Why we went to war in Iraq

[Faithfulee]

Contrary to the dims drumbeat about the war in Iraq being a blunder of massive proportions there were important and considered reasons for President Bush’s bold decision to go to war in Iraq.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504452359324921.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

1)   Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11

2)   The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11.

3)   3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years.

4)   4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger.

5)   5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers

The author, Mr. Feith was undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005 and he concludes. 

Thoughtful, patriotic Americans differed then and now on whether the risk of leaving Saddam in power outweighed the risk of war. But Mr. Bush concluded that it did, and that war therefore was necessary. In Congress, many Democrats as well as Republicans supported that conclusion.

The article does an excellent job of supporting the above points.  More importantly, the current situation in Iraq and the fact that we have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11/01, makes the decision to  liberate Iraqis from the sad man tyranny, will go down as one of the most significant presidential decisions of our lifetime.

[SquirleyWurley]

I don't dispute points 1-5.  However, one may feel it would have been better to handle the diplomacy issues differently in the build up to the removal of Saddam, one may wish one went about it in a different way.  Many Democrats AND Republicans feel this way.

[Faithfulee]

I don't dispute points 1-5.  However, one may feel it would have been better to handle the diplomacy issues differently in the build up to the removal of Saddam, one may wish one went about it in a different way.  Many Democrats AND Republicans feel this way.

We can always look back and "feel" that diplomacy would have been a better way.  But the success rate of the UN and other "diplomatic" partners today isn't encouraging.

I do appreciate your comments because they are far less harsh than the criticism that was evident before the surge.

If we leave a functioning democracy in Iraq, as now seems possible,  we will have "blundered" into a situation that changes the face of the middle east and the world.

[Acumen]

I don't dispute points 1-5.  However, one may feel it would have been better to handle the diplomacy issues differently in the build up to the removal of Saddam, one may wish one went about it in a different way.  Many Democrats AND Republicans feel this way.

What could have been done differently, and why do you think it would have been better?

[SquirleyWurley]

What could have been done differently, and why do you think it would have been better?

Rumsfeld didn't plan well, he didn't listen to generals as much as he should have.  There should have been some more diplomatic efforts with allies (how much more is debatable, but I'm just saying there should have been more, things work better when diplomatic options are utilized more thoroughly -- but understand that I don't agree with people who act as if we should bend over backwards always for allies or always have the UN by our side, etc.).  There should have been better discussion in this country on all sides leading up to this endeavor (almost everyone's arguments on any side were b.s., misguided, ridiculous, wrong, etc., IMNSHO)

I feel that certain people in the Administration, including Bush and his speech-writers and the advisors he relied upon the most, were spouting idealism (I mean that as a criticism, as a bad thing), that is they were not realistic.  Things would have gone better if the Administration was realistic, and part of that would have involved doing better with diplomacy/allies, doing some more of it, more seriously, and listening more to generals about planning on various subjects (particularly about how to deal with what to do after removing Saddam) -- this all was screwed up.

[Acumen]

What could have been done differently, and why do you think it would have been better?

Rumsfeld didn't plan well, he didn't listen to generals as much as he should have.  There should have been some more diplomatic efforts with allies (how much more is debatable, but I'm just saying there should have been more, things work better when diplomatic options are utilized more thoroughly -- but understand that I don't agree with people who act as if we should bend over backwards always for allies or always have the UN by our side, etc.).  There should have been better discussion in this country on all sides leading up to this endeavor (almost everyone's arguments on any side were b.s., misguided, ridiculous, wrong, etc., IMNSHO)

I feel that certain people in the Administration, including Bush and his speech-writers and the advisors he relied upon the most, were spouting idealism (I mean that as a criticism, as a bad thing), that is they were not realistic.  Things would have gone better if the Administration was realistic, and part of that would have involved doing better with diplomacy/allies, doing some more of it, more seriously, and listening more to generals about planning on various subjects (particularly about how to deal with what to do after removing Saddam) -- this all was screwed up.

I asked for something specific, and you're giving generalities.  What could we have done differently from a diplomatic perspective that would have benefited us more than the route we chose to take?

[SquirleyWurley]

I asked for something specific, and you're giving generalities.  What could we have done differently from a diplomatic perspective that would have benefited us more than the route we chose to take?

I'm giving generalities because I think there are people with expertise who know how to implement such general suggestions and already agree with my general comments.  I do not have that expertise, but it seems to me there was more frustration with diplomacy than effort to use the diplomatic channels which were available, some more gestures towards allies and the UN would have had a good effect, having a bit more of a plan in place for what to do after removing Saddam, before going in, was do-able.

[Acumen]

I asked for something specific, and you're giving generalities.  What could we have done differently from a diplomatic perspective that would have benefited us more than the route we chose to take?

I'm giving generalities because I think there are people with expertise who know how to implement such general suggestions and already agree with my general comments.  I do not have that expertise, but it seems to me there was more frustration with diplomacy than effort to use the diplomatic channels which were available, some more gestures towards allies and the UN would have had a good effect, having a bit more of a plan in place for what to do after removing Saddam, before going in, was do-able.

No offense, but if you don't have the expertise, and expertise is what's needed to determine that the proper channels of diplomacy weren't used, then why should anyone believe what you say?  Precisely what diplomatic channels were available that weren't used and precisely what gestures should have been made that weren't made?

[SquirleyWurley]

No offense, but if you don't have the expertise, and expertise is what's needed to determine that the proper channels of diplomacy weren't used, then why should anyone believe what you say?  Precisely what diplomatic channels were available that weren't used and precisely what gestures should have been made that weren't made?

Well, back at you.  YOU do not have expertise.  YOU would not be in a cabinet position, YOU would not be in a high ranking advisory position in one of the beurocracies (State, CIA, etc.), either.

The fact is there are CONSERVATIVE (realist) college professors, advisors, experts, etc., who consider Bush and his crowd to be incorrigible idealists.  William F. Buckley had serious criticisms of the Bush Administration.  Some people are of the thinking of Kissinger and would have gone about things quite differently.  Etc., etc.

It isn't just liberals and it isn't just non-experts who raise the general criticisms I raised.

[Acumen]

No offense, but if you don't have the expertise, and expertise is what's needed to determine that the proper channels of diplomacy weren't used, then why should anyone believe what you say?  Precisely what diplomatic channels were available that weren't used and precisely what gestures should have been made that weren't made?

Well, back at you.  YOU do not have expertise.  YOU would not be in a cabinet position, YOU would not be in a high ranking advisory position in one of the beurocracies (State, CIA, etc.), either.

Right, but I'm not the one making the claim that things could have been done differently, am I? 

I realize that neither of us are experts.  Politics is a relatively new hobby of mine, and I have a whole hell of a lot to learn.  The issue I have with your comments - well, it isn't really with your comments per say, but more that it's typically found in the mouths of liberal Bush-haters, not independents such as yourself. 

We all have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight, including conservative and liberal experts.  I've just grown tired of the whole notion that we did it alone reminiscent of Rambo without any recourse to diplomacy.  And I'm pretty convinced diplomacy was not, nor could not be the answer to our problem in Iraq.

[SquirleyWurley]

Right, but I'm not the one making the claim that things could have been done differently, am I?

Then let me rephrase my opinion.  There are experts who feel that the Administration was idealistic, that is, not realistic, and that things were bungled, and these experts include conservatives.  I am happy to see experts argue and present cases based in their expertise.  I am happy to suggest experts whose opinions, well formed as they are by more information and methodological insight than I have, happen to agree with my own general conclusions.  I'm sure you can find experts who support your position, as well.

Again, I'm relying on the likes of William F. Buckley, and also of people who think along the lines of Kissinger, etc., for a conservative point of view and approach which is very different from that of the Bush Administration, very critical of it, to bypass your easy retort of 'oh it's just liberal bashers with no real insight'...

If I was arguing against liberal ideologues I would pull out sources on the left which would similarly cut through that sort of easy rhetorical escape.  In fact, as the war heated up, I did so, mentioning concerns about the Answer coalition and its role in the anti-war movement, from a very left-wing point of view, using left-wing principles and viewpoints to critique the left.

Diplomacy isn't the be all end all, diplomacy can break down and become ineffective and at a certain point the time is over.  There are still many who argue there should have been some more of it, without denying the complexity of the issues and the problems of diplomacy.  If you write all that off so easily, it just reveals how subversive ideology and rhetoric, party lines, etc., are to real discussion.

[Faithfulee]

 Diplomacy isn't the be all end all, diplomacy can break down and become ineffective and at a certain point the time is over.  There are still many who argue there should have been some more of it, without denying the complexity of the issues and the problems of diplomacy.  If you write all that off so easily, it just reveals how subversive ideology and rhetoric, party lines, etc., are to real discussion.

Wars occur when diplomacy breaks down.  sad man was impossible to "negotiate" with, and the result was war.  The conduct of the war is also unpredictable and strategies must change as the war goes on.  For example,  people like McCain who advocated more troops initially may have been wrong, because it would have reinforced the "occupier" identiy of the US that was a concern at the time.

A great leader is one who makes lemonaid from lemons.  Obama is changing his position on Iraq and the liberals will follow as long as the war is going well, as it is.

[SquirleyWurley]

Wars occur when diplomacy breaks down.  sad man was impossible to "negotiate" with, and the result was war.

Sure.  I was talking about diplomacy with our allies and with the UN (and between both parties)

The conduct of the war is also unpredictable and strategies must change as the war goes on.

True, but Rumsfeld seemed to slight the State Department a bit too much for me to act like he just made a few oversights because of the chaos and complexity inherent in any war.

[Faithfulee]

Wurley

The UN has a poor record in  “diplomatically” getting anything done.

Witness “oil for food”  and now the current  “diplomacy” with Iran.

No US president can allow the UN to make the ultimate decision when it comes to national security.

I admit we could have done better in Iraq.

Will you admit that the situation today is far better than a year ago and that the surge had a lot to do with the current situation??

[SquirleyWurley]

The UN has a poor record in  “diplomatically” getting anything done.

I know.  But there's going through the motions, and their's ways of getting things done while going through the motions, before any fighting happens, perhaps without war breaking out, or at least when war breaks out, one may be better situated.

Witness “oil for food”  and now the current  “diplomacy” with Iran.

I am skeptical, I'm a critic of those things, too.  I don't idolize the diplomatic fashions or anything.

No US president can allow the UN to make the ultimate decision when it comes to national security.

Here's the thing. I agree with you absolutely.  That does not prevent me from having the concerns I have about how Bush and his admin went about this.

Will you admit that the situation today is far better than a year ago and that the surge had a lot to do with the current situation??

Perhaps that is the case.

[Faithfulee]

Wurley

your pesimmism and reluctance to accept the contribution of President Bush in the situation in Iraq is understandable.  The dims have been beating up on President Bush for years.

The fact today is that we can claim "Victory in Iraq" and we should be proud of President Bush, our military and most of all AMERICA.

See "Victory in Iraq"  A topic I have been promoting for years, when the idea was ridiculous.

Today it is real and we can use that Victory to benefit America and prevent us from becoming an OBAMANATION.

[SquirleyWurley]

your pesimmism and reluctance to accept the contribution of President Bush in the situation in Iraq is understandable.  The dims have been beating up on President Bush for years.

But it's not just democrats or liberals.  What do you make of the criticisms which have been made by conservative 'realists', etc?

The fact today is that we can claim "Victory in Iraq" and we should be proud of President Bush, our military and most of all AMERICA.

I was proud of the removal of Saddam Hussein when that happened, and I am proud when I see an independent Iraq develop which seems to have some things in place for expanding civil/human rights, developing constitutional representative institutions, etc.  It just doesn't negate the key criticisms I have of Bush and his cabinet.

[Faithfulee]

your pesimmism and reluctance to accept the contribution of President Bush in the situation in Iraq is understandable.  The dims have been beating up on President Bush for years.

But it's not just democrats or liberals.  What do you make of the criticisms which have been made by conservative 'realists', etc?

The fact today is that we can claim "Victory in Iraq" and we should be proud of President Bush, our military and most of all AMERICA.

I was proud of the removal of Saddam Hussein when that happened, and I am proud when I see an independent Iraq develop which seems to have some things in place for expanding civil/human rights, developing constitutional representative institutions, etc.  It just doesn't negate the key criticisms I have of Bush and his cabinet.

Thank God that you see progress in Iraq.  This was an enormous transformation and portends good things for the entire middle east.  You are free to criticize the President of course, but results count and he is responsible for the policies that brought about the results that you seem to approve of.

If we continue the Iraq policies and a democratic Iraq evolves, it will transform the Middle East and I will give President Bush credit.

Even more important is the fact that we have not been attacked by Islamic terrorists in the US since 9/11/01.
I am confident that we will not be before november,  and that also will work to the advantage of McCain.

[SquirleyWurley]

I'm not sure what I'd give credit to Bush for, but it is clear to me that many will give him too much.

[Acumen]

I'm not sure what I'd give credit to Bush for, but it is clear to me that many will give him too much.

You could start giving him credit for his resolve because without that, Saddam might have had nuclear weapons by now.