The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[Occhidiangela]

Political conditions have changed, though I'm not convinced they've changed as much as you appear to think.

Horse apples. Rummy be gone. Karen Huges bailed years ago. Rove is gone. Rice replaced Powell. The only two still standing are Bush and Cheney, and Gates has been a significant change at Sec Def. Bush is on third AG. Scumbags like Wolfowitz and Feith are gone, but not locked up.

What do you mean the administration hasn't changed?

Bush strikes me (just my personal impression) as someone whose certainty is matched only by his lack of self-reflection and his disregard for the opinions of those who don't agree with him. Not a happy combination in a man who holds the levers of the US military, as events have shown.

You prefer indecisive people to lead? Bush ain't smart, that's for damned sure, and he's stubborn, for sure, and he's been willing to play the loophole diving game on a variety of issues that show a distinct shortcoming in his grasp of moral and persuasive power.

I am curious to know: what do you think a president ought to do, lead or let other people think for him while he begs for approval and grasps for consensus? That was Bill Clinton's style, and that ain't leadership, which was one of his significant shortcomings as president, for all of the political craft he displays, and displayed.

The Bush administration won't get public support for military action against Iran at this point, especially having cried wolf once already on the nuclear issue.

You seem to have missed the point: they won't get Congressional support, which is where the decision and resource base lies.

But if they've decided it's necessary, or they think that the wimps who follow them won't possess their wisdom and fortitude, I can believe they might use every means available to try and make it happen.

Great, we have a conspiracy theorist on the Lounge. Was 9-11 an inside job, Thecla?

Perhaps the US military would not go along with Iran as easily as they apparently did with Iraq (Fallon vs Shinseki not withstanding) but I expect you know a lot more about that than I do.

Not any more, in terms of my currency and being in touch.

I was very disturbed to see Fallon go. Between him and Gates, a solid line of "a war here makes no sense" was getting out. From what I have read, it seems that Rice and Gates are pushing back a bit at Cheney's tendency to saber rattle, and that's a good thing. Bush is, it appears, having trouble setting a tone and getting the team going in one direction. That's what you get when a middling to average MBA from the MBO era, rather than someone who gets leadership, gets to a high executive position.

As a side note, given Shinseki's fate, I find Bush's current supposed deference to the "military commanders on the ground" in Iraq rather than the "politicians in Washington" --- as if Bush himself were not himself a politician in Washington and the commander-in-chief to boot --- highly ironic.

This would be a result of the 2006 elections wherein he lost his Congressional rubber stamp. I will note that my time over in the fun box was overwritten by the suits in Washington making successive dogcrap policy moves that influenced what we were doing materially: see among other things Rummy's trying to reduce the footprint in 2004, in the middle of a civil war where the US had chosen a Shi'ite faction as its "side" and the two years it took to get Zarqawi, and the thousands who died while he was running amok.

Certainly the Iraq war was, and very bad politics at that.

My statement about war and its relationship to politics needs no qualification, whatsoever. Your remark suggests that the Iraq war is in the past. It is a current operation, Operation Iraqi Freedom. I even have a t-shirt and a medal, for all the good that does anyone, citing my participation in this particular extension of politics. Joy.

Your opinion of Hersh is less important than the accuracy of his information.

His sources are the usual nebulous band of unnamed sources, and given his propensity for spin and chicanery, I am sorry, I remain skeptical of anything he claims unless he backs up his facts more substantially. There is no question that various resistance movements in Iran have been able to get direct and indirect support from the US, for years, much as various movements garnered US support during the Cold War vis a vis the Soviets and their clients. Yes, the US ran spies and support for dissidents, covertly, in the Soviet Union.

To pretend this means the US is doing something unusual, different, or more dangerous than previously is purest spin. Big boy geopolitics, and realpolitick, at work. America is a Power. Pretending it isn't will cloud any analysis of what is going on all over the globe, which is where we have been engaged since 1945. That is 63 years of the US as a Power. Fantasies of a republic protected by the two oceans need to be dispelled.

True or not, I find it quite plausible that influential factions within the Bush administration would like to provoke Iran into an armed confrontation with the US before they leave office.

I see, so you do think 9-11 was an inside job, huh?

To be clear, I don't believe the US and Iran will get into direct military conflict any time soon (rhetoric aside, it isn't a feasible option for the US) but the fact that it's even conceivable is pretty bad.

It's been conceivable since 1979, and even resulted in US forces and Iranian forces trading shots in the Persian Gulf. Please check the Google on Operation Earnest Will and Praying Mantis, 80's version of US/Iran clash of arms, at a low level. It also got an Airbus shot down when it failed to respond on International Guard freq when it was flying over a surface action between USS Vincennes and some Iranian patrol boats.

I noted a suggestion above, IIRC from kandrathe, that a clash with Iran means an invasion as per Iraq, five month TPFDD and logistics build up, blah blah, blah.

Please stop with that, folks.

The force to do that isn't available for a sustained multi year war with Iran, nor is popular and Congressional support there. The likely form of any armed action versus Iran is air strikes, Maritime strikes, possibly maritime raids on coastal or port facilities, and likely some Spec Ops.

It's a sucker bet even then, unless the leadership in Iran goes out of its way to provoke such an attack. The last two years of probing have shown them the threshold of what will or won't incite a US response: these people aren't stupid.

Bush's lame duck position, and Gates reservations about use of armed force are significant political obstacles to a rash, last act of defiance from W before he is put out to pasture.

Occhi