Now, here’s a response to the Iraq War question
From Liz Cheney:
When will the media ask @BarackObama & @HillaryClinton key question for 2016- Knowing what we know now, would you still have abandoned Iraq?
Indeed.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Exactly.
But even more important is when will the Republican candidates stop taking the bait from the MSM/Democrats on this issue? So far, they’ve fallen completely into the trap.
Cheney’s answer was great for an interview putdown. I also like Bruce Thornton’s latest piece at Frontpage on the topic of Iraq. Of course, His piece would require a thinking person to deal with the issues he brings up. That’s too much to expect of the lefties.
Perfect.
Liz for DefSec.
Knowing what they know now, would they still have abandoned Vietnam?
Yes, they would have, they wanted the money to buy more votes. And for Iraq, they didn’t want an operation killing a tyrant to spread too much back at home. It would give people the wrong ideas concerning Detroit and Baltimore.
The elite of the left no know nothing beyond their desire to accrue power over the peasants and immense personal wealth. Questions are for the little people who are expendable. They are all Fidel wannabes.
The problem with US going to Iraq whatever said at the time was to get Regime changed in first place.
But the topcoats and lier were surrounding US and Policy makers at the time from Ahmad Jalabi to all those Crookes who you are well knew them what they done the rush directly to Iran and abandoned us>
its not democracy in Iraq as this another hidden war started by those heavy fest regimes surrounding Iraq tried and trying to put Iraq in chose which is they done successfully despite US thinks and deal with them as friendly regimes but they bit US from back in Iraq.
So the simple answer here, to demolish the regime in Iraq get rebuild in manner that save the life of Iraqis and American and abandoned those Maliki, la-Badi and Jaafri and Sistani go to use real Iraqi who think about Iraq not Iran and obay the Supreme Leader of Iran and Iran’s spy commander Qassem Soleimani……
From Liz Cheney:
Neo, the link not right”empty page”?
Steve:
Thanks. Fixed.
My response to the “knowing what we know now” hypothetical:
The condition overlooked in the discourse on Operation Iraqi Freedom is the intelligence could be off the mark and Saddam could be guilty of the material breach that triggered enforcement at the same time because the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) was set by the UNSC resolutions, not the intelligence. Although the Iraq Survey Group findings are a misfit with the pre-war intelligence estimates, they are also rife with disarmament violations of UNSCR 687.
The main flaw with the Kelly hypothetical is its false premise that the faulty intelligence meant Saddam was innocent and a non-threat. Iraq was in fact guilty of breaching the disarmament and terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687 and a threat. (Another flaw is false choice, but that’s subordinate to the false premise.) Saddam was armed and dangerous, just not in the same way indicated by pre-war intelligence estimates.
To help answer the question of “what we now know”, see Saddam: What We Now Know (link) by Jim Lacey*, citing to the Iraq Survey Group (re WMD) and the Iraqi Perspectives Project (re terrorism).
* Jim Lacey was a researcher and author for the Iraqi Perspectives Project.
Governor Bush’s error when talking about the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom is emphasizing the “mistaken” or “faulty” intelligence while ignoring the range of reasons in the law, policy, and facts underlying the decision for OIF that survive the controversy over the pre-war intelligence.
For the record, explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
A key element in the decision for OIF is the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove disarmament as mandated by UNSCR 687. As stated in the UNMOVIC Cluster Document, “UNMOVIC must verify the absence of any new activities or proscribed items, new or retained. The onus is clearly on Iraq to provide the requisite information or devise other ways in which UNMOVIC can gain confidence that Iraq’s declarations are correct and comprehensive.”
US law and policy enforced Iraq’s compliance with the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. If Iraq was not compliant with disarmament mandates, that meant Saddam remained armed and dangerous. Iraq’s material breach was casus belli. The main trigger for OIF was the UNMOVIC finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document) in breach of UNSCR 687.
Another key question for Hillary:
What did you advise Obama to do when he announced pulling out of Iraq in December 2011?
clarityseeker,
Read this before you ask her:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11536590/Ex-British-diplomat-accuses-Hillary-Clinton-of-role-in-meltdown-of-Iraq.html
And don’t forget Panetta’s take, which has been disappeared from the narrative:
http://time.com/3453840/leon-panetta-iraqi-troop/
It will never happen. The consequences of Obama’s premature evacuation have been spun as Bush’s failed policy. Generational liberals and progressives have accepted this narrative (as they have the WMD angle in lieu of Hussein’s repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement) . The core of the Democrat Party have had their minds and conscience suppressed through distribution of secular opiates and promises for dissociation of risk (e.g. illegal immigration, financial irregularities, environmental disruption, etc.).
The Democrats are, above all, notable for their unique ability to reconcile diametrically opposed positions (e.g. make abortion, not life) without suffering mental anguish or collapse. The best we can hope for is overlapping and converging (i.e. factional) interests to tempt a minority to diverge from the Party line.
I’m guessing Hilary would use a variation of “what difference does it make?”
A reminder to the simple people who don’t have to make difficult decisions that hindsight is 20-20. (A pass that’s only given to bumbling Democrats). Something cheery, and Hilary-clever, delivered with a cackle : “if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas all year long! ” cackle, cackle, hahahaha!
I’d rather not have to hear talk at all. Enjoy the silence – for now.
cackle, cackle, hahahaha!
n.n: “as they have the WMD angle in lieu of Hussein’s repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement”
Actually, they don’t have the WMD angle, either, because Iraq was in material breach of the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) for disarmament mandated by UNSCR 687 – ie, Saddam was in fact guilty on the WMD issue.
Rather, their angle is the pre-war intelligence was off the mark. Most people mistakenly believe the pre-war statements on the intelligence were the casus belli.
In fact, as I said, the condition that’s been overlooked is the pre-war intel could be of the mark and Saddam could be guilty of material breach at the same time. The casus belli was Iraq’s noncompliance with the terms of ceasefire, including Iraq’s disarmament violations, not the pre-war intel.
The Thought Of Blood Sacrifice, begging for an attack!
Bring it on she says ….
Some of the reasons for invading Iraq: Taken from:
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-noble-american-effort-iraq
“>violations of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire terms prohibiting Saddam from seeking WMD development
>interfering with U.N. weapons inspectors
>violations of the U.N. Security Council resolutions by “continuing to engage in brutal repression of civilian population thereby threatening international peace.”
>the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime
>documented connections between Saddam and various terrorist activities (although an Iraqi connection to 9/11 was never directly confirmed)
>the presence of Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq
>continuing aggression posing a threat to neighboring states, and the peace and security of the world
In truth, the 2003 invasion was a resumption of the Gulf War based on Saddam’s numerous violations of the cease-fire agreement, as much as anything.
For 20 years, the world watched as Saddam tortured and killed his own people, waged war against his neighbors, slaughtering millions, gassed his own people, developed WMD, sought nuclear weapons, supported terrorism, harbored terrorists and aggressed against the United States. Finally, in the wake of 9/11, based on the best intelligence available for many sovereign sources, in the face of thousands of cease-fire violations, the U.S., acting legally via Congressional Authorization and backed up by a dozen U.N. Resolutions, invaded Iraq, liberated that country and removed a lethal threat to world peace.
Sadly, cynically, and some say treasonously, Democrats almost immediately pivoted and turned against the war. Democrats who once warned about Saddam’s weapons programs, lending full support to the Authorization to Use Force resulting in invasion, saw an opportunity to gain political advantage, reversed themselves, betrayed our military, and started to oppose the war, savaging President Bush in the process. HRC was chief among these traitors. Later, Biden and Obama would double reverse on Iraq strategy, condemn Bush, then reversed again, claiming Iraq their greatest achievement.”
Every Republican candidate should memorize the 21 reasons stated for invading Iraq to repeat to any who ask the question. Saddam’s WMD programs were but one reason. Yet, the mantra about “no WMDs” and Bush lied, people died,” was repeated Goebbels fashion until all else went down the memory hole.
The reverse course by Obama and Biden in first condemning the Iraq War and then claiming it was their biggest achievement is the kind of mind-boggling hypocrisy only progs are capable of on matters of war and peace.
Those who gave their lives and limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve better from our government leaders. They will not get it from the progs. They
are pond scum!
Eric, as usual, you’re correct on the matters of casus belli in Iraq. I suggest you offer your expertise on this to any Republican candidate that you favor. At least write them a position paper that allows them to be aware of the many reasons for invading Iraq and couple that with a review of the situation in Iraq in 2010 – all the result of the invasion.
Tonight Sean Hannity played a video of George W. Bush explaining that failure to make Iraq a stable place would allow it to become haven for terrorists.
From that speech which Bush gave on 7/12/07:
“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaida.
It’d mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It’d mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It’d mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that’s unfolding across the region. The same region in Iran — the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers.
The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq.
The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic Jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq.
All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region.
Nations throughout the Middle East have a stake in a stable Iraq. To protect our interests and show our commitment to our friends in the region, we are enhancing our military presence, improving our bilateral security ties and supporting those fighting the extremists across the Middle East.
We’re also using the tools of diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq’s democratic government.
So I’m sending Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice to the region in early August. They will meet with our allies, reemphasize our commitment to the international compact of Sharm el-Sheikh, reassure our friends that the Middle East remains a vital strategic priority for the United States.
There is a conversion (sic) of visions between what Iraqi leaders want, what our partners want and what our friends in the region want and the vision articulated by my administration, the Iraq Study Group and others here at home.
The Iraqis do not want U.S. troops patrolling their cities forever, any more than the American people do.
But we need to ensure that when U.S. forces do pull back, the terrorists and extremists cannot take control.”
Read the whole speech here;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071200937.html
In retrospect, it seems like he knew what he was talking about, no?
Once Saddam demonstrated he was unwilling to comply with the conditions of the ceasefire it was time to carpet bomb Baghdad. Failure to do so was the first chink in our armor. It was all down hill from there.
Liz Cheney is correct of course. The fact that it is she who has asked that question rather than Jeb Bush causes me to ponder whether she would be a better presidential candidate than him.
JJ: “I suggest you offer your expertise on this to any Republican candidate that you favor. At least write them a position paper”
I favor the Republican candidate who will vigorously relitigate the decision for OIF and understands the importance of disallowing the enemy’s narrative of OIF to become a guiding principle for American policy and politics.
Based on the field’s eagerness to stipulate the enemy’s narrative of OIF, though, I don’t know who that Republican candidate is, if there is one.
Meanwhile, my position paper is free and available for any Republican or anyone else. It’s designed to use off the shelf for the narrative contest.
Ahead of the reasons, the necessary first step is correcting the premises.
Remove Bush from trial. Replace Saddam on trial. Remove the US burden to prove Iraq was armed matching the pre-war intel. Replace Iraq’s burden to prove it was compliant with the terms of ceasefire as mandated.
When the premises are correct, then the reasons can be oriented correctly.
“Knowing what we now know….”
That’s like asking Obama:
“Knowing what we know now about the war you declared on America’s Middle Class, would you still have chosen to declare war on America’s Middle Class?”
Or,
“Knowing what we now know about your promiscuous dishonesty, would you still have chosen to be promiscuously dishonest?”
Or,
“Knowing what we now know about your insidious intentions to fundamentally weaken the USA and hog-tie the State of Israel, would you still have chosen to fundamentally weaken the USA and hog-tie the State of Israel?”
Or,
“Knowing what we now know about your disgusting deceitfulness, would you still have chosen to be deceitful?”
Etc.
File under: Fore!!!
If I knew then what I know now, no, I’d never I wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. It was a mistake.
What do I know now? This country would be stupid enough to elect the team of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Who “inherited” a reasonably functional Iraq. Who declared it a success, and perhaps the greatest foreign policy achievement of this administration in 2010.
Then destroyed everything by 2015.
Meanwhile, my position paper is free and available for any Republican or anyone else. It’s designed to use off the shelf for the narrative contest…
Looking forward, “their” position or …. whatever.
Good luck!
Da’ish convoy in Rutbah, W. #Anbar province, celebrating events in Ramadi. Begs the question, where’s the coalition?
https://twitter.com/IraqiSecurity/status/600368151801569281/photo/1
basically a long line of jihadi on a road, easy pickings and left alone… to travel to the next place to convert…
ISIS Celebrates Victory in Ramadi — Thanks OBAMA for Spoils of War
new multi-million #BringBackOurMinesweepers donated by the US have become war spoils of #IS
Spoils of #Ramadi battle
-40 Humvees
-10 Abrams tanks
-A battalion of Howitzer artillery
-Armored trucks & ammunition
i bit by now the russians have whole working abrams tanks with complete electronics, as does the chinese.
our tanks are now huge expensive fun paper weights
and now this will negate the electronics and stuff for the battle field… ie. they have secret stuff that works and we cant crack and our stuff is now cracked and easy to work with thanks to POTUS and how liberals wage war without waging war…
It’s all part of the plan. Or if it isn’t, it can be integrated into their plan. Because they know they are at war with humanity, but humanity thinks it is still time for peace, negotiation, compromise, and political elections.
but humanity thinks it is still time for peace, negotiation, compromise, and political elections…
Compromise! There shall be no compromise,
it is all out WAR!
The 19th amendment was a terrible mistake.
I read the comments above and they are hysterically funny…. first, they start from the premise that the state informs the rubes of what the actual plan is… so to beat the US, all you have to do is read press releases of war plans… hysterical..
putin gave the clue to it, but we ignore him..
we ignore everyone with a real knowlege of things in favor of the bs message given to the public.
how long did it take for the ny times to print an article that showed the WMDs and locations and counts? but but, we the people ended up in a social tussle because we believed the potus at the time, and the left decided that if potus didnt tell us, then he was lying.
clue: even freaking football teams dont tell you their plans and even post game they dont…
the conversations above are with fake authority and all that fake erudition… i would love to survey the commenters and ask how many have read clauswitz, and all the other stuff that goes with the subject and history of what has happened and why across the board.
its silly.. just as its silly to discuss things happening while ignoring the KGB, the FSB, the CIA, NSA, DIE, Stasi, and on and on… including pakistani intelligence and so forth…
hey… more money is spent on those things and the things they do than on open war… but we can claim soros does a lot with his money, and these organizations who have complete freedom to even kill, accomplish nothig with a blank check!!!!!!!!
hysterical…
the whole thing was a one country buffer zone, which copies the sattelite countries that russia used to prevent action from europe without going through those states!!!
putin even said so of bush plans. and i would suspect that given the russians black mailed clinton over his BJs in the oval office, and hacked hitleries phones, and had spies that were caught, and so on and so forth… knew more than the people here commenting who barely know the subject they are pretending to be knowlegeable and opinionated on!!!!
funny, but put a team of humans together in ignrance, ask them to speak and they will sit around making up crap without any idea, concern or even reticence as to what they are spackling the huge gaps with.
even arab news knows more than the average commenting american:
from al Arabiya news:
On Turkey, buffer zones and a bipolar world view
the WHOLE point of stopping what is going on in the middle east has to do with stopping transport of war material, soldiers, experts, etc.
period.
not about regime change… thats the idiots view!!!!!
and i am sorry if you said that view in the posts, but why not take some time and explain why a regime change matters there, and not in other places like zimbabwe? malaka? etc…
how do you interdict billions of dollars in weapons, explosives, expertise, and agent provacateurs?
you cant just set up a border gate like in blazing saddles and have them pay a toll in the desert they have freedom to navigate with a device bought at sports authority…
you need the country so that you can lock the border so that you can prevent such passing shipments!!!!!!
the rest is bs… because without the need to stop the weapons and other things, there is no need for regime change and its not worth the negative politics in america giving progressives a basis for bs.
there was no way to make a buffer state and prevent the rockets weapons and so on from crossing the country and supplying syria, egypt, hammas, al queda, isis, Boko haram, and on and on… (organizations that soviets have bragged about creating, maintaining, controlling, supplying and using… but who the heck wants to know that, it would spoil the fantasy comments with a dose of reality)
A buffer state is a country lying between two rival or potentially hostile greater powers. Its existence can sometimes be thought to prevent conflict between them
Buffer states, when authentically independent, typically pursue a neutralist foreign policy, which distinguishes them from satellite states.
The concept of buffer states is part of the theory of balance of power that entered European strategic and diplomatic thinking in the 17th century.
see? turkey does not want to be a satellite of russia nor does it want to be a US satellite with russia so close… so what was being offered was that once the buffer states were in place, they all could claim neutrality, and so, gain world force to protect them from any action..
and a neutral state does not let munitions, and so forth cross their state, or else they are not neutral!!!!!
its a MARCH TERRITORY
A march or mark referred to a militarised border region, such as the Scottish Marches, the borderland between England and Scotland.
March was a medieval and early modern European name for a border area of a realm where different laws applied, for defence of the border against hostile incursions, or to regulate border trade or both.
ie… turkey, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, india…
they become buffer states, march territories… they get to claim neutrality (which benifits them and helps them against the machinations of russia china and even the US in many ways).
once in place, there was no way to move miltary bs around without the world knowing and without the states having a right to confiscate it.
the point i am making is the tactics and strategy that leads to a real goal that was stated… “regime change” means NOTHING… its what you say to the rubes who then nod and pretend its something smart, like “electrolytes” in IDIOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
even funnier… the whole regime change bs comes from the left!!!!!!!!!!!!! so all your doing is diffusing and commening the same way the left does, and not actually saying anything meaningful….
[shortened by n-n]
Artfldgr: “i am sorry if you said that view in the posts, but why not take some time and explain why a regime change matters there”
The question, “Why did resolution of the Saddam problem require a threat of regime change?”, is answered here.
Note that my explanation is the law and policy, fact basis of OIF, which derives from and relates to, but is not the same as the strategic perspective.
The strategy perspective is relevant, however, the UNSCR 660-series resolutions and the US law and policy enforcing them were not a ruse. Bush’s decisions with Iraq, including decisions judged skeptically by strategic thinkers, tracked the UNSCRs and US law and policy.
Oops. Fix: Note that my explanation is the law and policy, fact basis of OIF,
whichderives from and relates to, but is not the same as the strategic perspective.Oops 2. As I was. I was right the first time: Note that my explanation is the law and policy, fact basis of OIF, [unstrike]which[/unstrike] derives from and relates to, but is not the same as the strategic perspective.
It’s dispiriting that all the Republican “candidates” have accepted the leftist premise that “Bush lied people died”, that the Iraq war was evil and completely without justification.
In point of pact all US intelligence agencies thought Iraq had current stockpiles of chemical weapons and perhaps biological weapons as well. Britain, France, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Egypt all thought the same thing.
There was at least a full year of debate in the US and the UN, many UN resolutions leading up to the war. The AUMF the congress passed (supported by most Democrats) had 23 whereas clauses for going to war.
If the Republican “candidates” can’t clearly express what went on with Iraq it doesn’t bode very well for the general election.
Hail to the Chief, Rodham.
CORRECTION: should be “In point of FACT” not “Pact
Harold: “In point of pact all US intelligence agencies thought Iraq had current stockpiles of chemical weapons and perhaps biological weapons as well.”
I’m not responding to this statement directly, but using it to jump off to make this point:
A foundational false premise in the enemy’s narrative of OIF is the burden of proof was on the US to prove Iraq was armed matching the pre-war intel.
That false premise has fundamentally warped the reading of the main fact findings of Iraq’s disarmament, ie, the UNMOVIC Cluster Document and Iraq Survey Group Duelfer Report.
How?
Both fact findings are based on the UNSCR 687 standard with the burden of proof on Iraq to prove disarmament as mandated.
The UNMOVIC Cluster Document finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” was the main trigger for OIF.
Because the UNMOVIC finding is inconclusive that Iraq was armed as indicated, it has been marginalized, misrepresented, or ignored by people judging the pre-war intel rather than Iraq’s disarmament as mandated.
However, determining whether Iraq was armed as indicated was not UNMOVIC’s mandate. Rather, the mandate of the UN inspections was to verify Iraq had disarmed as mandated. The UNMOVIC finding was conclusive Iraq had failed to disarm as mandated.
Similarly, the Iraq Survey Group showed Iraq was rearming in violation of UNSCR 687 with an active covert program in the Iraqi Intelligence Services. The IIS was Saddam’s regime arm notorious for terrorism and WMD development.
At least as significant as the ISG finding of Iraq rearming with an active covert IIS program is the ISG finding that Iraq had not disarmed as mandated, which corroborated the UNMOVIC finding.
But once again, because the pre-war intel has been judged rather than Iraq’s disarmament as mandated, the ISG findings of Iraq rearming, but not as indicated, and Iraq’s failure to disarm as mandated have been misrepresented, marginalized, or ignored.
Many OIF supporters, bamboozled with the false premise that the pre-war intel was casus belli, have been reduced to defending the decision for OIF with rumors of Saddam moving WMD out of state and the discoveries of munitions after the regime change.
Meanwhile, the OIF supporters seem utterly unaware of the body of ready and conclusive evidence in the UNMOVIC and ISG findings that confirm Iraq was in material breach of the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687.
So, were the pre-war intelligence estimates faulty?
Yes they there. But that’s irrelevant to the operative enforcement procedure for the terms of ceasefire.
The relevant question is, was Saddam’s regime in material breach, including the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, which was casus belli according to the law and policy that enforced the terms of ceasefire?
Yes it was.
That is the crux of the proper response by Republicans to the Kelly hypothetical.
When judgement, ie, the burden of proof, is removed from the pre-war intel and replaced properly on Iraq’s compliance, then the many findings of Saddam’s material breach across the board of the terms of ceasefire can be entered into evidence in the people’s court.
An idea that was very much in vogue in 2002 was the idea of “shrinking the Gap,” as explained in Thomas P. M. Barnett’s book, “The Pentagon’s New Map.”
The thesis was that people in countries in the Gap (basically Third World countries) were longing to participate in the promise of democracy and international trade. Given the expansion of democracy and international trade that followed the fall of the USSR and the opening up of China, Barnett’s ideas seemed quite plausible. I certainly believed that the world was on that trajectory. Creating a stable Iraq seemed to be giving that zeitgeist a push in the right direction. Subsequent events in Iraq and Afghanistan have called all that into question. The Muslim Gap seems not only not interested in joining the modern world, but ready to do anything to avoid it. The question is: Should we continue to pursue spreading democracy and trade (nation building and exporting democratic values) into these benighted hellholes, or should we treat them much as we treated the Communist bloc during the Cold War? Jeb Bush still wants to nation build. IMO, that way lies more wasted blood and treasure.
We must keep the oil flowing (the rest of the free world depends on it), but try to contain the savages in their corner of the globe. That will require much more muscular foreign policy and military tactics. Until a conservative President is elected that won’t happen.
JJ,
Afghanistan is difficult for more reasons than just religion.
Is the challenge the “Muslim Gap”?
Or is the challenge our shrinking competitive will to learn to defeat a capable enemy who is learning to defeat us at the same time, in this case with a particular kind of modern asymmetric warfare custom-designed to attack our vulnerabilities?
I’m not convinced the issue is fundamental cultural incompatibility.
I see the issue fundamentally as competition versus enemies who are not winning necessarily because they are predetermined by the culture ‘over there’ to win, but because they are outcompeting us and we are under-competing them in an advanced level of the activist game.
JJ,
As far as essential competition, Barnett said this about Iraq:
Change was never going to happen just because we showed up. That’s not how the activist game works. Like any champion in the ring, we always were going to need to compete for it against all comers, all giving us their best shot.
The competition hasn’t changed from when Barnett prognosticated it. It’s us. Maybe we just don’t have the stuff to compete for the championship anymore, and it’s time to hang ’em up and leave the activist game to the young, lean, and hungry. Or maybe we’ll find it again.
I meant to use this illustrative example in my comment jumping off Harold’s comment but I forgot.
Harold: “and perhaps biological weapons as well.”
From the ISG Duelfer Report:
Again, this ISG finding is inconclusive that Iraq was armed as indicated, but it corroborates the UNMOVIC finding that Iraq failed to disarm as mandated.
The value of the ISG finding changes according to the burden of proof.
If the burden of proof was on the US to prove Iraq was armed as indicated, then the ISG finding is marginal.
But if the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove disarmament as mandated, then the ISG finding corroborates the casus belli.
JJ: “and couple that with a review of the situation in Iraq in 2010 — all the result of the invasion”
Case in point:
http://www.un.org/press/en/2010/sc10118.doc.htm
The Dec 2010 UN press release combines a few effects for the narrative contest.
It’s a UN press release from the Security Council.
It’s VP Biden representing the Obama admin speaking on behalf of the UNSC.
It snapshots Iraq’s progress at end of 2010, while also capturing the unfinished nature of that progress.
It highlights some UN parameters of the mission to help explain some of our decisions in leading the UN-mandated mission.
Its subject is achievement of Iraqi compliance with the terms of ceasefire which centers the discourse on the fundamental compliance basis of OIF and the success of the core mission mandated by US law and policy.
Eric: “It’s us. Maybe we just don’t have the stuff to compete for the championship anymore, and it’s time to hang ‘em up and leave the activist game to the young, lean, and hungry.”
A lot of truth there. I’m 82 and have now had my guts torn out twice – first Vietnam and now Iraq/Afghanistan. Like a toothless old lion, I rage against the treacherous cowardice of the progressives. In 2009 I was still hopeful. I become less so each day. That’s not going to keep me from doing what I can trying to assist those who fight back against the destruction of our nation. It just isn’t in my nature. I want my epitaph to read: “He loved his country and never gave up.”
“knowing what we know now would you still invade Iraq?”
Now, if ever there is a time, is the time for Hillary’s famous (or is it infamous) answer of “what difference does it make?”
Truly, arguing about it now is senseless; except in the MSM way of playing “gotcha.”
Liz Cheney’s response/question IS the proper question to ask now.
JJ,
You’re encouraged to share my “position paper” on the ‘why’ of OIF with anyone who’ll fight back.
When you do, attach my view that it’s critical to vigorously ‘relitigate’ the decision and neutralize the enemy’s Iraq narrative and turn the tables. It’s bigger than defending the mission or the President or even the cultural legacy of our Iraq veterans. The enemy’s Iraq narrative is being wired in as the guiding principle for the next generation of American policy and politics as the successor and heir to the enemy’s Vietnam narrative.
In Politico, Emma Sky, an official and senior advisor in Operation Iraqi Freedom, laments the progress and opportunities lost in Iraq due to Obama’s sharp deviation from Bush.
charles: “Now, if ever there is a time, is the time for Hillary’s famous (or is it infamous) answer of “what difference does it make?””
That would be a mistake.
This is an excerpt from an e-mail I sent to Jeb Bush’s PAC website.
Destroying Vietnam, created more PTSD cases, since people could no longer justify what they did, what they lost, who they killed, as being part of a great cause. They couldn’t get the guilt off from the people they left behind in Saigon, either.
Same will happen with Iraq. America will beset by another generation of Vietnam PTSD cases. And the Leftist alliance, having engineered it, will use it to their advantage, as usual. Martial law, curfews, those are minor things compared to what the Left will do to the weaklings in America.
… And, the Leftist alliance, having engineered it, will use it to their advantage, as usual…
Recaptured: “trigger warnings” …
Resulting: Safe Rooms!