Sunday, August 19, 2007
Just don't prove us wrong
Kevin Drum has an interesting post about the near absence of ex ante opposition to the invasion of Iraq in the American foreign policy community and the many post hoc claims that the administration and other hawks intimidated supposedly numerous dissenters from expressing their concerns in public. He considers and substantially rejects the idea that the establishment closed ranks and threatened to blackball the dissenters if they went public. Drum's alternative explanation strikes me as much more plausible, and as a side benefit it does considerable damage to the lefty canard that the Bush administration cooked up Saddam's WMD program:
My own view is a little different, though. Sure, the war skeptics might have been afraid to go against the herd, but I think that was just an outgrowth of something more concrete: a fear of being provably wrong. After all, everyone agreed that Saddam Hussein was a brutal and unpredictable thug and almost everyone agreed that he had an active WMD program. (Note: Please do some research first if you want to disagree with this. The plain fact is that nearly everyone — liberal and conservative, American and European, George Bush and Al Gore — believed Saddam was developing WMDs. This unanimity started to break down when the UN inspections failed to turn up anything, but before that you could count the number of genuine WMD doubters on one hand.) This meant that war skeptics had to go way out on a limb: if they opposed the war, and it subsequently turned out that Saddam had an advanced WMD program, their credibility would have been completely shot. Their only recourse would have been to argue that Saddam never would have used his WMD, an argument that, given Saddam's temperament, would have sounded like special pleading even to most liberals. In the end, then, they chickened out, but it had more to do with fear of being wrong than with fear of being shunned by the foreign policy community. (Italics in original, bold added)
I think Drum is correct in this. His theory also explains, by implication, the administration's political case for the invasion. Among hawks, at least, there were any number of geopolitical arguments in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein, but the one that seemed mostly likely to be provably correct was that he was in criminal contempt of UNSC resolutions regarding WMD. After all, even if the war had gone without a hitch it would have been hard for the administration to prove that it was an important strategic move in the war against Islamic terrorism, for example, or that it gave us leverage over the Saudis, which we could not actually say no matter how obvious it might be.
25 Comments:
By 
Unknown, at
Sun Aug 19, 09:09:00 AM:
Notwithstanding the case for going to war, I'm like to understand what a victory in Iraq (forget for a moment what that looks like) will actually do for our interests in the region.
With specific reference to our now nearly thirty year confrontation with the Islamic Republic next door, now nearly surrounded with American military forces, in the Gulf, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq, our ability to achieve even a temporary respite from sectarian warfare in Iraq gives us an opportunity to ratchet up the pressure on Iran.
But, with elections coming here at home, we're out of the "confront Iranian despotism" business until 2009, at least, I would think. Bad timing for the election, but even so, what happens next? Any stability in Iraq will probably be relatively short-lived, and stability will be quickly seized upon by the bring-the-boys home inclination always present in domestic politics. Will we, can we, gain any traction in our Iran confrontation out of Iraq? In the end, isn't that primarily why we most need to win in Iraq now? (Whatever our reasons for going in in the first place?
By 
, at
Sun Aug 19, 10:50:00 AM:
I think we'll be in Iraq indefinitely, after setting up some bases, to ensure that the region remains stabilized. Just like WW2 and our continuing presence in Germany to keep an eye on things (60+ years running).
Polls are fickle. Bush still polls stronger than Congress, and I think at the end of the day the American people agree there's global war on terrorism. Are some pissed off that no one else steps up? sure. But with military spending as a % of GDP relatively stable and below historical limits, and relatively few casualties in the 3 year war, it's just a matter of where our military does its job, not if.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 12:57:00 PM:
Two comments about TH's article and one on Andrew's question.
The anti-war crowd will never understand how massively insulted they were by the Bush Administration. When the war began, "WMD" meant three things; biological weapons, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons. Yet, conveniently, the liberal media eventually took WMD to only mean nuclear. That is, if we didn't find any nuclear weapons in Iraq, then "Bush lied!"
Given that Hussein had been gassing Kurds with chemical weapons for years, it should come as no surprise that we ended up finding over a thousand shells of Sarin gas and similar nasties. None of this was reported in the MSM, of course, because it didn't fit the narrative.
And the insult?
When it was reported that we'd found over a thousand shells of Sarin gas, it turned out they'd been discovered over a year before.
Get it?
The Bush Administration thought so little of the anti-war crowd that they didn't even bother mentioning it for over a year.
I think that's pretty funny.
And, just for fun, let's play Pick The Nit:
"After all, even if the war had gone without a hitch..."
The war went without a hitch. We bombed the holy crap out of them, reduced their military infrastructure to rubble, kicked ass in the field, then toppled the statue. That is the time-honored symbology of when a war is over, when you topple or blow up whatever represents the regime in the heart of their capitol city.
When we toppled the big statue in Baghdad and captured Saddam, the "war", by historic definition, was over. Everything since then has been skirmishes, raids, dissidents, and all the rest that follows any war. No war stops immediately. There are always stragglers and those who refuse to give up.
We're only calling it a "war" today because it's in the anti-Bush MSM's interests to do so. But a few loners occasionally taking out a few victims is almost the antithesis of the definition of the word "war".
The MSM's definition of the word "war" seems to be "people are still fighting", but, then, if that's true, then World War II ended twenty years after everybody thought it did, when those last few Japanese soldiers hiding out in the Philippines finally gave up, right?
Anyway, TH, I'm just havin' fun here. I know what you mean by the word "war", and you've got to use the same word everybody else does. But it still irks me the way people just allowed themselves to get sucked into this brand new -- enlightened, I'm sure -- definition of the word.
And I'd note the military is on board, too. They'll talk about the "Battle of Qom Kabor", but, historically speaking, skirting a couple of land mines and then going house-to-house picking off stragglers is known as "mop-up operations" and is something that takes place after a battle.
But, I suppose ya go with what ya got.
As to Andrew's question:
"Will we, can we, gain any traction in our Iran confrontation out of Iraq?"
At this late stage in the game, I think a lot of people (myself included) are coming to realize that Iran is going to be allowed to go nuclear, and losing a host of American cities is only a question of "when", not "if". That's certainly not "defeatist", it's just realistically looking at our political will. They're not going to stop, and we're not going to stop them. And if we don't stop them, nobody will.
Israel has enough firepower to set them back a few years, but that's all. They won't have access to the new super-duper bunker-buster bombs that'll be required. It's us or nobody.
I'd guess roughly four to five years. They'll need another couple of years to actually ramp up production, then it'll take another couple of years for transactions to be finalized and the bombs shipped.
Then, one day at high noon in the middle of a work week, while Congress is in session and the Prez is in the White House, a small fishing trawler will cruise up the Potomac to D.C., another will sail into New York Harbor, and simultaneously light those babies off.
All that talk about "port security" is just so much blather. That's looking at the problem as related to conventional bombs. A conventional bomb must actually be brought into the city to be effective.
A nuclear bomb doesn't.
(pause)
I'm such a breath of fresh air. :)
Allow me to make up for it.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sun Aug 19, 12:59:00 PM:
You all sound like a bunch of gold-toothed rappers whining about how people are picking on you about your images, the stereotypes you embody and your lyrics--and your retort is "Hey we still makin' money and got gold CDs on the wall."
What exactly is the job our military is going to do over there? Rent "Syriana." Watch the parts in the US with Jeffrey Wright closely, not the stuff in the Middle East (even the parts with Clooney). Fairy tales? Nope.
By antithaca, at
Sun Aug 19, 01:37:00 PM:
LOL. ahh "Syriana". I love the arrogance of the Matt Damon character..."he could be the next Mossadeq" he says...while describing the man who's about to stage a coup.
LOL Fairy Tale indeed.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 07:01:00 PM:
Ah:
I understand everything now. Hollywood is the font of all wisdom regarding the way ahead for the running dog imperialist baby killers.
Thank you CC for enlightening me.
I will now look upon Hollywood with a greater appreciation of their wisdom.
By Gary Rosen, at
Sun Aug 19, 07:24:00 PM:
I'm sure watching Syriana is about all that Chrissy can muster up to learn about the Middle East, since it is unlikely he can actually read.
As for WMD, let's not forget that Saddam had already *had* them and *used* them against the Kurds prior to the first Gulf War.
By wlpeak, at
Sun Aug 19, 07:38:00 PM:
Christopher exemplifies most of what has gone wrong in our modern world.
Here is someone deeming themselves adequate to discuss these complicated issues without the benefit of having actually studied foreign policy or military history.
So like the typical product of our education system, he gets the Cliff Notes instead. After all...two hours is quite enough time to master this topic and I'm sure the producers of that timely screed are themselves experts on these things, spending their off ours in studious contemplation rather than the debauch where their peers are to be found.
Now, onto the really complicated matter of the Climate...oh lucky day, there's another movie for Chriss.....
By Harrywr2, at
Sun Aug 19, 07:43:00 PM:
"Israel has enough firepower to set them back a few years, but that's all. They won't have access to the new super-duper bunker-buster bombs that'll be required. It's us or nobody."
Pay attention to DOD procurement releases...Israel has a pile of GBU-28's and a bigger pile on order.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 07:45:00 PM:
This unanimity started to break down when the UN inspections failed to turn up anything, but before that you could count the number of genuine WMD doubters on one hand.
WMD doubters also ignore the failure of two inspection regimes: if Iraq was "clear" of WMDs, how did the inspectors manage to miss 500 arty shells of sarin and mustard gas? They can argue in circles whether the arty shells were "degraded" [but see CIA report on binary storage], but the fact remains that the inspectors MISSED 500 potential WMDs altogher. Hardly what one should consider a thorough inspection.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 07:50:00 PM:
I'd like to understand what a victory in Iraq (forget for a moment what that looks like) will actually do for our interests in the region.
A democratic & secular Iraq will do to radical Islam what West Berlin did to the Warsaw Pact and Soviets. Its the best long-term plan for fighting radical Islam. I've yet to hear an alternative from the Left, other than surrender and submit to Sharia Law.
Woman's suffrage, gay rights, separation of church and state... you'd think the Left would be more invested in victory. Perhaps they don't really believe in the things they lecture us about.
By Nicholas, at
Sun Aug 19, 08:01:00 PM:
I am fairly confident that we won't be losing any American cities to an Iranian nuclear attack any time soon.
There is this concept of deterrence. Iran knows that at best it could damage a few American cities. We would, in response, sterilize the entire Iranian plateau.
America isn't threatened by Iranian nukes. Israelis are, and by virtue of an Israeli counterattack, millions of Iranian civilians are as well.
The probability of nuclear war increases drastically if Iran gets nukes, but it will stay confined to the Middle East.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 08:17:00 PM:
Nicolas
You assume that Iran would undertake to use their nuclear weapons themselves. I have every confidence that they will have no comounction whtsoever about providing one or more to anyone who plans to us it against us --- while making certain to remain at arms length themselves. I think it is highly likely that an Iranian supplied nuclear weapon used by Al Queda against one or more western cities (not just US) would be met by great wringing of hands and days of mourning followed by no other reaction. If the liberals are in the WH they won't do anything and if the Republicans are in the WH the liberals will not let us.
Note to self: two years from now move at lease 100 miles away from any major American city.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 08:20:00 PM:
"Fen" is correct. The discover of over 500 WMDs in Iraq should have been a wake-up call to the anti-war movement. But they have mostly chosen to live in denial.
The discovery of these weapons is not merely an inconvenient fact for war critics. After the fall of Saddam there were some reports that large quantities of WMDs were moved to Syria. I do not know if these reports are accurate - and neither do war critics. But given the fact that over 500 "destroyed" weapons have surfaced so far, prudent individuals should not dismiss this out of hand as a mere neocon fantasy.
Unfortunately, most war critics are not prudent individuals.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 08:46:00 PM:
When the current Iranian regime obtains nuclear weapons, deterrence will be our most viable option. As to "who" to deter, that gets tricky as an earlier poster alluded. Should a terror organization manage to get one off here, SOMEBODY will have to pay the price.
We should communicate very clearly to the various state sponsors of terror out there, to include Assad's Syria, Qaddafi's Libya, Ahmadinejad's Iran, Musharaf in Pakistan, and even King Abdullah and Vlad Putin, that the punishment for AQ (or any other group) attacking us with a nuke will be inflicted upon them tenfold. All leaders of Hamas, JA, AQ, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood...all of 'em...every target is instantly on the table.
Once that's "out there" I think the pressure to dissuade any type of nuke attack on US soil will be intense. Yes, I do think all those people can, and do, wield influence over the jihadis. Anyway...if we get hit, we take all of you out whether you had anything to do with it or not. Questions?
By Fen, at
Sun Aug 19, 09:06:00 PM:
I am fairly confident that we won't be losing any American cities to an Iranian nuclear attack any time soon. There is this concept of deterrence. Iran knows that at best it could damage a few American cities. We would, in response, sterilize the entire Iranian plateau.
The above statement demonstrates the basic concept the Left can't grasp - the mix of WMDs with terrorists orgs for proxy attacks against the US.
Try to think like the enemy for a moment - you KNOW that the US will retaliate against a direct attack, so you attack in ways that cannot be traced back to you. What, is the CIA going to advise a nuclear strike and incinerate millions of innocents in Tehran without 100% certainty? Please.
I'll assume you're ignorant and be gracious - a primitive nuke of the kind Iran would make does NOT have a distinguishable fingerprint. We would not know with 100% certainty that Iran was the source.
BTW, the Anthrax attacks on the US... still unsolved...
The Left simply does not understand the basics. We're going to have to lose an American city before they wake up.
Coming soon to a port city near you: Yemeneese freighter with untracable nuke to be detonated by terrorists in proxy attack. But don't worry, the Democrats are real keen on any needed emergency response... Here, have some radiation pills.
By Fen, at
Sun Aug 19, 09:15:00 PM:
When the current Iranian regime obtains nuclear weapons, deterrence will be our most viable option.
AGAIN, deterence will not work against rogue states that use terrorists for proxy attacks. You cannot trace a primitive nuke back to the source. Quit fighting the last war - MADD will not work here. Assume that radical Islam is aware of the threat of retaliation and will adjust accordingly, with bio and chem if not nuke. Its asymetrical warfare, dammit.
By M. Simon, at
Sun Aug 19, 09:52:00 PM:
Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 10:03:00 PM:
Fen, I don't think you read what I wrote. The deterrence for a terror group to launch an NBC attack on US soil will not come from us...it will come from state sponsors of terror who must know that an attack on us without "fingerprints" will result in SOMEONE getting crushed. Is it ugly? Unprecise? Unfair? You bet...so is a nuke attack in the Baltimore Harbor.
I AM fighting this war (actually), and it calls for some harsh realities. If we get hit, someone will get hit back, and if (metaphorically) we have to shoot three people to get the guilty one, so be it. When deterring an attack of such an unthinkable magnitude, I do not think said countertactics are immoral or inappropriate.
By aaron, at
Sun Aug 19, 10:05:00 PM:
What they also miss is that not everyone believed WMD were a slam-dunk. I was skeptical myself. Thought research and JIT production rather than stockpiles made more sense for Iraq.
But it wasn't just about the WMD, even when it was about the WMD. It was about the non-compliance and the application of implied threat. By the suggestion that he had WMD, Saddam was able to impose costs throughout the region much higher than the cost of an actual WMD attack.
By aaron, at
Sun Aug 19, 10:16:00 PM:
And the best thing we can do about Iran is have a bunch of military equipment and 100,000 troops in Iraq and the ability to bring more fast.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Aug 20, 12:13:00 AM:
Let me make a prediction, now that my crystal ball is out of the shop: If a mysterious nuclear explosion occurs somewhere in the US, within a day the US Military will have a fairly good idea from isotope counts and blast patterns as to where the bomb materials came from and what was the design of the bomb.
From thence will come one of two responses.
1) Former USSR or Red China materials and design will make a *huge* worldwide search for the actual guilty parties, along with a great deal of cooperation from same countries.
2) Iranian/Pakistan materials and design will cause...lets just say it would be a bad idea to own stock in any Iranian ships, ports, refineries, oil terminals, etc. We don't need to use nukes to wreck Iran, they've done such a good job of it themselves already.
By Sameer, at
Mon Aug 20, 09:41:00 AM:
--
Fen, I don't think you read what I wrote. The deterrence for a terror group to launch an NBC attack on US soil will not come from us...it will come from state sponsors of terror who must know that an attack on us without "fingerprints" will result in SOMEONE getting crushed. Is it ugly? Unprecise? Unfair? You bet...so is a nuke attack in the Baltimore Harbor.
--
I wouldn't be so sure. If we had a publicly-announced defense doctrine such that an untraceable nuclear attack on the homeland would result in a spin of the wheel of fortune (around the axis of evil) and wherever the needle lands, the nukes will follow, without additional congressional or presidential authorization, (the order would come from the generals who control our strategic arsenal. or maybe the joint cheifs. But it can't be left in the hands of namby pamby politicians, republican or democrat.) then I would trust in deterrence. We have no such policy. Therefore we have no nuclear deterrent.
By Fen, at
Mon Aug 20, 10:58:00 AM:
sameer is correct. America does not have the will to incinerate millions of innocents in Tehran in retaliation.
We've seen how feeble our CIA intel was re Saddam's WMDs. And the feckless response of the UN. And I would not be surprised to see Russia and China issue a warning that American nuclear retaliation in the ME could trigger their own counterstrikes against US interests.
We would be rendered impotent by the very multilateral institutions that should protect us.
The only alternative is pre-emption. Overthrow any rogue nation state seeking WMDs.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Aug 24, 07:36:00 PM:
Didn't y'all ever see Octopussy?
"But if you set off that nuke, the US will retaliate with their bomber fleets!"
"Against whom?"
"....."
Iran has threatened to attack American mainland targets in the past via Hezb Allah. That isn't a question.
But delivering a nuke to some random port city would be counterproductive; why shoot the beast if you aren't going to cripple it? They would try to decapitate the government. Anything less would virtually guarantee their ensuing extinction.
I think that a far more likely target would be Tel Aviv. First of all, it's in range, both of missiles and of Hezb Allah.
Secondly, Israel is the great Black Beast of the Muslim world.
Third, they're actually a regional competitor with nukes of their own; a successful decapitation strike might actually preclude a retaliation, especially if delivered via proxy. (and given the existence of Israel's anti-missile defense system, that's probably the only way to go)
