My thoughts on the war in Iraq.

[TexasMexican]

I think the war was justified, obviously though the real reasons for the war arent the ones that were given. Additionally I think it was prosecuted wrong.

I read somewhere that one of the reasons we fought so long and hard for the unconditional surrender of our enemies in WWII is because our leadership didnt want to have the next generation to fight the same war again. Apparently that lesson was lost back then.

IMO this war is all Bush Sr's fault. Had he made the harder decision to have our forces oust Saddam, or even work with the opposition back then then perhaps by now we would already have gotten somewhere with Iraq instead of it just festering over the past decade. But no, Bush Sr just wanted the quick and easy war, so we left Saddam in power.

I dont think that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. I wouldnt find it hard to believe if "some" chemical or biological weapons are found, but I doubt we will find vast stockpiles of them. That being said if we left Iraq alone I think it would eventually end up much like a more prosperous North Korea. Some decades down the road one of Saddam's sons would have been leading Iraq and they would have still hated us, and they would likely have had WMD by then.

Had Bush somehow articulated this (its doubtful he could since he has trouble articulating much) as the real reason for the war in Iraq it definately would have been better than the sham of WMD. Hell if he just said "I just plain dont like them, and they tried to kill my Poppy," it would have atleast been more honest and I could somehow respect that atleast. BTW can someone tell me how Saddam "supposidly" tried to assassinate Bush Sr, I dont seem to recall what that was all about.

All that being said I think the most immediate concerns to most Americans (mine aswell) is the continued loss of American life. I'm not exactly sure how (perhaps some people can help me out with some ideas), but I cant help but think that this war could have been prosecuted differently and that doing so would have saved lives on both sides.

[Don Claybrook]

1. Preemptive War

I am greatly troubled by waging a preemptive war. It's never been done in our history, and it's going to have long-lasting, negative global effects. You just can't go and kill 10- or 20-thousand people based on an idea that they might someday do something bad to us.

[ma4t]

12. preemptive war

"I am greatly troubled by waging a preemptive war. It's never been done in our history...."

I'm glad to learn that we have never before fought a preemptive war. I was under the mistaken impression that we acted preemptively in Haiti during the Clinton administration, Grenada under Reagan, the Dominican Republic under LBJ and in Cuba twice under Kennedy to name a few. Perhaps you can clear this up for me. Exactly what were the provocations in these instances?

Sheesh....

[mmonk]

19. You're confusing acting preemptively to a situation

with preemptive war doctrine as policy.

[IrateCitizen]

30. No, he's not really confusing anything

US history is littered with examples of "preemptive war" -- or, at least, war conducted on premises that are later found to have been gross exaggerations or outright lies.

Do the words "Gulf of Tonkin" mean anything to you? What about "Remember the Maine". And while we're at it, President Tyler did one helluva job of goading the Mexicans into attacking US troops in order to start the Mexican-American War.

If Grenada had fallen in 1983, the US was in danger of losing its primary nutmeg supply. We HAD to act!

The only difference between now and then is that the justifications have become so flimsy you have to wonder why they even bother to provide any at all.

[Bandit]

34. Remember the Maine and Gulf of Tonkin

were acts of war committed against the US and we responded to them. It is in no way a pre-emptive act. Yes they may have been fabricated I don't know but America believed we were defending ourselves. Defending ourselves I'll repeat it. We were defending ourselves from attacks upon us. We were not defending ourselves from a supposed attack sometime in the future. The big difference is Iraq did nothing to the US. It may or may not have posed a threat in some future time we will never know but at the time we attacked them they had done nothing to us. That is a very shaky premise for war. Maybe they might sometime in the future do something against us. We can attack any country in the world at any time using this doctrine. It is not the American way. It is the fascist way.

[IrateCitizen]

35. Remember the Maine was a f***ing boiler explosion!

It was used as an excuse for us to intervene in what was, essentially, several wars of independence among Spanish colonies. We were interested in little more than taking those colonies over as our own.

Have you ever read of the atrocities that US troops committed in the Phillippines "pacifying" the islands after the Spanish were kicked out? Silly Filipinos, they actually thought we were there to help them gain independence. Read the passages in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States that deal with orders from field commanders to "kill anyone over the age of ten", and prepare to be utterly appalled.

As for the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, perhaps you could expand on the premise of just what in the hell US ships were doing in that area anyway? And perhaps you could explain how the resolution was ultimately justified considering that there is ample evidence to suggest that the attack on the Maddox never even took place?

The only thing that was being defended in these instances was the unfettered expansion of American power. And that is something that I can never justify.

[Don Claybrook]

37. As mmonk said

I should've spoken more clearly. Preemptive war as policy is something new. I'm aware that the SA War and Vietnam were started based on lies, and that they would've found other lies as pretexts if those hadn't worked out. I've read my Zinn and Chomsky. :) We never were the Good Guys in White Hats, no matter how many Americans suffer under that delusion.

But as a matter of policy, the Bush Admin has reached a new low in tactlesness and they've brought naked aggression out in the open.

[IrateCitizen]

38. And that I fully and completely agree with

But as a matter of policy, the Bush Admin has reached a new low in tactlesness and they've brought naked aggression out in the open.

Completely true. But that's not to say that we haven't waged "pre-emptive attacks" before with a much better PR campaign, because we most certainly have. ;-)

[Don Claybrook]

40. Maybe this goes to an issue

of having to convince the American people that a war is justified. Once upon a time, they had to come up with a better pretext. Now, Bush just says something about hole-smoking, mass graves, and yellacake, and most folks look away from Survivor long enough to nod in agreement.

Thanks, Chris.

[IrateCitizen]

43. I think it has more to do with a four-letter word: F-E-A-R

For many people, 9/11 is all the justification that they need to embark on any war. Why do you think that the Bush Administration worked so hard to make the links between Saddam and Osama, even thought the links were completely imaginary?

9/11. That's why.

The "Survivor" factor comes in when you look at how ignorant the average American is to what our foreign policy really is. If most Americans were truly interested in really examining the question, "Why do they hate us?" I would bet that majority opinion would be quite different. But there is no interest in examining these questions, it is much easier instead to continue with the illusion that the US stands for freedom and justice and that anyone who attacks us "hates us for our freedoms".

[ma4t]

48. now we're getting somewhere

As many here have stated the U.S. has waged preemptive war many times in the past, the examples I cited being only a few. Reasonable people would be willing to concede that, based on repeated examples, we have had preemption as a policy for many years.

The most we can accuse Bush of on this topic is a willingness to publicly state what has been true all along. In other words, he has had the unmitigated gall to honestly, publicly proclaim the policy that numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, have followed for decades.

[Bandit]

39. Boy that pre-emptive WAR in Haiti was horrible with American Deaths

:shrug: whatever. You may call it a war but some people would beg to differ.

[ma4t]

49. not many deaths, but it was a war

Here's a hypothetical question: If we agree to call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? The answer is: 4. Just because we call a tail something else that does not make it so.

In Haiti we had a sovereign state which we presented with an untimatum, either change regimes or face military action. We had an invasion fleet offshore and we had airborne troops on the way. We did, in fact occupy the country and enforce a regime change. We continued to occupy that country afterwards and enforced martial law. That sure sounds like a war to me. A small war, I'll readily grant, but a war just the same. Had Saddam packed up and ran on day 1 or day 2 would you call that something other than a war? I wouldn't.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

2. i disagree

I disagree with your assertion that Bush Sr should have taken Saddam out. The reason I disagree is because Bush Sr's Administration created a strategy and stuck to it. W had no plan, his goals changed numerously throughout the campaign. It starts as a search for WMD, when no WMD is found it turns into a war for liberation, now that Saddam has been found and the people are liberated what now? I'll wager a guess, OIL!

[TexasMexican]

8. sticking to a strategy

So are you saying that Bush Sr. did the right thing because he stuck to his strategy? So as long as you stick to your strategy its a good thing, even if the strategy is flawed.

This whole war has its roots in what happened in the '91 Gulf War.

I dont think Sr. had a good strategy, he wanted Iraqi forces removed from Iraq. Thats more tactics than strategy.

[IrateCitizen]

16. You're barely scratching the surface here

This whole war has its roots in what happened in the '91 Gulf War.

Hardly. This whole "war" has its roots in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and so on. The 1990-91 Gulf War was more or less an effort to defang Saddam after he had worn out his usefulness as a bulwark to Islamic fundamentalism in the region, and his large military was seen as a threat to US dominance in the Middle East if it were left intact. At the same time, Thomas Friedman on the NYT perhaps summed up the GHW Bush view most accurately when he wrote about the ideal situation in Iraq being a strongman dictator government headed by someone other than Saddam (but just as ruthless). Since there were no other strongmen waiting in the wings, the Bush I Administration decided to go with Saddam.

The current invasion was a result of the neoconservative ideologues (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.) winning out over the conservative pragmatists (Powell, Baker, Eagleburger, etc.). It is symbolic of the "changing of the guard" within the Republican Party itself. And the new incarnation, we are seeing, is far more reactionary (and dangerous) than the old.

Here's an article from September 2002 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that lays it all out in clear terms: The President's Real Goal in Iraq by Jay Bookman (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm). Take the time to read through it. Investigate some of the links. Think about it for a little while.

Then come back and tell me if you still support this endeavor.

[salin]

22. psssst... IC.... link needed

to the article to which you refer.

[IrateCitizen]

24. Thanks -- fixed.

I was linking that Jay Bookman article from Sept 2002, "The President's Real Goal in Iraq". It was the one that laid out the whole PNAC theory before it was known to many people.

[TexasMexican]

26. The page cannot be displayed

is that the correct link?

[IrateCitizen]

28. Try clicking on this, it will work -- I just tried it.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

[Jacobin]

3. I don't buy the PNAC precepts. Apparently you do.

[adriennel]

4. I mostly agree

with everything you state, except that I do not believe this was a justified war. not in any way.

I didn't know what the heck BushI was thinking at the end of the Persian Gulf War Part1. I heard that Bush did not get rid of Saddam as a favor to the Saudi royal family (?) and after reading the 1998 Time article, it made sense to me that Saddam was not removed from power due to concerns over instability in the region (which turned out to be true). I have lots of problems with BushI but I feel he was a better statesman than his idiot son. But then I'm left wondering what the hell the Persian Gulf War was about in the first place (invasion of Kuwait, I know. But we did not remove the threat to Kuwait.)

how many wars is the United States going to carry out for the Bush family? two is way too many.

[TexasMexican]

6. maybe justified isnt the right word.

In my mind I think its justified, but perhaps that isnt the right word. Maybe its not justified, but I do think it was something that we had to do sooner or later. Perhaps however this was not the right time, but I do think sooner is better than later (so we can get it over with and future generations can go on with thier lives in relative freedom).

I'm not sure why Bush Sr didnt remove Saddam, I know there was an uprising within Iraq against Saddam, but I believe it happened after we signed the ceasefire so we couldnt do anything to help (actually the way we break treaties we could have done anything we wanted but we chose not to).

Why did we sign that ceasefire so soon without getting any more concessions from Saddam? Was Bush Sr and his administration really naieve enough to think that the UN would keep Saddam in check and protect the Iraqi citizens, I dont think Bush Sr. is naieve (maybe Jr, but not Sr.).

I was also wondering what was up with Kuwait? I'm sure they couldnt be too happy about us leaving Saddam in charge in Iraq.

I will also agree that Bush Sr. was a better statesman than Jr, IMO he could have probably handled an occupation of Iraq better than Jr. Because he didnt we are not left with the problems we have today.

[IrateCitizen]

27. You're operating from an extremely flawed premise here

That premise is that the United States is truly interested in the well-being of the rest of the world. It is not, nor has it every really been. The United States acts primarily and often exclusively out of self-interest. And that "self-interest" is not necessarily the interest of the masses -- but rather the interests of a very narrow minority that holds the wealth and power. In this sense, the United States is no different from any other major power throughout history.

The one instance that people can really cite as the US acting in a broader interest was WWII -- and that is probably justified. But it's also important to remember that, at the time, the British were brutalizing their colonials around the world, Russia was under Stalin, and that these were our ALLIES. The US had also, in recent history, conducted their own genocidal campaigns in pacifying the Phillippines. So, while the Nazis were absolute evil and had to be stopped, the allies had plenty of skeletons in their own closets. As for the Pacific War, it was more or less the last major war between competing colonial powers for control over the Pacific rim.

When you analyze events like the invasion of Iraq in this context, you reach very different conclusions. It is seen as what it truly is: a naked power grab -- rather than what it is not: a genuine concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people, or a measure to extend "democracy" throughout the Middle East.

You said in another post that you were only 10 at the time of the first Gulf War. That would make you what now, 22? I'm wondering why if you don't support campaigns of imperial conquest so much, you haven't yet signed up to go fight them?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. This is why...

"I'm not sure why Bush Sr didnt remove Saddam"

I see that you were only ten at the time of the Gulf War, so you may not be aware of this, but the UN resolution that authorized the coalition to act against Hussein's foray into Kuwait ONLY applied to pushing Hussein back behind his own borders, it did NOT authorize his removal from power. If it had called for that, the other UN/coalition members would never have gotten on board.

Bush Sr., for all his faults, understood that and stayed with the authorization granted by the UN resolution.

If only his offspring had been as wise...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. texmex it seems you are always defending bush.*s pre-emptive war

it was WRONG from the get go....and can NEVER made to be right

[TexasMexican]

7. ¿Joe who?

Lieberman?

Nope, I'm not jewish.

Maybe the reason I'm always defending "Bush's pre-emptive war," is because I think it was the right thing to do, however for the wrong reasons and mishandled.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

11. reccomended reading "Dude Where's my Country" and "All The Shahs Men"

and "The Black Tulip"

[delhurgo]

9. Good post. I think this war was a gamble, but probably...

...worth it. You're right, WMDs was only the pretense for going in; the real reason is to create a free Iraq and hope that it then will influence the rest of the Middle East. This will then bring a better life to all the people in that region and hopefully make terrorism/Islamism less of an influence. The big question though is do the people there want or can they be governed by a democratic form of government, without it becoming a theocracy or some other form of tyranny thats agressive toward us. Thats the gamble were taking. It could end up being a worse for us than Saddam was. Another reason that few acknowledge is to create a military base there as well as a source for intelligence; a base to launch future military action against govs or terrorists if need be.

I dont think you can blame Bush Sr; I especially dont think anyone here can. Maybe you felt at the time that we should have finished the job, but the overwhelming majority of Dems and the U.N. were totally opposed to that.

I must admit this is a very exciting time for Iraq. I don't expect that they'll come up with a democracy and a Bill of Rights like we have, but it will be gratifying to watch them form their own government and guarantee their citizens the freedoms they so much deserve.

[Jacobin]

14. "exciting to watch them form their own government"?????

You're kidding, right?


Did you like all the big booms when the shocknawe thing was happening too? That was kinda like fireworks, huh?

And, geeze, all those tanks n shit? Man, cool war, huh?

[TexasMexican]

17. "Maybe you felt at the time that we should have finished the job"

well yeah, I was only 10, and at the time I thought that if we didnt get to keep what we fought for then we werent finishing the job. lol.

Throught the next several years I thought we did a good job, however in light of more recent events I have been thinking that we didnt.

I can sort of see some parallels to the time between WWI and WWII. Hopefully when this is all done Iraq will end up peaceful like Japan and Germany, I do have my doubts that it would be that peaceful but as long as it moves in that direction it will be a good thing.

[IrateCitizen]

32. Now I'm beginning to see why you think this way

well yeah, I was only 10, and at the time I thought that if we didnt get to keep what we fought for then we werent finishing the job. lol.

That means you're what now, about 22? No offense, but you have a lot more learning about the world to do. Lord knows I did when I was 22. I'm now 30, and I'm a very different person now than I was eight years ago.

I have to say that I'm troubled by this statement: "I thought that if we didnt get to keep what we fought for then we werent finishing the job." Didn't get to keep what we were fighting for? According to historical record, what we (meaning the UN-backed coalition) were fighting for was to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. By that measure, we were not entitled to "keep" anything! Or do you find no problem with wars of conquest or just taking things that you want?

My suggestion to you is to just start reading as much as you can. Don't rely on "mainstream" sources, either. And really take time to think and reflect upon what you believe. You might be surprised to find out that what you believed to be right you come to see as being completely, utterly wrong.

[IrateCitizen]

21. "Exciting"? I hope you're not using that word in a positive way.

This is a situation that will come back to bite us in the ass, just like every other time we've tried to directly meddle in the affairs of other nations.

Iraq is currently being sold off, piece-by-piece, to US corporate interests. EVERYTHING over there is being privatized -- it's like some damn laboratory for the American Enterprise Institute.

This has been extensively covered in the alternative media, not to mention being featured on NOW with Bill Moyers. Do you think that Iraqis are going to find this "exciting" in a year or two? Or do you think it will be a cause for major resentment, as what remains of the country's infrastructure is sold off piece by piece, and any profits generated are sucked out of the country (after, of course, a stipend is paid to the US-picked leaders of Iraq).

Speaking of leaders being hand-picked, you are of course aware that the head of the Iraqi Governing Council, one Ahmed Chalabi, was sentenced to 23 years in prison in Jordan (in absentia, of course) for massive bank fraud. Additionally, Mr. Chalabi had not lived in Iraq for some forty years prior to the US invasion -- but yet, somehow, he achieved the position of head of the governing council. That's a pretty rapid mobilization of popular sentiment, don't you think?

Sorry, but what you're selling here is fatally flawed. There will be no "independent Iraq". Everything will be controlled by the US -- either directly, or by proxy. Democracy is not something that can be "imposed" on people. It must come from within. Thinking that we somehow have all the answers to everyone else's problems (when we can't even solve our own) is nothing less that pure arrogance and hypocrisy. Shame on you for buying into it.

[RWPTRBL]

10. Completely 100% Disagree!!!

Baby bush killed innocent people and started a war that could have easily been avoided. He started it because his band of thieves know very well that middle eastern oil is extremely crucial to our national interests especially the interest of our defense in future years.
If we are worried about future generations hating us so much that they will be a threat to us. Then we need to shed our arrogance, begin showing the muslim countries the respect they deserve, and quit sticking our nose in everyones buisness.
Our foreign policies are a disgrace and has been flaunted right in the worlds face during this administration. Based on your theory we better start attacking the rest of the world, because we have managed to give almost everyone reasons to Hate the USA!!!
I respect your opinion but I have to admit i am kind of surprised to see it on DU.

[ACK]

13. I respectfully disagree

I do not like the idea of pre-emptive war unless an immediate threat to the nation is present and can be totally backed up with facts.

This whole thing has been a terrible mess. It is good that the Iraqis are free from a dictator. But the ends do not justify the means.

Doctering facts to make the point and putting bad facts into the State of the Union address is just horrible policy.

Bad arrogant diplomacy and going in with no multi-lateral support is just bad policy.

The trend since Truman to give the President the power to make war instead of the Congress utilizing its Constitutional power to declare way is just cowardly.

Going into war with no clue of what to do in the post-war period is just bad planning.

Giving no bid contracts worth around 2 billion dollars to Halliburton that just happens to be Vice-President's old company is just arrogant and smacks of pure cronyism.

The diplomacy failure of not being able to get troop commitments from our allies in the post-war period or even more troops from the people already supporting the war tells you a lot about how bad this administration is in terms of its international relations.

We must take the high road of moralism in our foreign policy balanced with pragmatism and self-preservation. This is not an idealist's policy. It just makes sense. Right, now we support a nation that is run by a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons that exports terroism according to its neighbors. I am talking about Pakistan. But that is not the only whole in our policy right now.

We have to fill the holes.

[CWebster]

15. Why was it justified?

Where are the WMDs that threatened a mushroom cloud over the world in less that 45 minutes?

It was all a lie.

[TexasMexican]

20. read, comprehend, post.

if you read my post you would know that I said that WMD have nothing to do with it.

[CWebster]

23. You mean we had to attack and destroy and kill

and occupy because Bush and his Daddy hate Saddam? All paid for with your tax dollars. Isn't it a priviledge, especially when we can't pay for schools at home. Yes, and Sharon is a "man of peace".

[salin]

18. Then again... to pursue this at the time the did... required:

Pulling military resources out of Afghanistan; (I believe we began redeploying troops from Afghanistan to Iraq by Spring of 2002)

Deciding to not support UN efforts at Peace-Keeping Efforts (to prevent the re-emergence of the WarLord battles that led to such instability that the Taliban emerged to power in the first place) - because that would have required greater, rather than decreased military resources in Afghanistan; (same as above)

Pulling intelligence resources out of Afghanistan at the very time when investing in new and additional human intelligence in Afghanistan was required to fully identify taliban and al queada sources of support (financial, arms, political, etc.); We began pulling/moving intel by March 2002 - presumably because while the Neocons are on record pushing for an Iraq invasion since late Sept 2001, there was no intel through usual means to justify such an action; given what we know about how intel was manipulated (see Hersh's "Stove Pipe" in the New Yorker - November 2002.)

Resulting in reports (though one has to look for more international sources as the US reporting on Afghanistan became very sparse once the focus moved to Iraq by summer of 2002)....

By Summer of 2002 there were reports that Al Queada was regrouping in the "Frontier Lands" within Afghanistan, and that Osama Bin Laden and his number two guy Zawari (sp?) were suspected to be protected (by sympathetic supporters) on the border lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

By Winter of 2002/03 there were increased incidents of political assassinations of members of the Transitional Government (Karzai) and few areas outside of Kabul were thought to be under the control of the new transitional government.

Also by Winter of 2002/03 there were reports of frequent firebombings at schools for girls forcing many of the new schools to be closed.

By Spring of 2003 there were reports that the Taliban had regrouped and was exerting influence (control?) in several regions.

In the FIRST Bush Budget after the Afghanistan war, there was ZERO budgeted for rebuilding in Afghanistan, although this had been a rationale in the early days of that war - that the goal was to get rid of the Taliban and create a safe (and prosperous) democracy that would provide a beacon of hope and foster stability within the region (this rhetoric was later re-used as part of the Iraq War justification, which was always interesting because as they were saying it - we were stiffing that very promise to Afghanistan). The Republicans in the House were so embarrassed that they put a minimal budget item into the Budget after it was received from Bush.

By now - on the one hand recent news trumpets the hope of the new constitution being written - but the news (mostly international) empahsizes the lawlessness, reemergence of ferocious war-lord violence, and worse yet describes the hold that the Taliban has in areas such as Kandahar (their former capital) - where violence and threats of violence are used to keep the citizens in line. There are continued reports about the regrouping of both the Taliban and Al Queada... and the reports of Osama and Al Zawari living in the borderlands continue.

.....

All said there is a real threat. A real group that desires to - and has conducted - strikes on American interests including the devastating attacks of Sept 11. It is a group who was initially being disruptive through international support ... intelligence, arrests, and brief interruptions of money supplies. Unfortunately the Bush bull-in-the-china-shop approach towards the War in Iraq (and the neocon rhetoric currently used to threaten similar action against numerous other countries) - has had a silencing effect on said international support on the efforts to completely disrupt Al Queada.

Further more, for political reasons (silencing embarassing info at home), folks within the Administration blew up (eg completely ended) an intelligence network that monitored the flow of Weapons of Mass Destruction internationally in order to prevent these weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. Reports suggest that this type of intelligence network takes years to build and may take years to replace.

So the real threat exists. The war effort significantly lessened the US ability to deal with the threat, and the administrations political cravenness made it harder to determine if those allied with the real threat will be able to get WMDs to be used in their on going attacks on perceived "US" or western targets.

............

All that said - I personally think that the costs associated with the War in Iraq were exceptionally high with regards to US National Security.

I am more than a bit disturbed that while this aspect of the "costs" of the war has been well covered in the international press... it has been so poorly covered in the US press. Here one has to look almost daily - across multiple news (print) organization to get the bits and peices - and one has to tie those pieces together to get a feel of the whole picture. That is - to get the same breadth of information available outside of the US by reading one or two news sources - one has to spend tons of time scouring multiple US news sources and do the foot work (tying the stories together) in essence becoming ones own news reporter/analyst.

[dansolo]

25. Poppy Bush just set the stage

Bush Sr. knew that he couldn't justify an invasion of Bagdad without destroying his coalition, but if he really wanted to get rid of Saddam, he would have stopped Saddam from squashing the rebellion that he himself encouraged after the Gulf War. The truth is that they wanted to keep Saddam around until the situation arose where they could be the ones to take him out. If the Iraqis overthrew Saddam, the US would have lost a significant amount of influence, which was unacceptable to them.

[NNN0LHI]

31. Tell me why this war was justified n/t

[NNN0LHI]

33. Take your time. I have to get cleaned up and walk the pups

Be back in a few.

Don

[Patriot_Spear]

36. I couldn't disagree more...

This war was Wrong on so many levels it's hard to encapusulate in just a few words. A dissertation couldn't cover all the ramifications and damage done to the virtues and character of our country by Bush's* War.

At it's soul, this war in Un-American. The framers would have exploded in outrage of this invasion.

My bottomline: Anyone who thinks this war is justified should enlist or get their ass to Iraq as a civilian 'volunteer'.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

41. Perhaps you should study Peak Oil and petrodollar recycling....

<<<<I dont think that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. I wouldn't find it hard to believe if "some" chemical or biological weapons are found, but I doubt we will find vast stockpiles of them. That being said if we left Iraq alone I think it would eventually end up much like a more prosperous North Korea. Some decades down the road one of Saddam's sons would have been leading Iraq and they would have still hated us, and they would likely have had WMD by then.>>>

Since I am writing a book on this subject, I will offer my 2cts worth, actually this post is somewhat longer than a 2ct post ;-) But first, I would ask you to consider that we brought teh Batthist into power in a CIA coup in 1963, and strongly supported Saddam from 1980 to 1990. He is a monster partly of our own creation. So the question is - why *did* we overthrow Iraq?

Answer, for the same reasons wars have been fought for centuries - resources and in some cases economics. Based on my analysis of the facts, the Iraq war is a product of geostrategy for the US to gain control over oil, and to prevent momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The war was about Power.

The problem is this strategy is doomed to fail. Most gov'ts, and the UN simply don't trust the necons, but we sheeple think they are "protecting us" from "them" (ie. the universal, good for any purpose "terrorists" - be they in Columbia, Venezuela, West Africa, Afghanistan/Pakistan, various "stans" to the west of Afghanistan, and the Middle East - please pay no attention to the fact that strategic oil reserves or pipelines are found in each of these areas re recent US military deployments...)

"Hunt for 'new' oil' (9-28-03)
http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20030928-123431-1449r.htm

Yes, the US appears to be in a mad scamble to secure the world's oil reserves in an effort to feed our consumption. (Afterall, we consume 25% of the world's oil, about twice as many k/joules per person than Japan)

First I shall address the importance of oil. We need to think about oil in an almost metaphoric sense - as an existential substance that makes or breaks economies and armies. Oil represents power. Afterall, much of what Hitler did in WWII was driven by his need for oil. Same applies today, but it is even more important given the realities of Peak Oil and the structual imbalances of the US economy - that we are attempting to control both. Our debt is not sustianable without petrodollar recycling, and regarding the imminent geological phenemenon known as Peak Oil - Those who control access to oil and the currency of oil shall grow, those who do not will atrophy.

Here's my basic thought process:

Life is nothing more than competition for energy. Period.

This applies equally to single cell amoebas as it does human beings as it does to nation states. Regardless of where we are in the food chain or how developed we are as a nation, this axiom applies to all. We seek and compete for energy.

At the human level we need water to survive, as there is no substitute. Nothing is more precious than water.

At the nation state level, we also need energy, but water is only half the equation. For the past 100 years the industrialized world has become dependent on the very cheap energy supply of hydrocarbons. The power output per weight is quite impressive. Now oil = economic output = food production = survival and growth of nation states. Oil also provides the abilty to project military power.

Some have theorized that it was the abundance of cheap energy and the human's ability to master the harnessing/extracting of energy from hydrocarbons that provided the massive expansion of wealth of the 20th century, as well as the explosion of the human population to its current 6 billion inhabitants. Whether or not a correlation exists, at an intrinsic level this makes sense if life itself is nothing more than the competition for energy. We have had the privlege of living with an abundance of cheap energy for the past 100 years, and we are not running out of oil, but out of *cheap oil.* That's the issue.

Economically, all activity requires energy as an input. Whether that is a single man pushing a plow in a field, hoping to have extra crops to sell for profit based on his labor (energy input), or the entire infrastructure of a industrialized nation that uses vast quantities of energy (oil, hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, coal, wood, etc). The goal is the same as the man with the plow, to harness energy for economic activity.

At the nation state level, nothing is more precious than energy, and 95% of transportation on planet Earth requires hydrocarbons. Buses, cars, trains, planes & ships require hydrocarbons. This is the glue of the global economy. Likewise, with the exception of nuclear-powered submarines and ships, all military operations require vast amounts of hydrocarbons too. This is critical for any nation that wants to be a superpower. Their is no readily available substitute for hydrocarbons when it comes to transportation or military operations. But he who controls the *currency* for oil/energy will be the most powerful nation - especially if it is a fiat currency (which is a curreny that is not backed by a specie metal, ie. gold, and thus can be printed at will by the gov't).

Therefore - Oil is Power, and the currency in which oil is denominated represents economic Power (capitalized for emphasis)

Hence, a monopoly currency for oil is the most powerful currency. This is why since 1974 the US dollar should not have read "In God we Trust" but rather "In OPEC we Trust." The dollar's unique "storage of wealth" is that it is convertible to 1.5 to 1.9 gallons of crude oil - thanks to artificial geopolitical "arrangements" with Saudi Arabia and OPEC. Saddam made the switch to selling oil for euros in Nov 2000, and that was not tolerable. OPEC is now openly discussing this issue, so these crucial US geopolitical arrangements are now being threatened, thus the US's economic and military superpower status is being threatened - by the euro and by the gov'ts of Iran, Indonesia, Russia and Venezuela as they seek to sell their oil/energy in the euro.

(Quick Note) Fall 2000. Saddam surprised the Washington Consensus in November 2000 when he made the switch to euros. IMO, this was his *final* nail in his coffin. The US can not afford both Iran and Iraq to go euro, thus creating a beach head in the world oil currency market (more specifically the US debt can only be tolerated due to the petrodollar recycling mechanism). Iran wanted to do this when/if the euro became at parity to the US dollar. Iraq w/ 11% of world's reserves and Iran with 9% = 20% of the world's reserves as "petroeuro" = end of US economic dominance of the oil markets.

So, I think from Jan 20, 2001 when GWB was sworn-in, plans for "taking out Saddam" were already very much on Cheney and Rumsfeld's mind, Bush went along for the ride of course, not wanting to upset his energy-military-industrial conglomerate paymasters....Plan B became Plan "Operation Iraqi Freedom"...but we pissed off the world in the process. The outcome of the Iraqi mess is unclear, but the neocons do not inspire much confidence...

The other factor re Iraq is of course is our excessive energy needs:

As previously mentioned, Saddam's oil exploration contracts with France, Russia and China from the 1990s could not be tolerated in a US centric world with us as the global hegemon. Yep, during the 1990s Saddam contracted to these 3 countries *40* billion barrels worth of Iraq reserves, worth about $1.1 trillion. This is 35% percent of Iraq's entire oil reserves. (assuming they have 112 billion, which is an unknown variable at the moment). This was not tolerable to the US, or atleast the neocons. The one catch was that oil exploration could not take place until the UN sanctions were lifted. So, the neocons would not allow Dr. Blix et al to declare Iraq free of WMD, as the French, Russians and Chinese could then gain legal access to those oil fields, cutting the US out, and securing the euro as a 2nd oil transaction currency.

Hence, Bush as his neocon advisors decided to invade Iraq before any of this could occur. Russia, France and China's oil contracts are now void, with the US and UK controlling the spoils. BTW, the UK's portion of the North Sea began a rather steep decline after 2000, so the UK is going to soon import the majority of their oil. I think Blair went along with the neocons for the UK's energy needs...(and perhaps to negotiate a favorable outcome whenever the UK does decide to join the euro)

As for the US....we arrived at Peak Oil for the lower 48 states in 1971, and by 2020 we will need to import 90% of our oil (according to Cheney's 2001 energy report). How does Iraq fit into this? Well, Russia's oil peaked in 1987, and both Yeltsin and Putin pursued contracts with Saddam re Iraq's unclaimed oil fields. France has nuclear power, but needs oil for transportation, and of course they want to buy oil in their own currency to avoid currency risk FYI: Remember the fall of 2000 when the euro was about 17% less than the dollar? Well, the French, Germans and eurozone were not happy about their petrol prices...check out these pictures for an illustration of "currency risk regarding energy."....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/15/world/main233748.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/04/france.blockade/

For a good analysis of Peak Oil I recommend Richard Heinberg's book: "The Party's' Over." Here is some chronology re Iraq and US geostrategy that you may wish to consider:

(Note #2) Peak Oil circa 1995 to present It is my understanding that the most highly regarded oil consultanting firm, Petroconsultants out of Zuirch, produced a report in 1995 that dealt somewhat with the issue of Peak Oil. This report cost $32,000 to each of their exclusive clients, and these clients have to sign non-disclosure agreements to keep specific information confidential. Several interesting comments based on that 1995 study and subsequent events in Caspian Sea region seem to suggest that 1) the Caspian Sea region was thought to be one of the last promising 'major' oil discoveries, and 2) the world oil production will peak around 2010 unless large discoveries are quickly found and brought-online, with Iraq being the most unexplored and thus potentially the best/last source of undiscovered Persian Gulf oil.

It should be noted that there are 2 types of oil data, 1) Political data (Oil and Gas Journal, OPEC reporting, etc), and 2) technical data. Politicians and oil companies use the "political data" whereas intelligence agencies and gov't strategists use the "technical data" - which is hard to get. In fact, disclosing Russia's oil reserve data is punishable by 7 years in jail, although the data is widely known these days. Here's the most recent and bizarre use of data, Canada is now listed by the USGS as having the 2nd largest oil reserves b/c they recently added heavy tar sands as "reserves." Never mind that it takes almost 2 barrels of energy to extract 1 barrel of energy from tar sands, but according to the "political data" Canada now has more oil than Iraq...and this month Venezuela requested that it's tar sands data be included as their "reserves" which makes them equal to Saudi Arabia?! It's absurd, and of course both economists and market fundmentalists always use "political" data as if were fact, as their models fall apart when demand for oil outstrips oil supply, and no equivalent substitute is available to produce the same quantify of energy (via EROEI - Energy Return on Energy Invested).

The best source for "technical data'? Former geologists who have no stake in the game, and Petroconsultants, Inc. Petroconsultants has 40 years of production history, uses the largest private database of 40,000 oil fields. It is rumored that the CIA is one of their biggest clients. (according to Dreffeyes) Here's a sample from his book.

http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7121.html

It should be noted that in the late 1990s tilll 2000 there were optimistic claims that the Caspian Sea region could have up to 200 b/bls of untapped oil. Subsequent 2000-2002 drilling has reduced these "political" figures to a mere 8-20 b/bls (and up to 20% sulfur, making extraction expensive and environmentally dangerous). Dick Cheney's energy plan was written with the assumption the Caspian Sea region held that 100 to 200 billion barrels of decent quality crude. Plan A was "Operation Enduring Freedom"...made possible in the aftermath of 9/11. However, by then the realization about the Caspian Sea area was becoming apparent.

What does this depletion of hydrocarbons mean? Well, it means we are becoming a more multi-polar world, which is dangerous and should be avoided as much as possible, but that is what the neocon strategy is all about "to prevent any country from even aspiring to challenge the supremacy of the U.S." Trust me, the US energy-military-industrial conglomerates will attempt to move Heaven and Earth to prevent the euro from becoming an alternative oil transaction currency. Do not underestimate the strategy and knowledge of these folks....

I'll just speculate here, but I have a feeling that alarm bells went off in Langley sometime in late September 2000 when Saddam announced after a govt. meeting that Iraq was moving to euros. After all, that's what those guys are paid to do. Little known to most people, but Bush and perhaps Cheney were privy to US intelligence briefings in the last Quarter of 2000. I read that traditionally the major presidential contender is given the PDB or something very close during the transition period, so once the new President is sworn in he/she will not be suddenly hit with an international crisis that he/she was completely unaware of. So, both Gore and Bush each got a daily intel report from early Nov through January. In fact, I read somewhere that Bush was getting intel reports from September 2000 forward. Clinton got the same type of intel reports from either after Sept 1992 or after the Nov 92' election, its standard practice.

My point is that the neocons want to pursue a strategy of "global dominance" - which means controlling both Persian Gulf oil and its currency. In their infamous Sept 2000 PNAC document, they lamented that their policies could not be implemented without a "new Pearl Harbor" (their words). That event was provided on 9/11/01, and the PNAC blueprint was ready to go, with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitcz arguing with Coilin Powell that perhaps Iraq should be "hit" first, rather than Afghanistan (that same afternoon of 9/11/01). Powell won the argument in the fall of 2001, but the Iraq war plans probably go back to late the late 1990s - for the geostrategic issues mentioned in my earlier email.

So, in the "oil vs. dollar" question - you can't be a superpower without access to *both* energy and a strong currency. You must have control of both. A quick look back at recent history is helpful.

(ie. 19th century Britain with the universally accepted Sterling pound and a massive coal burning fleet of warships made them an Empire. The advent of faster and more efficient oil burning ships just before WWI was one of the reasons why England's Empire began to wane, the debt of WWI and then WWII was the final event that ended the dominance of the Sterling pound, thus by de facto ending their Empire too.

(Additionally, according to recently declassified 1977 and 1991 CIA documents studying the Soviet Union's pre-Peak Oil and post-Peak Oil period predicted in both cases that the USSR would not be able to maintain it's military superstructure once its energy supply peaked. That happened initially in 1983, and with the final peak in 1987, we all know happened in the 5 years after that event. The ruble was never nearly strong enough to challenge the dollar, so the USSR broke-up and the rest is history - well sort of. The neocons are pushing Putin closer to the EU, and Russia may redenominate oil sales in the euro if a pricing mechanism were devised. The US is trying hard to keep the EU splintered ("Old Europe" vs. "New Europe", and to keep the Russia's from joining up with the EU for economic and military reasons.)

The US is now facing two crisis of epic proportions, perhaps the greatest crisis since the 1860s/1930s combined. One, our energy consumption is excessive and will soon outstrip demand unless we control as much of the world's remaining hydrocarbons as possible (- hence the US bases popping up everywhere where either oil or pipelines are to be found - under the guise of the "war on terror" of course)). Secondly, our currency is threatened for the first time since WWII with an alternative - the euro. The whole world needs to quickly develop new energy policies and technologies, but here is the US we have the most to lose due to our high consumption rate and structural debt problems. In fact, out entire "suburban" infrastructure was designed for the utlization of automobiles and we do not have enough mass transit in place to work well when Peak Oil arrives. We have *a lot* of work to do, and not enough time, and are in too much debt which further reduces our options.

So, we have been reduced to using military force to maintain our hegemonic status, but under the neocons we are doing it in such an overt way that the world community is objecting. The only way out of this dilemma is international cooperation, real leadership, global monetary reform and some sacrifices by the US citizenry re energy consumption. Politicians are not interested in being truthful with the sheeple, both parties are more or less in the pockets of the military-energy conglomerates, so I'm writing a book, just to see what happens..if anything.

Furthermore, controlling the oil does not help us if it is denominated in euros. We now use the printing press to buy energy, and the world sucks up our dollars so they too can buy oil, pay off their IMF loans, manipulate their currency, and do what they need to do to survive. However, the US has a huge trade deficit problem, how exactly we can overcome our energy dilemma and our trade deficits are my biggest concerns re the long-term economic viability of the US.

You and I may wish to think that the US is going to "install" democracy in Iraq, but that is not our goal, and our actions show otherwise (please read "All the Shah's Men" for a good parallel from 1953). The facts on the ground in Iraq speak for themselves:

1) The US quickly changed Iraq's oil sales back to dollars, just as I predicted a year ago:

Iraq returns to international oil market (June 5, 2003)
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/FINANCIAL%20TIMES_Iraq%20returns%20to%20international%20oil%20market.htm

2) The neocons canceled Iraq's oil contracts with other nations (ie. France, Russia and China)
3) Paul Bremer postponed/did not permit Iraqi elections back in June
4) The neccons have threatened Iran and Syria despite the fact that Al Qeada is sponsored by Saudi Arabia
5) and the neocons have basically pissed off most of the world in their pursuit of unilaterists policies.

In conclusion, the Iraq war was designed to 1) secure oil supplies to the US before, during and after Peak Oil, and 2) to have a large military presence to "dissuade" any other country of moving to the euro as an oil transaction currency. Reconverting Iraq back to the euro was not the critical issue, but stopping any *futher momentum* towards the euro was and is a critical US geostrategy. The Iraq war was a message of sorts to others. Why such a risk? Because it will become increasingly logical for OPEC to sell oil in euros once the EU expands in May 2004, and even the neocons know what that means - the end of US hyperpower, and thus the end of their dreams of a US Global Empire.

Unfortunately for the neocons, Iraq was not quite a "cake walk" and the lack of international support/$$ seems to have slowed them down in the aftermath. As reported this weekend, they need a bigger military to pursue their goals. BTW, did you notice the draft board reactivation stories from last month....wonder if that will become an election year issue?

"Oiling up the draft machine?" (Nov 4, 2003)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/

Global Empire and 5 more wars will require many more men...Yes, the neocons have a plan, but their execution has been poor and incredibly arrogant, but desperate men do desperate things.

There is no easy way out, and I do not envy the next President of the US. My book will end with a discussion regarding global monetary reform, and advocate a compromise with the EU. What the US will lose is its hegemonic/hyper-power status, and become more a nation of equals with regard to the EU. Nobody wants to hear that, we all want to be "winners all the time" - but I just can't see how this is going to unwind without the US being a lot humbler nation. So, that is the difficult choice, but the dictates of the global economy and physics will soon come to the forfront, and the only solution to prevent future oil currency warfare is international cooperation and compromise...and perhaps the one solution to "save the American Experiment" from the dreaded path of all Empires - military overextension and subsequent economic decline. Time to get motivated.

[bicentennial_baby]

42. Excellent post!

:toast:

[NNN0LHI]

44. It is a shame that the truth takes all of that work to explain it

I think the "Iraq war was justified" people have brought it down a level or two in their own minds though? They just think to themselves "Iraq war was justified because we had to get all our oil out from underneath them funny talking, brown skinned peoples sand". In fact the ones who say "oh, we can't leave them poor Iraqis alone now since we have invaded them" are thinking the same damn thing. And that is the truth. The funny part is that seemingly normal, intelligent people think that the Iraqis can't figure this out for themselves or something? And the same people will get downright pissed off at the Iraqis who have figured this out get pissed off and smoke a couple of our soldiers. They call them terrorists and everything. Odd.

Don

[IrateCitizen]

46. Simply fantastic!

Your work has confirmed many things that have been bouncing around in my head for quite some time, I just haven't been able to deliver them with as much clarity through research as you have here.

I like the way that you break the argument down simply -- that the #1 motivation for all organisms is competition over energy. In the case of human beings it has simply "evolved" to the point where this competition over energy is not only detrimental to our very survival -- but that the energy source over which we are competing (hydrocarbons) are turning out to be detrimental to our survival in their own right.

Excellent post. I look forward to reading your book when it comes out -- it sounds like the kind of dry economic analysis and political intrigue that gets me excited but completely bores almost everyone else I know. ;-)

[adriennel]

45. war at NO cost

True, Iraq is located in a volatile part of the world. It is difficult to find a non-volatile part of the world! I don't necessarily think it would have eventually resulted in war, at least not directly between the US and Iraq. Until BushII brought Iraq to the forefront, Israel was our top concern in the region.

Was the United States safer after the Persian Gulf War? No. In fact, American military involvement in the region may have promoted anti-American sentiment that helped lead us to our current situation.

If BushI had not created the Persian Gulf War, BushII would not have had to pursue this Second Gulf War above all else. Saddam is an obsession for BushII, and most obsessions are illogical. So I blame both Bushes and all the people who voted for and supported them for the current situation.

I ask again, how many wars will this country fight on behalf of the Bush family? This is not a monarchy. Has the Bush family given more to the United States than they have taken? Highly doubtful. This is not a Bush empire, and we must stop them before another one of them moves to a highly populated state simply for the sake of their political career.

The simple fact is, the Bushes are concerned ONLY with their own interests and because they are elite, weathly Americans they believe they are entitled to whatever they want. When the average American realizes we are sacrificing our resources and the lives of our poeple to serve the Bush family special interest, he won't be occupying that office any more
:-)

[BurtWorm]

47. You've argued against every rational justification for it

after insisting it was justified. I don't get it. Justification is not a sensation or feeling. It's a reason. The closest you come to giving a reason for the war is based on a dubious speculation about the future of Iraq. In order for Iraq to have become a prosperous NK, as you posited, it would have had to eliminate the little problem of the sanctions, which were keeping its people starving and in a medieval economy.

The war served no rational purpose, unless greed is a kind of rationality. It was a means of breaking a stalemate, which the US was in the position of maintaining far longer than Saddam was. It was a thoroughly dishonest enterprise from beginning to end, assuming it has an end.