable law-enforcement problem fit for the courts to address, not a national-security challenge requiring the armed forces.
I think it’s that last bit that’s especially important to Obama. The very last thing he wants to do is to have to engage in a serious, broad, committed, lengthy, military campaign, especially one against Islamist forces, especially one requiring ground troops. It is maximally un-PC to declare any connection of Islam to terrorism, which puts him in an especially awkward position, but one he’s not going to abandon.
McCarthy goes on to describe how the Arab states who are allied with us for the moment against ISIS are only behind a very limited aspect of this war. One can’t help but think that Obama, also, is only behind a very limited aspect of this war. To acknowledge more would be to do a host of things Obama cannot and will not do: admit Bush didn’t do so badly after all, fess up to having failed to evaluate the situation properly at the outset and prevent it from growing, see Islam as part of the problem, become a wartime Commander-in-Chief, and defy much of his party.
It’s as if an enemy agent is in charge of our strategy, and obfuscating the reality of what our tactics, strategy, and logistics is at, and then conveniently counter manding the correct orders while replacing them with the wrong ones.
But, hey, at least our Vast Testicular Concavity of a C-in-C made time to diss Israel at the U.N. Darn, pesky Juden anyway. ))-:
This is why I say that leftists live in fantasyland. The Muslims are simply doing what the Koran commands and the president is saying they aren’t really Muslims. The real Muslims are peaceful.
Is it weird that this doesn’t surprise or shock me?
Probably had this Khorosan Group idea at the ready just like the YouTube video guy they blamed for the Benghazi “riots.”
I am at the point where I have zero faith in Obama to do anything other than what is in his political best interest, and I believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, not even the “uhs” and “let me be clears.”
Rumor has it that the youtube vid guy was hired by Clinton’s State Department to create that video. That’s how they knew to blame it on him after Benghazi.
“For a product of the radical Left like Obama, terrorism is a regrettable but understandable consequence of American arrogance. That it happens to involve Muslims is just the coincidental fallout of Western imperialism in the Middle East, not the doctrinal command of a belief system that perceives itself as engaged in an inter-civilizational conflict…” Andrew McCarthy
Unfortunately for the radical left, that theory utterly fails to explain Islam’s terrorist attacks against other non-western nations, such as China, India and African nations. So the left, as usual just ignores contradictory facts, which indicates not inordinate loyalty to a theory but to an agenda.
Islamic terrorism serves the left’s purposes.
“The global terror network must be atomized into discrete, disconnected cells moved to violence by parochial political or territorial disputes, with no overarching unity or hegemonic ambition. That way, they can be limned as a manageable law-enforcement problem fit for the courts to address, not a national-security challenge requiring the armed forces.”
That, as we all know, has been the left’s meme toward Islamic terrorism all along. Once Islamic terrorist cells that have and are infiltrating across our open southern border start a campaign of attacks on American soil, that meme isn’t going to hold water with LIVs and liberals. ‘Security moms’ recent expressed doubts as to Obama’s ability to protect them is just the tip of the iceberg, a political canary in a coal mine for the democrats.
Ymarsakar,
“
It’s as ifan enemy agent is in charge of our strategy, and obfuscating the reality of what our tactics, strategy, and logistics is at, and then conveniently counter manding the correct orders while replacing them with the wrong ones.”There, I fixed it for you.
Agree with the fix. BHO is a closet Muslim, and is actively sabotaging us
This sentence in McCarthy’s article is priceless:
” As you’ll hear from Obama’s Islamist allies, who often double as Democrat activists, the problem is “Islamophobia,” not Muslim terrorism”
If Obama were a lone wolf, the country could survive, but he is not. As Neo has pointed out, the left is upset by Obama because he is not radical enough for them.
McCarthy mentions several names for the regional branches of Al-Qaeda which supposedly are completely separated from “core al–Qaeda and suggests that there will be a future branch in America which Obama might call “Al-Qaeda on Hollywood and Vine”. Perhaps a better name for Al-Qaeda in America would be Al-Qaeda affiliated Democrats.
“Obama is not the manner of man who can say, “I was wrong: It turns out that al-Qaeda is actually on the rise”
Obviously, Obama will not admit he was wrong previously because in matter of fact he was not wrong. To be wrong, he had to have been mistaken about Al-Qaeda and its growing strength. He knew and he lied about Al-Qaeda to gain political advantage for himself and his Muslim allies. In Islam holy lying is called Taqiyya.
My daughter watched the videos of him interviewed with Steve Kroft just now – supposed to air on 60 Minutes tonight – and she was struck with how bad he looks; drained and grey and unhealthy. Might he be close to melting down entirely under the strain?
Someone noted on a Rantburg threat – that his keepers work very hard to keep him within the bubble, so that he never, ever has contact with any in the general public who aren’t his worshippers. And I wonder – just exactly how bad his approval ratings really are. I’ll bet anything that as bad as they seem to be, in reality they are much, much worse.
I’ve been noticing for a while now just “drained and grey and unhealthy” Obama looks. Poor guy (not); it must be hard suddenly being seen as a wartime president.
There’s a poll out today showing that 72% of Americans think U.S. combat troops will be used against ISIS, and 45% are in favor of using them if military commanders think they’re the best way to defeat ISIS, while 37 percent are opposed.
Doesn’t sound like a completely war-weary country to me. Which makes me wonder if the Dems will really want to win the presidency in 2016. May be better to let a Republican take over for a while. Grandma Hillary must be wondering the same herself this morning.
ISIS/ISIL is only logically reacting to an Islamophobic video perpetrated by Jews and the Bush Administration.
On another note, thank God for Andy McCarthy.
One information offensive would be to go back and build a list of Muslim vs the World conflicts prior to the Crusades, specifically pointing out the end results of those conflicts as Islam gained ground during those centuries. A while back on a site someone was posting a list but not knowing the original source I was not sure whether to completely trust it. Another list would include conflicts after the Crusades, including non-Western conflicts. An abbreviated version for posting on FB with links to the longer list would be great.
Neo quoting Andrew McCarthy: “That way, they can be limned as a manageable law-enforcement problem fit for the courts to address, not a national-security challenge requiring the armed forces.”
Neo: “I think it’s that last bit that’s especially important to Obama.”
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, ie, Public Law 104-132:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm
Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-39 of 1995:
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm
It’s back to the fool or knave dilemma you’ve drawn before. I guess in a way it’s always back to that with Obama. Is his thinking on this whole situation really that jejune, or has he actively thrown in with the other side?
G Jourbet:
That is certainly the question.
Plus, the two are not mutually exclusive.
The important question is what people expect to do about it, if they think they know the enemy and know themselves.
When I’m around Democrats, especially black democrats, I observe the targets for awhile by injecting hypothetical situations or descriptions that people think are jokes.
The real joke, though, is when I internally clip off the “if” part in my mind, then I’m laughing at the same things they are laughing at. Except I’m not.
Some peeps on the train were talking about white people being immune and getting the cops to kill black people. They thought I was pretty ignorant on all this, not part of the “thing”. I could have talked about abortion wiping out their race, of course, and then watch as their funny laughing faces fall off. Or I could talk about white boys getting away with murder, like Ted Kennedy the Senator and Robert KKK Byrd. They think I’m on their side.
I’m actually making fun of their side. Since they don’t actually know that KKK Byrd and Ted Kennedy are on their side. That’s funny to me. Gets em every time. And Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat they tell me. All the time.
Now if I wanted to fight them, I’d go out of my way to intentionally pick on their emotional weaknesses and instigate an outbreak.
Puppets are weak to manipulation like that.
While our President meets ALL of the Muslim requirements for being a Muslim; he does not meet all of the secular requirements for being a Muslim. So, while his cultural understanding of Islam is far beyond that of most pundits and Democrats; even he can’t begin to ‘fix’ the Muslim Middle East. It’s a scrum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/world/middleeast/us-pins-hope-on-syrian-rebels-with-loyalties-all-over-the-map.html?ref=world
At this time the two most important Muslim nations in the nexus are Iran and Turkey, with Turkey as #1.
Erdogan has (in concert with Barry and Hillary) ripped up the Sykes-Picot Treaty. That Turkey, of all nations would want to see the end of that treaty — well it’s some co-incidence.
At this very time he appears to be able to pull the strings of ISIS. He wants ISIS to purge Kurdish Syria. And they are doing so.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/26/us-syria-crisis-nusra-insight-idUSKCN0HL11720140926
This particular campaign element is actually a distraction for al Baghdadi. His primary focus has been, must continue to be, to eliminate al Nusrah. He is well on his way.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/26/us-syria-crisis-nusra-insight-idUSKCN0HL11720140926
The Muslim Middle East is engaged in the early stages of a generational civil war – the Islamic version of the Thirty-Years War.
And like Zardoz, Putin and Soetoro are making sure that ALL of the unsavory combatants are getting plenty of weapons.
ZeroHedge is posting up that Alibaba is the source of the MOBILE refineries… which are NOT modular refineries at all.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-27/isis-using-alibaba-buy-mobile-refineries-turkey
Which brings us around to the original post: the US Government can no longer be trusted to tell the citizenry anything close to the truth.
In many instances, it seems to be because the maladministration is using youngsters at the lectern.
But in all cases, it’s because the spew has to maintain the narrative.
Winston Smith is scripting the telepromters of the US Government.
I seriously doubt Hussein has gotten weatherbeaten by the duties of office. It is really laughable to so propose. I do not look at him nor listen to him because he is such a revolting and poisonous creature. He just played his 198th round of golf as POTUS.
If he does in fact look poorly, perhaps we are fortunate enough for him to have a serious physical malady. I devoutly wish him a long time of suffering.
jon baker–
For a more realistic and complete view of the history of Islam and what is Muslim’s ancient and continuing Jihad against all unbelievers, I suggest reading works like Andrew G. Bostom, M.D.’s excellent compilation–taken mostly from Muslim sources–titled, “The Legacy of Jihad,” Paul Fregosi’s ”Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st centuries,” Giles Milton’s book on Europeans who were captured and enslaved by Islam and Muslims titled, “White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam’s One Million White Slaves,” any of the popular books on Muhammad and Islam by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or’s more academic books about what really happened to the “dhimmis,” the “unbelievers”—the Christians and Jews who were conquered and ruled by Islam and Muslims, Yale professor Mary Habeck’s small book on Muslim Jihadist ideology, “Knowing the Enemy,” and Andrew McCarthy’s recent book, “The Grand Jihad.”
To find very well organized, faithfully translated, written in newspaper level English and thus very understandable, reasonably priced paperback copies of the three fundamental texts of Islam–the Quran, and the two other texts that make the Qur’an much more comprehensible, the major Hadiths (the Words and Deeds of the Prophet and his Companions), and the Sira (the earliest biography of Muhammad)–take a look at “The Primary Doctrine” books offered by the Center for the Study of Political Islam (http://www.cspipublishing.com/Primary_Doctrine_Books.htm).
Bostom’s very well done book and his included maps and lists, in particular, are an incredible eye opener, as you discover the various cities, countries, islands, and regions, the wide geographic scope and the more than a thousand years of Muslim aggression, raids, and occupations, the enormous percentage (half or more) of the then known world that, at various times and in various eras, Islam and Muslims attacked, conquered, plundered, and/or ruled, and the cost in “unbeliever” lives for those conquests.
Perhaps most astonishing, though, is the very great likelihood that whether you graduated high school, college, or grad school or not, it is very likely, indeed, that you have never been taught, read, or even heard about virtually any of this material before.
Much of Islam’s slave empire and history has been erased. I benefited from some scholars with their (unacademic) research of youtube timeline videos and textual analysis of post Roman and Byzantine history along with some African slave trade information.
The Africans were used to capturing and selling slaves. Some of the reasons was Rome and Greeks liked slaves, but the other reason was because Islamic Jihad created a lot of demand for slaves, from the money they looted from conquered civilizations. Persia was a big deal, it had a huge amount of wealth from the Zoroastrian culture. All of it ended up in the hands of Arabs and their camel caravans.
Can I borrow what you said in your post of Autism and belief: Part I:
It’s sad. Sad that so many people can be fooled–including scientists, despite the fact that it’s been known for many years
In same talk’n Iraq war was sold on same basis when all of you believed about WMD run to war and after years nothing found on the ground, funnier ISIS had its hand on it again?
Despite US and other 35 allies troops and boots on the ground for the last 11 years did find thing that of interest?
Now with ISIS we heard few hundreds, then 1000-2000 Bas* with 4×4 trucks and RPG, other weapon in a week or two now the number jumped to military over Kuwait military personal in service now, those Bs* taken two state and run wild then get hand on oil files and refineries (so funny price of oil in the market kept degreasing ).
So now Khorasan again the dreams starting beating with shadow enemy come from nowhere that US and its allies right now 30 country facing this Bas* not the sixth power or WMD or tyrant like Saddam and a rough state like Iraq Saddam?
So again Sad that so many people can be fooled…….
Steve’s boys were responsible for the WMD focus, working with the Bush administration. Now Steve’s side is responsible for ISIL and the Iraq abandonment strategy, and are attempting to fixate blame on somebody else. As usual.
Steve–Actually, if you’d been paying close attention, you would have noted that in reports that occasionally appeared here and there in the MSM it was noted–in a very low key way, and this information was usually buried in stories on some other subject–that in the time they were in Iraq U.S. troops were stumbling across quite a number of things like artillery shells and rockets that were or had been filled with various nasty chemical weapons, and the materials to make and store various types of WMDs.
Moreover, if there were no WMDS in Iraq, how is it that ISIS/ISIL is now reported to have captured and used some WMDs against its opponents.
Steve–P.S. I also note that, prior to our invasion of Iraq, virtually every head of state, head of intelligence, and major military leader in the West, including Hillary Clinton, plus the UN was on record as strongly affirming their belief that were WMDs in Iraq.
Were they all completely fooled, all wrong?
The single biggest threat to America and even World Peace today is not ISIS, AQ, Korason, Hamas, Hezzbollah, The Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Russia or China.
It is Barack Hussein Obama – a Manchurian President of the United States – and the entire liberal establishment and voters who support him.
That’s a lot of people, but this idea that we should be afraid of the ISIS’s of the world is ridiculous, counter-productive and will be self-fulfilling if we don’t see the main problem
At the best Obama and his horrible ilk are Neville Chamberlain. In that case, bad news for him is good news for us.
The worse it gets for Obama, the better chances we have. Churchill knew. Roosevelt knew. We needed a Pearl Harbor. I fear America is not getting out of this without another one. And as awful as that will be it will also be the day we turn it around.
In the meantime, the bomb called Obama will continue its devastation nearly unchecked.
Steve,
I believe there were probably WMD some of which probably ended up in Syria. Put that is immaterial at this point. Bush believed his intelligence and acted on it.
The bigger issue than WMD is whether Bush blundered by going into Iraq. In my opinion yes. For years the left has criticized US foreign policy because we supported unfree regimes. In Iraq Bush saw the opportunity to give freedom a chance.
11 years ago there was still an open question whether Muslims would leap at the opportunity to form free democratic societies. Bush decided the answer was yes and did everything he could to provide the Iraqis that opportunity. At the time things looked hopeful, we all remember the pictures of Iraqis with blue fingers showing that they had voted. How quaint those pictures look now.
Obama was handed an Iraq which was stable and as democratic as possible for a Muslim country. All Obama had to do was to maintain enough troops in Iraq to prevent the type of collapse which Obama has facilitated. Obama failed.
While Bush was always blinkered when it came to the true nature of Islam, he never sided with our enemies against us. He was never supportive of jihadi groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who have representatives in high places in the Obama administration. This is the difference between Bush and Obama. Bush made mistakes while he tried to protect our civilization. Obama makes few mistakes as he fundamentally transforms the USA into a sharia compliant society.
Per Don Carlos, I also don’t believe in Obama’s haggardness. Image is managed for the POTUS to the nth degree. If he looks worn-out, it’s because that’s the image they want to project.
***************************************
Andrew McCarthy is one of my favorite writers, for his insight and honesty.
***************************************
I think I said it before, but based on his past behavior, I expect that Obama’s actions vs. ISIS will be minimalist. His boasts will be maximalist, and will be exposed as fraud about a year from now.
Presidents are actors…
Who can forget Jimmy Carter’s ‘heavy’ briefcase bit?
Who can forget Jimmy Carter’s rolled up sleeves?
Even Barry’s hair color is a prop.
This is NOT a president that loses his beauty sleep.
&&&
Against that you’ve got the nature super-aging that all Gonnabee’s suffer.
Barry is probably back to smoking like a chimney.
&&&
The ONE thing that would age Barry is being caught in the nexus of a REAL decision.
He’s spent his entire life ducking such.
Right now he’s got to be getting crossfire from every Muslim faction; something that his Cairo speech was supposed to prevent.
This is what happens when the faculty lounge convo begets concrete policy.
Soros, VJ, and others are pulling the strings that animate bho. “Between the idea and the reality, between the motion and the act, falls the shadow.” – T.S. Eliot Bho is a hollow man. I am convinced he is a mere puppet.
blert:
I address the general question of presidents aging in office here.
Steve, Wolla Dalbo, Illuminati,
It’s easy to understand the ‘why’ of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
There’s no mystery, no need for guessing. Simply read the primary sources: Congressional statutes, Security Council resolutions, Presidents’ statements, and UN findings.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was right on the law and justified on the policy, yet distorted in the politics, despite that primary sources easily accessed on-line provide a straightforward explanation for OIF. Basic essentials for understanding OIF in the proper context include the 1990-2002 UNSC resolutions for Iraq (at minimum, see UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441), Public Law 107-243 (the 2002 Congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq), Public Law 105-235 (“Iraqi Breach of International Obligations”, 14AUG98), President Clinton’s Dec 1998 announcement of Operation Desert Fox (the penultimate military enforcement step that set the baseline precedent for OIF), President Bush’s Sept 2002 remarks to the United Nations General Assembly and 2003 State of the Union, the April 2002 UN Commission on Human Rights situation report on Iraq (pages 78-82), and the March 2003 UNMOVIC Cluster Document that triggered Bush’s final decision for OIF. While not relevant to the decision for OIF, the Iraq Survey Group’s post-war Duelfer Report adds valuable insight.
There are more primary sources if you want, but the basics will give you the answer. Review those primary sources for OIF, and you’ll know ‘Why Iraq?’. Like I said, the explanation is straightforward.
My aging has always leapt forward consequent to some health trauma.
The stressor does the deed.
In the case of our President, having barking Muslims at cross-purposes, in a serious matter of policy, figures to be the single most stressful event of his life.
Because he can’t off load it onto staffers. I’d bet real money that the entire DC analysis apparat is in a twist.
He actually has no-one to turn to on this issue.
It’s his own team that’s split, too.
At all times prior, I’d bet that some sort of Progressive consensus was ready to hand.
Something like this dynamic is by far the best explanation for his policy flip-flops. He’s actually trying to say yes to everybody.
Since there is absolutely no deep strategy in his White House, he’s truly off his road, flailing about.
One should expect ever more erratic behavior from here on.
Lest we forget, his pal Holder is in the cross-hairs. They really should be on him, personally. Fast and Furious was BARRY’S idea — from the very first. It’s reasonable that David ‘X’ and the other staffers left miles of footprints leading straight back to the Oval Office.
(David ‘X’ made a speech at the lectern moments after the confab with the President. I just can’t remember his last name. It’s out there on YouTube the last I looked. The link is trapped on my old HDD.)
“Syrian rebels have expressed anger at the coalition airstrikes, both because they have targeted the Nusra Front — which they see as an ally — and because they are not hitting pro-government forces…” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/al-qaeda-affiliate-in-syria-vows-revenge-for-u-s-led-airstrikes/
From the perspective of anti-Assad friendlies, the messaging about our motives and objectives in Syria has ranged from confusing to nonexistent. We appear to be propping up two Shiite regimes in Iraq and Syria, while nevertheless asking Assad to please step down. The Sunni jihadists, on the other hand, are at least clear and forthright about what they are up to, which (in addition to sex slavery and a sadist’s paradise) is another reason for their recruiting success.
A Western epiphany may come when we realize that the more we affirm our values and make them clear, the more we might look like modern day crusaders – exactly what the enemy is calling us. State Department Arabists would rather we stay in an ideological fetal position than stand up for who we are and what we believe because that might offend delicate Muslim sensibilities. So onward we tiptoe with massive firepower selectively deployed for unclear reasons.
Confusion on the home front also, as the FBI is saying the motive of the Moore, Oklahoma beheader is as yet unknown.
But of course. For the sake of humanity we dare not speak the truth about such things.
One cannot help but wonder if anyone in government is tracking the results of these deceptions to project what they are leading to. I’m guessing the outcome is fairly well known, and it has been decided that the hellworld being brought about is far enough in the future to be someone else’s problem. As Obama said on 60 Minutes, “That’s how we roll.”
Eric,
Thanks for continuing to point out the many reasons for Bush’s actions. Simply stated, Iraq failed to live up to its ceasefire agreement, played to UN inspectors for fools, and was in the process (by buying Un, French, and Russian support with oil for food money) of getting us out of Iraq by blaming us for starving children. With a takedown of AQ, Saddam would have stood out as the strong man in the Muslim world. All those scapegoat-seeking losers now flocking to IS would have jumped onto Saddam’s bandwagon (with a little financial incentive).
Eric,
It appears that we are back to the old question of causation. There is no question that George Bush acted legally when he invaded Iraq. American and European intelligence confirmed that Saddam had WMD. The issue is whether those facts compelled Bush to make the decision to invade or whether he still had differing options regarding how to handle Saddam.
One of Bush’s principle advisers was Karen Hughes. From interviews at the time it appeared that she was as blinkered as Bush when it came to the nature of Muslims and Islam. I remember an interview in which Ms. Hughes stated with conviction that there is no real difference between Muslims and everyone else, that everyone craves freedom if given the chance. Apparently neither of them understood how profoundly culture shapes individuals. Evidently neither of them understood that Islam means “submission” or that Muslims consider themselves slaves of Allah or that everything in life is inshallah (Allah willing) without any possibility of free human agency. They didn’t understand that a large percentage of Muslims hate democratic government because they believe that Allah is the only law giver and that Allah’s will in encoded in Sharia law.
From speeches that Bush made at the time he was deciding to invade Iraq it was apparent that his fundamental misunderstanding about Islamic society was a major factor which influenced his final decision to invade.
expat,
My go-to reference for the Oil for Food scandal is the Council on Foreign Relations report:
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-oil-food-scandal/p7631
Plus excerpts from the Iraq Survey Group Duelfer Report (the primary source for secondary and tertiary sources that claim Saddam was innocent):
The myth that OIF was based on a lie – propagated by people like Steve and upheld by people like Wolla Dalbo who accept the false premise in response – relies on shifting the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance with the UNSC resolutions to the US proving Iraq possessed WMD.
In fact, the US as the chief enforcer of the UNSC resolutions held no burden of proof in the Iraq enforcement. Iraq as the probationary party held the entire burden to prove Iraq was compliant and disarmed. The question of “Where is Iraq’s WMD?” was never for the US and UN to answer; it was always one of the questions Saddam was required to answer to the mandated standard in order to pass the compliance test.
US policy, US statute, and UNSC resolution were clear that the Gulf War ceasefire was enforced upon Iraq’s compliance with the mandated standard of these UNSC resolutions:
http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html
President Clinton announcing Operation Desert Fox, Dec 1998:
President Bush to the UN General Assembly, Sept 2002:
Public Law 102-1 (1991):
UNSCR 678 (1990):
Public Law 105-235 (1998):
Public Law 107-243 (2002):
UNSCR 1441 (2002):
Among the many UNSC resolutions for Iraq, the foundational mandates of the Gulf War ceasefire were UNSCRs 687 and 688 (both 1991). Iraq was in breach of both.
Pursuant UNSCR 687, UNMOVIC Cluster Document (06MAR03):
Pursuant UNSCR 688, UN Commission on Human Rights report, “Situation of human rights in Iraq” (April 2003):
The UNMOVIC Cluster Document was Saddam’s final answer to “Where is Iraq’s WMD?” and the main trigger for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Fix: “… all-pervasive repression and oppression … “
Illuminati: “There is no question that George Bush acted legally when he invaded Iraq. American and European intelligence confirmed that Saddam had WMD.”
That’s just the essential point many people, including you and Wolla Dalbo, have missed: neither intel nor demonstration of Iraqi possession was a ‘legal’ element of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement.
Had Bush presented no intelligence on Iraq’s weapons, the compliance-based enforcement procedure would have been the same because Saddam was guilty until he proved to the mandated standard that Iraq was compliant and disarmed. Iraq’s guilt was established as fact from the outset of the Gulf War ceasefire and presumed in the enforcement of the UNSC resolutions. The basic presumption of the disarmament process was anywhere Iraq provided deficient account of its weapons imputed possession. In fact, Clinton didn’t cite the intelligence at all in his GW ceasefire enforcement that peaked with Operation Desert Fox. Clinton cited only Iraq’s noncompliance as the basis for classifying Saddam as a “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere”.
Illuminati: “The issue is whether those facts compelled Bush to make the decision to invade or whether he still had differing options regarding how to handle Saddam.”
We had only 3 options for the Saddam problem by the close of the Clinton administration:
A. Kick the can on the toxic and crumbling ‘containment’ status quo, and hope.
B. Free a noncompliant Saddam, unreconstructed.
C. Resolution by giving Saddam a final chance to comply under a credible threat of regime change.
According to the Duelfer Report, option A was a fast-approaching dead end because the ‘containment’ status quo was on the verge of imminent defeat by Saddam.
Option B or freeing a noncompliant Saddam, unreconstructed, on top of abrogating the defining international law enforcement of the post-Cold War, most likely would have resulted in, as President Clinton had warned in 1998, “a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them”.
Alternatively, if the US had backed down when Saddam failed the compliance test, and thereby discredited the threat of regime change, the failure to follow through would have restricted our choices to the dead ends and greater threat promised by option A and option B.
In addition to the dangers of a victorious Saddam, the failure of international law enforcement with Saddam would have severely undermined, if not altogether killed, the effectiveness of international law enforcement over rogue actors and WMD proscription generally.
Basically, Bush’s choices were to free a triumphant noncompliant, unreconstructed Saddam – either by omission (option A) or commission (option B, decline to enforce Option C) – who at minimum had retained his ambitions, was in demonstrable breach, and was intent on rearming WMD, or enforce the “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) for Saddam to comply with the GW ceasefire under credible threat of regime change.
Once we responded to the UNMOVIC Cluster Document findings by following through with regime change, peace operations were automatic. As Paul Wolfowitz said (WSJ, May 2011):
Even setting aside the UN’s clear orientation on the issue and our default orientation as leader of the free world, peace operations following a regime change were “expected” in the US statute and policy that Bush carried forward from Clinton.
President Clinton on signing Public Law 105-338, the Iraq Liberation Act (1998):
President Clinton announcing Operation Desert Fox (1998):
President Bush, October 7, 2002:
Public Law 105-338 (1998):
Public Law 107-243 (2002):
Add:
Illuminati: “It appears that we are back to the old question of causation.”
The primary cause in the Gulf War ceasefire was always achieving Iraq’s compliance with the UN mandates. As the lesser enforcement measures were exhausted against Saddam’s persistent subversion of the disarmament process and open violation of non-weapons mandates, President Clinton concluded regime change was the only realistic way to bring Iraq into compliance.
Plus, by 2002, Saddam had de facto neutralized the sanctions and, after ODF, set domestic Iraq policy nullifying the Gulf War ceasefire and UNSC resolutions, and determined another bombing campaign like ODF could be absorbed. We had nothing else with which to compel Saddam. According to Hans Blix (UNMOVIC) and confirmed by the Duelfer Report, the credible threat of regime change was necessary to compel Saddam to cooperate even to a deficient level.
President Bush’s primary intent was not to invade Iraq. Rather, Bush’s motive was to resolve the Saddam problem expeditiously and conclusively with Iraq’s compliance.
How do we know this?
The record shows that, despite Clinton declaring “Iraq has abused its final chance” with Operation Desert Fox, Bush first gave Saddam the opportunity to prevent OIF and stay in power by proving compliance with all of Iraq’s ceasefire obligations, weapons and non-weapons related. The centerpiece of the opportunity that Bush gave to Saddam to switch off the threat of regime change was the final chance to comply with Iraq’s weapons obligations via UNMOVIC.
Bush gave Saddam a 2nd “final chance” to come clean. If Saddam had grabbed that lifeline from Bush and complied in 2002-2003, we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.
Eric, you have done an excellent job countering the Democrats false arguments against Bush. Thank-you. The fact that Bush was a decent law abiding human being does not mean that invading Iraq was a good choice.
For the discussion, let’s assume that Bush had only the three options which you have presented.
“A. Kick the can on the toxic and crumbling ‘containment’ status quo, and hope.
B. Free a noncompliant Saddam, unreconstructed.
C. Resolution by giving Saddam a final chance to comply under a credible threat of regime change.”
Because he had so many cans needing to be kicked, Bush could only handle a limited number of them at a time. There were other cans for which the case to destroy them was equally compelling. For example, the Iran can was put off while the Saddam can was dealt with. When he chose to use our resources to eliminate the Saddam can he freed the Iranian can from any concerns they had about Saddam or about an American invasion. The result has been that the Mullahs have been greatly strengthened. They are now fearless demonstrating the confidence and the intransigence of winners. Another possibility was that we could have completed the assignment in Afghanistan first before we resolved the issue with any other cans.
Anyway, keep up the good work. I intend to save your posts since they have so much good information.
Illuminati: “Another possibility was that we could have completed the assignment in Afghanistan first before we resolved the issue with any other cans.”
By Fall 2002, we had cleared al Qaeda and the Taliban. Completing the post-war, nation-building ‘assignment’ in Afghanistan was always going to take years – see post-WW2 Europe and Asia where many thousands of US troops are still based today. On a smaller scale in a more recent example of regime change, US troops are still rotating into the Kosovo NATO mission.
So, a one-can-at-a-time tack, one, is not how we do the work, and two, assumes the failing ‘containment’ of the Saddam problem was stable and would be that way for years, even decades.
However, the ISG Duelfer Report indicates the ‘containment’ of Saddam was failing, even on the verge of imminent failure in 2001-2002.
With the rise of al Qaeda, Clinton had already set the state-WMD-to-terrorist danger as a priority threat, and that threat consideration had risen due to 9/11. Just considering that narrow threat consideration, the ISG found this hidden in Iraq:
Each of those violations by itself justified OIF.
The IIS was, of course, Saddam’s regime arm notorious for working with terrorists and carrying out Saddam’s in-house black ops. In fact, Iraq’s chemical weapons program was started in the IIS.
The ISG report states, “Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research or production …”.
But the ISG report goes on to say, “… however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF. Interviews with key IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS’ activities in this area.”
With the likes of IIS, of which Saddam had “direct command”, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when there is evidence of “sanitized” sites and tight-lipped officials.
As President Bush said in the 2003 State of the Union:
The ISG found Saddam was evidently capable of secretly producing weapon for covert precision attacks, whether in league with terrorists like al Qaeda or by his own means.
Pre-war, the much-criticized Western intel agencies did not know about the IIS labs. It’s conceivable that had Bush allowed Blix to relax the standard of compliance for Iraq, UNMOVIC could have certified Iraq while the very Iraqi capability that concerned us the most after 9/11 passed through unchecked.
Maybe Saddam, despite his record and indications to the contrary, actually had no ill intentions with his covert IIS capability. Or maybe our relationship was what it looked like: we were actively enemies with a known state-sponsor of terrorism with an evolving relationship with al Qaeda and, anyway, whose unconventional means were not limited to al Qaeda.
The option of kicking the can on Iraq boils down to whether you trust Saddam. The President did not trust Saddam.
Illuminati: “For example, the Iran can was put off while the Saddam can was dealt with.”
Again, the option of dealing with Iran first assumes the Saddam problem was stable.
Some of the loudest opposition to OIF is from the IR realist school that believes Saddam should have been kept in power in order to check Iran. I think they’re stuck in 1980, with the Shah only just replaced by the Ayatollah, and Baathist Iraq, led by then-new President Saddam Hussein, thought to be the lesser of 2 evils.
The faulty premise of IR realists is Saddam could be trusted, yet Saddam acting out of control, destabilizing, and against US interests is the reason for the US intervention with Iraq in the first place.
We tried to allow Saddam to stay in power as a check on Iran. But we needed to address the dangerous behavior of Saddam’s regime. Our two conflicting objectives with Saddam proved to be an impossible balancing act.
The IR-realist balancing act was the guiding principle of our cautious, comparatively favorable view of Iraq of the two combatants in the Iran-Iraq War. It was also the guiding principle of our conflicted Gulf War strategy in 1991 with which we reacted to Saddam’s realized threat when Iraq invaded Kuwait but then stopped short of the logical and normal conclusion of regime change in order to retain Saddam as a check on Iran. We only suspended the Gulf War with a strict set of weapons and non-weapons mandates that would assure Saddam could be trusted with the peace.
We wanted Saddam’s regime to check Iran. But we needed Saddam to rehabilitate and stop his destabilization and threat to the region. The Gulf War ceasefire was an IR-realist balancing act intended to retain the former and achieve the latter with a compliance and disarmament process meant to rehabilitate Saddam.
The problem is Saddam refused to comply, disarm, and rehabilitate. If anything, Saddam’s behavior and judgement became worse during his defiance of the ceasefire.
At the point of Operation Desert Fox, the Gulf War ceasefire had degenerated from the initially planned rapid compliance and disarmament process into an indefinitely stalemated, toxic and broken ‘containment’. By the time President Clinton made regime change for Iraq a legal mandate in 1998, the risk/reward, cost/benefit calculation of allowing Saddam to stay in power to check Iran had tipped over due to Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere”.
IR liberals (aka neocons) understand that by the time of the Bush administration (either one works), the Iran-Iraq conflict was a cause of the region’s problems, not a stabilizer. More importantly, given our thoroughly toxic relationship with Iraq by the end of the Clinton administration, our total distrust of Saddam, and his track record, I’d like to hear the IR realists explain in detail just how they would have negotiated a reliable settlement with a noncompliant Saddam. They’re effectively proposing Hitler should have been propped up in order to serve as a regional counter to the Soviet Union. Hitler + USSR = the worst of World War 2, not peace in our time. The IR realist belief that after 9/11 we should have trusted and empowered a noncompliant Saddam to deal with Iran on our behalf is madness.
Illuminati: “Eric, you have done an excellent job countering the Democrats false arguments against Bush. Thank-you.”
The malfeasance of Democrats in the politics of the Iraq mission is most egregious with Democrats who supported the Iraq enforcement under Clinton but opposed it under Bush despite that Bush faithfully carried forward Clinton’s Iraq policy.
For example, see House Resolution 322 (1997):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1997-12-15/html/CREC-1997-12-15-pt1-PgE2414-2.htm
HR322 squarely accords with Operation Iraqi Freedom and the majority of the bill’s sponsorship was Democrat:
Lantos (D, MD)
Gilman (R, NY)
Goss (R, FL)
Yates (D, IL)
Hunter (R, CA)
Skelton (D, MO)
Sisisky (D, VA)
Frank (D, MA)
Ackerman (D, NY)
Spratt (D, SC)
Horn (R, CA)
King (R, NY)
Wexler (D, FL)
Rothman (D, NJ)
Sherman (D, CA)
Faleomavaega (D, American Samoa)
Menendez (D, NJ)
Foley (R, FL)
Waxman (D, CA)
Eric said:
Most of what you posted is fact based. Close to the last you posted the following opinion:
“I’d like to hear the IR realists explain in detail just how they would have negotiated a reliable settlement with a noncompliant Saddam. They’re effectively proposing Hitler should have been propped up in order to serve as a regional counter to the Soviet Union”
There is a major difference between Saddam and Hitler since Hitler was the ruler of a first world country -probably the strongest nation in Europe-with a first class industrial base with World class research scientists while Saddam ruled over a third world country with little industry, which depended on oil exports to stay afloat, and which had third world class research scientists.
Unfortunately with Muslim aggressors we have been playing a game of catch and release. This costs the West lives and resources but does not change the root causes for the aggression in the first place.
As for Afghanistan, hindsight is always best. In retrospect we should have worked more to change their culture. Educating girls was a good start but we could have done more. We could have pushed for the freedoms which make a true democracy work such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. From that perspective our work in Afghanistan was only beginning. To change the society would have taken a much stronger occupying force who were willing to ruthlessly suppress any attempts to reinstate traditional sharia law. Allowing the constitutional convention to claim that Islam is the basis of the society meant we were accomplishing nothing because Islam was the reason for the terrorist attacks in the first place.
Illuminati,
Iran isn’t the USSR, either, but Iraq:Iran::Nazi Germany:USSR works well enough for my point.
Perhaps I should modify the scenario to one where in WW2, we eyed the USSR as warily as Iran, and raced ahead of the Russians to Berlin to prop up Hitler to be ‘our bastard’ to counter the Soviets moving ahead.
The point is that Hitler and his regime in WW2 red-flagged like Saddam and his regime in the Gulf War.
Saddam was warned over his actions in the Iran-Iraq War, yet followed them by brutalizing Kuwait, defying international demands to stop, and even attempting to expand the conflict. Saddam acted as though proscriptive international law and custom was a guide for what to do, rather than what not to do as a national leader.
Dealing cautiously with unsavory competitors that are rational actors is normal for the US and shaped the initial American approach to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War. However, Saddam proved to be an aggressive irrational actor with dangerously poor judgement.
With the Gulf War ceasefire, we gave Saddam a a road map to clear the red flag so he could, potentially, be ‘our bastard’. He refused.
“Saddam ruled over a third world country with little industry, which depended on oil exports to stay afloat, and which had third world class research scientists.” (which isn’t an entirely fair characterization) doesn’t make Saddam less dangerous. It makes him more hungry, maybe even desperate, the kind of hungry that made him gamble on attacking Iran, then taking Kuwait and biting harder like a starving dog even when we came with a stick to make him let go.
What was more worrisome was Saddam’s historic ambition, ego, hunger, and poor judgement combined with the sub-par record of Iraq’s conventional military against successively Israel, Iran, and the US. Add to Iraq’s internal issues, and the mix points the way to more brutal centralized control, more WMD, and unconventional, asymmetric warfare as offset. That’s not a stable formula for Saddam looking in or out of Iraq.
The Duelfer Report describes Saddam growing increasingly irrational in his thinking even as he consolidated power, reduced checks and balances within his own ruling apparatus, abused his nation’s people, and reconstituted his WMD capabilities.
Saddam was convinced Iraq needed WMD in order to realize his ambitions and counter Iran as well as his other enemies (eg, us). Iran’s WMD development is bad enough by itself. An irrational Saddam with dangerously poor judgement spurring an urgent Iran-Iraq WMD arms race was neither the way for the US to counter Iran nor a formula for regional stability.
Eric,
You didn’t comment on my point about us catching Muslim countries and letting them go again. If one takes your analogy that Saddam was equivalent to Nazi Germany, it is as if we defeated Hitler but left the Nazi ideology intact only in Afghanistan it was Islam which motivated the aggression and it was Islam that we went out of our way to preserve without interference.
Because Bush was blinkered about the true nature of Islam, he went out of his way to assure the Afghanistanis that we in no way blamed their religion for the crimes they committed in the name of Allah and that we have deep respect for Islam as one of the great World religions. The analogy to that response would be if FDR had told the Germans that he honored the Nazi ideology and didn’t blame the Nazi ideology for the crimes committed by Hitler in the name of the Nazi regime.
Because the Baathists were secular and because Iraq had an ancient Christian population which had lived among the Muslims for over a thousand years, our task in nation building was less daunting in Iraq. Unfortunately, we failed there also.
Bush NEVER recovered from his “religion of peace” mantra.
He also thought he could see normality in Putin’s eyes.
These were world scale gaffs.
Barry has compounded away all of the errors of Bush II, Clinton and Bush I.
It was transparent as far back as 1991 that Bush I stopped too soon. I said so before the echo died.
The psychology of the moment was such that Saddam was in suicidal despair. If the push had continued, his own Sunni officers would offed him. THEN we could’ve settled.
That Bush I didn’t see that SADDAM was the issue is remarkable. Colin Powell strikes!
Everything afterward compounded away from Bush I’s epic error. (throw in Powell)
&&&
That in all this time the DC brains did not come to grips with Islam — from Jimmy to 2000 — is, in retrospect, damnation of the whole lot.
In the USSR, errors of that magnitude requires a change in domicile: Siberia.
Bush should’ve absolutely PURGED the State Department and the CIA and the FBI.
We suffer still because no institutional punishment was administered.
&&&
Failure to punish flagrant wrongdoings is no favor to those spared.
My brother was caught stealing from my youthful coin collection. He suffered scarcely a scolding.
The result has been a totally ruined life. He has no moral compass and is shiftless in the extreme. No matter how great the transgression — he got up to felonies — he was bailed out.
So, he’s never grown up. He’s simply ruined.
&&&
What’s true at the individual level scales up. You end up with wayward arrogant institutional cultures. I give you the Atlanta school system.
So we have a nation still led by the same cohort that’s missed essentially everything of note.
I dread a return of Mitt Romney because he is a manager not a leader.
We need someone with their eye on the far horizon to drag this nation out of its Islamist-Leftist morass.
The only fellow that seems to have a whiff of leadership is Cruz.
The rest of the field is entirely composed of managers.
There is a huge difference — which was spelled out at the Harvard Business Review over thirty-five years ago. It’s such a vital topic that HBR has re-hashed the original to death. You can’t even find it in the Google gush.
http://www.lesaffaires.com/uploads/references/743_managers-leaders-different_Zaleznik.pdf
Correction. It was reprinted in the early 90’s a generation after it hit print.
For regular neo neocon readers — bookmark this pdf.
It’s one of the most influential articles to ever hit print.
It will inform you as to what to look for in politicians — and executives, more generally.
Some situations REQUIRE a manager.
Right now, America requires a leader. Mitt is a manager all the way through. Read the article and you’ll understand the distinction.
Illuminati,
I have a better understanding of the ‘why’ of the regime change – the war part.
As far as the peace part, building the peace is a longer, generational process. The reasonable standard isn’t mini-me America, but rather enough input of our hybrid influence to be compatible with our world order.
So, is it economy? Culture? Tribe? Religion and sect? History and egacy? All of the above? Or is the bottom-line issue simply – as one of my favorite college professors repeated as mantra – violence works?
I go with the Maslow’s Hierarchy model. Security and stability and dominant control are the necessary foundation. Set that foundation and the rest is a matter of time and pressure (cue Shawshank Redemption). Lack that foundation, and the rest doesn’t work, no matter how many billions you pour into the project.
egacylegacyblert: “That Bush I didn’t see that SADDAM was the issue is remarkable.”
It’s worse than you think. President HW Bush did see that Saddam was the issue, but he chose to kick the can anyway. The stringency of the Gulf War ceasefire was informed by the understanding that Saddam was the issue.
See President HW Bush’s statements in Remarks on Assistance for Iraqi Refugees and a News Conference 1991-04-16:
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=2882&year=1991&month=4
Depending on political persuasian, most folks tend to blame either Clinton or Bush for the compounding cost of the Saddam problem and give HW Bush a pass.
First, Saddam of course is to blame for the Saddam problem. But second, HW Bush’s choice in 1991 to kick the can on Saddam set the course with Iraq for Clinton and Bush. Of course we can criticize Clinton and Bush, but such criticism should always be mitigated by the understanding that they were stuck on HW Bush’s course with Iraq. In 1990-1991, HW Bush was in position to do a hard job the best it could be done in the long view, but he screwed it up.
In my opinion, the moment that HW Bush encouraged an uprising by the Iraqi people but then ordered the US forces who were still on the ground in Iraq to stand down while Saddam put it down was the moment that we lost hold of the opportunity to lead the post-Cold War world to Pax Americana.
Eric…
Agreed ENTIRELY.
I saw it that way at that time.
I was crying.
blert,
You said, “Everything afterward compounded away from Bush I’s epic error.”
While reading the transcript of the April 1991 HW Bush press conference that I linked upthread, I became angry.
I didn’t become angry when I read Clinton’s stuff on Iraq. But knowing what’s happened, finding out that all the conditions for what’s happened were known by HW Bush at the beginning, and then reading HW Bush’s approach to them – his taking credit for the Gulf War but petulantly denying his errors in the aftermath and kicking the can – I became angry.
It comes through clearly in the contemporary questions and remarks that Bush was in a reasonable position to make different choices at the outset. The right leadership choices regarding Iraq in 1991 were known at the time. But the right choices were harder choices, so HW Bush chose to kick the can.
* It comes through clearly in the contemporary questions and remarks that HW Bush was in a reasonable position to make different choices at the outset.
Part of the reason the Iraqis even paid attention to Bush II was because they thought it was the son fixing the father’s mistake.
Unfortunately they forgot that America is a democracy now, and thus essentially unreliable and weak.
My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find almost all of your post’s to be exactly what I’m looking for. Does one offer guest writers to write content for you? I wouldn’t mind composing a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write regarding here. Again, awesome site!