Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Occhidiangela]

Is not going to happen. So I won't. However, I will go over a few points.

1. If you'd read my numerous and verbose posts, which I imagine you did, a few themes I have stuck to are as follows:

a. Is implementing democracy at the point of a bayonet going to make the mid east a better place? Not confident.

b. Is Saddam an obstacle to Mid East Peace? Yes. Is Mid East peace and stability an aim of the UN Security Council (of which the US is a member?) Yes.

c. Is and was Saddam playing a different game than the Americans? Does he play by a different set of rules? Does he use gas if he feels the desire to? Yes. Capability and intentions, and demonstrated behaviour, are all variables in threat assessment. That is why the UK is not considered a threat, even though they own nukes.

d. Is the stability of the MidEast a US Security Goal? Yes. Has been for about every administration since either TR or FDR, depends on how you want to characterize it.

e. Why is the Mid East important to anyone who does not live there? In part or in whole, its oil, and that commodity's immense impact on the global economy.

f. Politics is the father of war. This war was a predictable exercise of power politics.

g. Was this war the only way to change the Mid East? No, not hardly, but Saddam a leader along the lines of Fidel and Saddam or Louis XIV: not going anywhere until he stops breathing. Until he leaves, he creates instability by his own political power moves, and nothing really changes.

"Why now?" Best question, and possibly the toughest to answer brilliantly.

Was answered:

"The risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk of doing something and changing the calculus of the Middle East power relationships."

Is that the best answer in this best of all possible worlds, Dr Panglos-Zenda? Nope, but then, I don't ascribe to the zero defects theory of how the world works. Should does not equal what is.

h. Do I disagree with timing? Still unsure, as my concern was the part that happens when the 'great battles' stopped. "OK, if you invade Iraq and win, you now own it and it problems are now yours." This is what some folks refer to as 'winning the peace.' The US track record on that is mixed, though some collective efforts lately seem to have had some success at extravegant cost. See the Balkans.

"Why now?", again, has the problem of it all stemming to Saddam's political victory in 1991: he remained in power, and did nothing to improve stability in the Mid East in the interim. I will repeat the simple fact that had none of the nations in the region supported getting rid of him, it would not have happened. The issue is

Middle East stability, not a stand alone policy regarding Iraq. It is all tied together.

i. Comparisons to North Korea are pointless, as that situation is goverened by its own logic, and has a different cast of players. The 'Axis of Evil' Speech still remains as one of the most inelegant political statements I have ever heard. China's voice is immensely important in that situation, as is Japan's.

j. Was the risk of making the Middle East worse worth the cost, in treasure, blood, and 'political capital' worth the expectation that a change would improve the Mid East situation in the long term? Hard to say. It is early yet.

k. Was blatant fraud committed in the briefings to the US Congress pre authorization of the use of force? I would be very interested in hearing what is going on behind closed doors. If that turns out to be true, Watergate is gonna seem like child's play, and criminal charges would be appropriate.

l. If you want to pretend that it takes a zero defects standard to justify any action, feel free to remain paralyzed by analysis, which is what happened to the UN in Bosnia pre September 1995, and to the League of Nations in Spain 1939-1939.

m. Is there sufficient political will in America to garner support for 'no fooling' nation building in Iraq? Nation building has most frequently been a multinational endeavour. The early indications are that . . . this will be different. Not sure how well anyone thought this through with a LONG term view.

n. Folks are still in Bosnia and Kosovo, and for that matter still in Cyprus and the Sinai. Some places never get over needing the help. That model needs to be looked at when folks try to estimate just what level of effort is required to bring Iraq back into the fold of non-despotic nations.

o. A few days before the shooting started, I think it was Jester who answered to me the comment that the most likely Iraq, post war, was more likely not an Islamic Republic, which I estimated, but three places: Sunni Central Iraq, Shia Southern Iraq, and Kurdistan. The more I review my history references on the Arab world, the more sense that makes over any envisioned 'future representative Iraq.' Tito's Yugoslavia seems a far more likely model.

p. Read anything on this topic, and it is ALL about 'telling part of the story.' On all of the many sides. That too is politics in action, and always has been. The risk of NBC proliferation was there, the big question 'was it oversold?'

q. The UN is at times unable to get out of its own way. In a clear cut case of blatant aggression, in 1990, the UN needed Geo Bush Senior to lead it into action with a great deal of arm twisting. It took arm twisting to get the international community to do anything about blatant aggression.

Lesson learned?

Possibly . ..

1. Don't waste the energy beyond a certain point
2. One's own actions will be less painful as time passes, if you do a decent job at, see above, winning the peace.

The bottom line from me is: I will be interested to see what the facts are that are turned up as regards the advice Congress got from the Executive Branch in their classified briefings last fall.

Pete once pointed out: a good thing happened, Saddam gone, for what were the wrong reasons. I won't say I totally agree with that letter for letter, but it holds much truth.