Yet another Iraq "I hate to say I told you so, but... I told you so," situation

[Honolulu_Blue]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html


Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents.

"The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat.

Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters," the council's report says. "Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online)."

The report, titled "Mapping the Global Future," highlights the effects of globalization and other economic and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear device.

The council is tasked with midterm and strategic analysis, and advises the CIA director. "The NIC's goal," one NIC publication states, "is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information -- regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy."

Other than reports and studies, the council produces classified National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies on specific issues.

Yesterday, Hutchings, former assistant dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, said the NIC report tried to avoid analyzing the effect of U.S. policy on global trends to avoid being drawn into partisan politics.

Among the report's major findings is that the likelihood of "great power conflict escalating into total war . . . is lower than at any time in the past century." However, "at no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux as they have in the past decade."

The report also says the emergence of China and India as new global economic powerhouses "will be the most challenging of all" Washington's regional relationships. It also says that in the competition with Asia over technological advances, the United States "may lose its edge" in some sectors.

[Tekneek]

No, no no. The world is a safer place now. The world is a safer place now. The world is a safer place now...

[flere-imsaho]

Five years after the U.S. removes the significant portion of its military strength from Iraq, the country will be, in effect, an Islamic state.* What Bush thinks Iran is now, in fact.

*Well, the bottom two-thirds will. The top third will be a de facto Kurdish state, which will piss the Turks off to no end, further hindering U.S. diplomacy in the ME.

[sachmo71]

Well, it is also a haven for would-be terrorists deaths. So we've got that going for us.

Terrorist recruiter: "We're going to send you to Faluja to get some real life experience."
Would-be terrorist: "What does that mean?"
Terrorist recruiter: "Well, you'll fight Americans and learn their tactics."
Would-be terrorist: "F### you. I'm going to Morocco to train on the beach."

[CraigSca]

I say we trade the Alphabet and some furs with India now so that Prime Minister Gandhi likes us in the future. I don't trust that Mao Tse Tung at all.

[sachmo71]

I say we trade the Alphabet and some furs with India now so that Prime Minister Gandhi likes us in the future. I don't trust that Mao Tse Tung at all.
:D :D

"Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!"

[rkmsuf]

drop the sex bomb on them and all will be well

[Franklinnoble]

I'd rather have the terrorists in Iraq up against heavily armed US soldiers than anywhere else in the world.

[GrantDawg]

I'd rather have the terrorists in Iraq up against heavily armed US soldiers than anywhere else in the world.
The point of the article is the that Iraq is giving terrorist a "training and breeding ground" to export terrorism everywhere in the world.

Could have never seen that coming. :rolleyes:

[Tekneek]

I'd rather have the terrorists in Iraq up against heavily armed US soldiers than anywhere else in the world.

You would? I still think it would have been better to have activated all the forces used for Iraq and have sent them all into Afghanistan. We might have actually caught Osama bin Laden that way. While actually cleaning out Afghanistan (ie, not holding troops back for Iraq), they could find out they had bad intelligence and not go around the world insisting Saddam had things that he didn't. That way we would have had a better chance to resolve the bin Laden issue finally, and not have blown all of our credibility getting bogged down in another quagmire.

Maybe we don't create a new battle-hardened mujahadeen in Iraq if we finish the business in Afghanistan first...just a thought. Now we have unfinished business in multiple places and the world news doesn't paint as peaceful a picture as the Bush Administration does.

[Tekneek]

Could have never seen that coming. :rolleyes:

The article gives the impression that this has started since the US military overthrew the government. If you believe Bush, they were training terrorists there all along with the financing and blessing of Saddam himself.

[miked]

:D :D

"Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!"

Your pathetic civilization makes us laugh. Were it not for that accursed wall, we would destroy you.

[Coffee Warlord]

We see you have one tiny speck of land that is untouched by your decadant culture. We shall send our settler across your entire country to colonize it. Don't like it? TOUGH!

[sachmo71]

Your pathetic civilization makes us laugh. Were it not for that accursed wall, we would destroy you.
Ahhh...the Great Wall. Those were the days.

Oh, you have tanks in 1500AD? You want my cities?

TOO BAD, KHAN!!!

[flere-imsaho]

Update:

CIA Director Porter Goss and Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, confirm and reiterate details of the report (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0217terror-split17.html) this week.

"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

"These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said. "They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

On a day when the top half-dozen U.S. national security and intelligence officials went to Capitol Hill to talk about the continued determination of terrorists to strike the United States, their statements underscored the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq.


There's a lot more in the article, but it's really all spelled out in the OP.

[Joe]

lets just pull our troops out and drop a nuke-ya-lur bomb.

[flere-imsaho]

That's the type of sophisticated response I expect from the leader of the free world.

[mhass]

Note the article says "unintended consequence" not "unforseen." I think we can take the third-world Unabombers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"...to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq,"

Well, duh.

That's why you don't leave any "experienced survivors -- you make them "dead experienced terrorists". And those who do escape, you hunt them down & kill them.
Sheesh, this really isn't brain surgery folks.

[flere-imsaho]

That's why you don't leave any "experienced survivors -- you make them "dead experienced terrorists". And those who do escape, you hunt them down & kill them.
Sheesh, this really isn't brain surgery folks.

I agree. Why then, isn't the Administration doing this?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I agree. Why then, isn't the Administration doing this?

One day at a time flere, one day a time. The festering cesspool was not created in a day & cannot be cleaned up in a day, at least not via any practical means, that's just an unhappy & unfortunate truth of the situation.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, all reports point to Al-Qaida completely lacking a presence in pre-invasion Iraq, and how many days did the "invasion" of Iraq take?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, all reports point to Al-Qaida completely lacking a presence in pre-invasion Iraq, and how many days did the "invasion" of Iraq take?

Umm ... you do realize that al-Qaida isn't the only terrorist group out there, right?

{FTR, I'm not trying to be a complete smartass, I just don't quite follow your point given that fact}

[flere-imsaho]

My point is that Iraq now (and for the forseeable future) is more of a terrorist breeding-ground than it was before.

[Arles]

My point is that Iraq now (and for the forseeable future) is more of a terrorist breeding-ground than it was before.
And where did all of those new terrorists breed from? Oh yeah, Afghanistan, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

So the question becomes would you rather have 1000 terrorists in Afghanistan, 1000 in Syria, 1000 in Iraq, 1000 in Iran and 1000 in SA - or 5000 in Iraq sprinkled around about 120,000 heavily armored US troops?

That's a tough one to answer...

[sachmo71]

Did you see those Huns?? They popped out of the snow! Like daisies!"

<DD>-<CITE>Mushu </CITE></DD>

[Anthony]

"...to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq,"

Well, duh.

That's why you don't leave any "experienced survivors -- you make them "dead experienced terrorists". And those who do escape, you hunt them down & kill them.
Sheesh, this really isn't brain surgery folks.

one of the few times i agree with you.

[Tekneek]

That's why you don't leave any "experienced survivors -- you make them "dead experienced terrorists". And those who do escape, you hunt them down & kill them.
Sheesh, this really isn't brain surgery folks.

Obviously this is easier said than done. We were going to smoke Osama bin Laden out over 3 years ago and we still don't know where he is.

[sachmo71]

"...to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq,"

Well, duh.

That's why you don't leave any "experienced survivors -- you make them "dead experienced terrorists". And those who do escape, you hunt them down & kill them.
Sheesh, this really isn't brain surgery folks.
That's the hard part. They keep hiding.

[flere-imsaho]

So the question becomes would you rather have 1000 terrorists in Afghanistan, 1000 in Syria, 1000 in Iraq, 1000 in Iran and 1000 in SA - or 5000 in Iraq sprinkled around about 120,000 heavily armored US troops?

So the U.S.'s goal was to make a honeypot for terrorists in Iraq?

1. You can't be serious.
2. You can't be serious if you believe that all the terrorists will concentrate in Iraq.

[Glengoyne]

So the U.S.'s goal was to make a honeypot for terrorists in Iraq?
Iraq.
I mean to be just a little serious. I think they described it as an "unintended consequence" not a master plan. The admin is simply spinning this into the best light possible. They are making lemonade out of the fact that Terrorists have moved into Iraq after the removal of Hussein to fight the American Imperialists or are we Infidels to the terrorists. The Baathists call of Imperialists.

[BishopMVP]

Lately, basically post-Fallujah, it seems these reports like "Terrorism exported from Iraq to other Gulf States" - like Jordan, Kuwait, I think Yemen too, but I don't remember exactly. And you know why they are doing this? Because we're killing and/or running ragged the ones that stay behind. The jihadis are not Iraqis (although a lot of the attacks there are committed by Iraqis, those are pretty much all common criminals in it for the bountys provided - coming from where? Mainly Syrian funds established by Saddam.) Where are the jihadis coming from? Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, etc. Coming mostly through Syria, getting direction and funding mostly from there. Kind of hard to eradicate the problem when you can't attack the base of operations. So are we doing anything about it now? I believe so, a lot of border security is being worked on and improved slowly. In a larger context, events in Lebanon as well as the US military's new directive that US forces are now allowed to chase terrorists into Syrian territory seem to point to a lot going on under the surface there. IMO, one by one we're trying to go after each of the failed middle eastern dictatorships that have spawned terrorism (of course you can't exactly come out and say to, for example, the Saudis that once the rest of these work you're up because they'd start working even more against us.) In the long-term, I'd be a lot more worried about places like Southern Thailand and the African countries along the Muslim-Christian divide as terrorism breeding grounds. But that's just my opinion based on what I have seen.

[chinaski]

The word "terrorist" is being tossed around like they are some sort of set army, or a race of people. This is a ideology that we are inflaming, location is irrelevant.

We have inticed a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, because of our actions in invading Iraq. There has always been a divide between the two, everyone knows that - so surely our government would forsee a high probability of a civil war between the two, once we invaded and "liberated" them. But we did nothing or just flat out didnt care that a war would breakout between the two.

Then you have to look at how the Sunnis and Shiites war with one another? Car bombs, random rpg attacks, etc... terrorism. So in turn we've created even more terrorists who now have multiple causes.

Add that to the outsiders who strictly want us out of the middle east, and just want Americans dead... we are creating terrorists at an exponential rate, all over the world. They may or may not come to Iraq, they may just stew in their fanaticism until one day they snap, or even worse they know a lot of people just like them and they form a cell and formulate some major attack on the US or any of its allies.

[rexallllsc]

And where did all of those new terrorists breed from? Oh yeah, Afghanistan, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

So the question becomes would you rather have 1000 terrorists in Afghanistan, 1000 in Syria, 1000 in Iraq, 1000 in Iran and 1000 in SA - or 5000 in Iraq sprinkled around about 120,000 heavily armored US troops?

That's a tough one to answer...

You think all of them were "terrorists" before we went into Iraq?

Or do you think our actions have inspired some of them to take arms?

[Glengoyne]

...
We have inticed a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, because of our actions in invading Iraq. There has always been a divide between the two, everyone knows that - so surely our government would forsee a high probability of a civil war between the two, once we invaded and "liberated" them. But we did nothing or just flat out didnt care that a war would breakout between the two.
...

I dunno about a Civil War. I think we are a ways off from that sort of escalation. As for us doing nothing or not caring that there might be a war between the two. I think that is pretty misguided. We implemented a process that would put them on the road to a Constitution with the types of Freedoms they haven't really experienced before including protections to minority populations. I don't think it is fair to say that because not all of the Sunnis have embraced that situation yet is proof that the US didn't care what happened to them.

[chinaski]

I dunno about a Civil War. I think we are a ways off from that sort of escalation. As for us doing nothing or not caring that there might be a war between the two. I think that is pretty misguided. We implemented a process that would put them on the road to a Constitution with the types of Freedoms they haven't really experienced before including protections to minority populations. I don't think it is fair to say that because not all of the Sunnis have embraced that situation yet is proof that the US didn't care what happened to them.
The Civil War part is just my forecast of the situation, its not there yet - but based off todays events and the last year, things are escalating between the two and I think its pretty undeniable thats where this is headed.

As far as any processess weve tried to put in place, like the elections, I thought it was pretty well known in advance the Sunnis would boycott any US lead elections? With that knoweldge, isnt it a confirmation of a impending civil war? If they dont recognize the government, then thats pretty much all you can gather of whats going to happen. I wouldnt be so resolute in this civil war assumption if the vast majority of Sunnis did not take part in the elections.

Hasnt anyone else noticed the crazy increase in civilian casualties since the election?

[WrongWay]

My point is that Iraq now (and for the forseeable future) is more of a terrorist breeding-ground than it was before.
In the Iraqi Occupation there ARE Iraqi freedom fighters.

Now, the US may want to call them terrorist, but a lot of them are just people trying to defend their homes and their way of life. Their country has been invaded their way of life has been taken away; Just how would you act if this happened to you?

What is so hard to understand? Some people will fight for their homes, families, and personal freedom untill they are dead, dead, dead. Or untill the invading force leaves.

[Ragone]

Hell, why don't we just send Jack Bauer over there.. he can clear up this whole problem in 24 hours.. by himself

[BishopMVP]

In the Iraqi Occupation there ARE Iraqi freedom fighters.....Some people will fight for their homes, families, and personal freedom until they are dead, dead, dead. Or until the invading force leaves.So would this apply to those Iraqis risking their lives to vote and hopefully control their own destiny, or from the 'resistance' led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who has "declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," and denounced the Shi'a (a majority of Iraqis) as heretics and "the most evil of mankind." ?

Do not assume that, just because the US and our allies do not have entirely altruistic motives in mind, most/many among those fighting against us are simply nationalists, motivated by what they think is best for their country and its people as a whole. Because, well, it's not true in this case, if it has ever been.The Civil War part is just my forecast of the situation, its not there yet - but based off todays events and the last year, things are escalating between the two and I think its pretty undeniable thats where this is headed.

As far as any processess weve tried to put in place, like the elections, I thought it was pretty well known in advance the Sunnis would boycott any US lead elections? With that knoweldge, isnt it a confirmation of a impending civil war? If they dont recognize the government, then thats pretty much all you can gather of whats going to happen. I wouldnt be so resolute in this civil war assumption if the vast majority of Sunnis did not take part in the elections. No offense, but the two groups have never been particularly enamored of one another, and I'm curious as to why you think the situation has gotten worse. Assuming the al-Zarqawi memo was true, there have been those trying to ignite a civil war for some thime now, (and we could even go back to when Saddam was in power, the '91 massacring etc) but thanks to restrained leadership by the likes of Sistani the Shi'as have abstained from retaliation and militarizing along religious lines. Civil Wars are almost never started because of ethnic/religious motives. They are started for economic reasons (largely Sunni Baath Party trying to regain its power and money) and unfortunately become radicalized because as much as some would like to pretend its a nationalist uprising, its really a small portion of the population trying to regain its diproportionate power and thus eventually the only recruits that can be found are from said group (usually tribal, but occasionally also religious and/or ethnic/geographic lines).

And when it comes to elections, I think it'd be wonderful if/when everyone has an equal say, but as the beginnings of this country proved, universal suffrage is not necessary to establish a functioning democracy.Hasnt anyone else noticed the crazy increase in civilian casualties since the election?Link? I've seen numbers indicating a marked drop-off in attacks on coalition forces since the election (still too small a sample size to extrapolate from) so if you can show me hard numbers on things like attacks on civilians, or attacks on ING/IP, or # of those murdered by bombings/attacks going up, I'd like to see it.

[WrongWay]

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope
This is what always gets me. A free Iraq??? Believe it or not, before the US invaded there were people in Iraq who were Happy, who enjoyed their lives, who enjoyed their freedom under "their" leadership, and who simply just loved their country and their leaders.

So would this apply to those Iraqis risking their lives to vote and hopefully control their own destiny, or from the 'resistance' led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who has "declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," and denounced the Shi'a (a majority of Iraqis) as heretics and "the most evil of mankind." ?

Do you mean the thousands of people the US allowed to vote or the millions of Iraqi's who could not or would not vote?

All I was saying was this report should not call everyone in Iraq that takes up arms against Americans Terrorist. Some of them are just simply trying to defend their property and their way of life. I have read this article and many others exactly like it that absolutely refuse to believe that their are Iraqi Freedom Fighters just trying to defend their land and their way of life any way they can.

You simply can NOT call anyone who is just trying to defend their Family, their homes, their Way Of Life Terrorists!!! Like it or not We are the invaders over their.

[BishopMVP]

This is what always gets me. A free Iraq??? Believe it or not, before the US invaded there were people in Iraq who were Happy, who enjoyed their lives, who enjoyed their freedom under "their" leadership, and who simply just loved their country and their leaders.I think you've been watching too much Fahrenheit 9/11 and not paying attention to what actual Iraqis are saying/have said about that time period. (To stave off a technical point - yes there were undoubtedly some, but such a miniscule percentage that it is ridiculous to consider their welfare above that of the other 90/95+ %)Do you mean the thousands of people the US allowed to vote or the millions of Iraqi's who could not or would not vote?Umm, about 8 million out of an estimated 14 million voted. For perspective, that's about the % that vote in US Presidential elections, where the threat of violence is non-existent. So you might want to flip millions or thousands in that sentence, if at least so we can skip directly to the arguments that the voting was meaningless/installed a theocracy beholden to Iran/only marginalized the Sunnis more and ensured a Civil War would break out/was only because their religious leaders told them to vote/was just like the elections in Vietnam and see how that turned out/ - I'm sure there are more I'm missing, feel free to pick one from above or add a different reason why a majority of the Iraqis showing up to vote in the face of death threats was a bad thing and/or showed we are losing.Like it or not We are the invaders over their....and Al-Zarqawi's network of foreign jihadis which have found American troops too hard a target and have mostly resorted to bombing Iraqi citizens, oftentimes indiscriminately, have denounced the religion of ~60% of Iraqis and issued a death threat to all 8 million who voted in the election are what, exactly? Comrades welcomed with open arms and gratitude?

[Arles]

You think all of them were "terrorists" before we went into Iraq?

Or do you think our actions have inspired some of them to take arms?
Yeah, they were all peaceful farmers that loved the US before we entered Iraq. Then, they through down their shovels and joined Al Qaeda.

Come on, there's been serious terrorist activity in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel and Iran for years. These people have a vested interest in not seeing Iraq settle into a democratic form of government and the US troops have pretty much wiped out most of the Iraqi-based terrorists by now. Their options are to stay in Syria and plot international acts, continue to suicide bomb in Israel or flock to Iraq with hopes they can eventually force the US people to lose their resolve and leave.

As an aside, has anyone noticed the large drop in terrorist activity in Syria and the much lower number of Palestinian suicide bombing incidents in the past year? I guess that's a coincidence as well.

[Arles]

In the Iraqi Occupation there ARE Iraqi freedom fighters.

Now, the US may want to call them terrorist, but a lot of them are just people trying to defend their homes and their way of life. Their country has been invaded their way of life has been taken away; Just how would you act if this happened to you?

What is so hard to understand? Some people will fight for their homes, families, and personal freedom untill they are dead, dead, dead. Or untill the invading force leaves.
Your parallel would hold some merit if a very large chunk of the remaining insurgents weren't of foreign origin. The reality is that almost all the native Iraqis left are beginning to embrace this change as evident by the large election turnout and recent opinion polls.

[Galaril]

So the U.S.'s goal was to make a honeypot for terrorists in Iraq?

1. You can't be serious.
2. You can't be serious if you believe that all the terrorists will concentrate in Iraq.

And in addition now they are focused Totally on the US as to before when there interested with us was probably one of a number of targets they had. It is never a good thing to attract attacks on our own soldiers.

[Galaril]

The word "terrorist" is being tossed around like they are some sort of set army, or a race of people. This is a ideology that we are inflaming, location is irrelevant.

We have inticed a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, because of our actions in invading Iraq. There has always been a divide between the two, everyone knows that - so surely our government would forsee a high probability of a civil war between the two, once we invaded and "liberated" them. But we did nothing or just flat out didnt care that a war would breakout between the two.

Then you have to look at how the Sunnis and Shiites war with one another? Car bombs, random rpg attacks, etc... terrorism. So in turn we've created even more terrorists who now have multiple causes.

Add that to the outsiders who strictly want us out of the middle east, and just want Americans dead... we are creating terrorists at an exponential rate, all over the world. They may or may not come to Iraq, they may just stew in their fanaticism until one day they snap, or even worse they know a lot of people just like them and they form a cell and formulate some major attack on the US or any of its allies.


I got to agree with you 100%. The location is irrelevant it is a state of mind.

[Galaril]

Umm, about 8 million out of an estimated 14 million voted. For perspective, that's about the % that vote in US Presidential elections, where the threat of violence is non-existent. So you might want to flip millions or thousands in that sentence,


I found this article and a yahoo news article that questioned the accuracy of the 14 million voter number.


On Sunday, while hailing the millions going to the polls, I also raised questions about the 14 million eligible figure: was that registered voters, or all adults over 18, or what? Few on TV or in print seem to be quite sure, to this day.

It's a big difference. Since Sunday, countless TV talking heads, such as Chris Matthews, and print pundits have compared the Iraq turnout favorably to U.S. national elections, not seeming to understand that 80%-90% of our registered voters usually turn out. The problem in our country is that so few people bother to register, bringing our overall turnout numbers way down.

Howard Kurtz at least looked into the Iraqi numbers. In a Tuesday column, he observed that "the 14 million figure is the number of registered Iraqis, while turnout is usually calculated using the number of eligible voters. The number of adults in Iraq is probably closer to 18 million," which would lower the turnout figure to 45% (if, indeed, the 8 million number holds up).

To put it clearly: If say, for example, 50,000 residents of a city registered and 25,000 voted, that would seem like a very respectable 50% turnout, by one standard. But if the adult population of the city was 150,000, then the actual turnout of 16% would look quite different.

"Election officials concede they did not have a reliable baseline on which to calculate turnout," Kurtz concluded


Officials Back Away form Early Iraq Election Turnout (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?)



but only 2 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots in Anbar province, the Sunni insurgent stronghold that includes Ramadi and Fallujah.

Iraq election (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_elections)

[Arles]

So, again, even if it's closer to 45% instead of 57%, that's still well inline with most national elections. In the US, we had 51% turnout in 2000 and 49% in 1996. It seems to me everyone is bickering on where the turnout was on the scale of 45 to 60%. No matter where it is, it's right in line with US turnout. And I doubt anyone is going to state the elections in 1996 or 2000 were "illegitimate" because of turnout.

[chinaski]

So, again, even if it's closer to 45% instead of 57%, that's still well inline with most national elections. In the US, we had 51% turnout in 2000 and 49% in 1996. It seems to me everyone is bickering on where the turnout was on the scale of 45 to 60%. No matter where it is, it's right in line with US turnout. And I doubt anyone is going to state the elections in 1996 or 2000 were "illegitimate" because of turnout.
Thats some pretty weak rationale. Do you honestly believe that a countries first ever election would or should have a 45% turnout? Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout? We rode mid to low 60% turnout rates all through the 50's and 60's... and even with a complacent, coddled, nothing to care about society that we have in America today, we still hover in the 50's %.

Iraq is nothing like America and has been nothing like America for 1000's of years longer than weve been in existance, so Amercias turnout numbers are completely irrelevant on every imaginable level.

[Galaril]

Thats some pretty weak rationale. Do you honestly believe that a countries first ever election would or should have a 45% turnout? Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout? We rode mid to low 60% turnout rates all through the 50's and 60's... and even with a complacent, coddled, nothing to care about society that we have in America today, we still hover in the 50's %.

Iraq is nothing like America and has been nothing like America for 1000's of years longer than weve been in existance, so Amercias turnout numbers are completely irrelevant on every imaginable level.


Ahhhh...............what he said. :D

[Dutch]

The word "insurgent" is being tossed around like they are some sort of insurgency...
Agree 100%!

[chinaski]

No offense, but the two groups have never been particularly enamored of one another, and I'm curious as to why you think the situation has gotten worse. Assuming the al-Zarqawi memo was true, there have been those trying to ignite a civil war for some thime now, (and we could even go back to when Saddam was in power, the '91 massacring etc) but thanks to restrained leadership by the likes of Sistani the Shi'as have abstained from retaliation and militarizing along religious lines. Civil Wars are almost never started because of ethnic/religious motives. They are started for economic reasons (largely Sunni Baath Party trying to regain its power and money) and unfortunately become radicalized because as much as some would like to pretend its a nationalist uprising, its really a small portion of the population trying to regain its diproportionate power and thus eventually the only recruits that can be found are from said group (usually tribal, but occasionally also religious and/or ethnic/geographic lines).

Link? I've seen numbers indicating a marked drop-off in attacks on coalition forces since the election (still too small a sample size to extrapolate from) so if you can show me hard numbers on things like attacks on civilians, or attacks on ING/IP, or # of those murdered by bombings/attacks going up, I'd like to see it.
Ive just been reading the world news like I always do... civilian attacks are up, there has been at least 500 killed in and around Baghdad since the elections, all Sunni/Shiite related attacks. None of which were credited to Zarqawi. Yesterday there were 30+ killed ina car bombing at a Shiite religious ceremony, today another 16 (same way).. couple days before that there were another 40... its escalating. Sunnis HATE Shiites. Its just not a simple religious difference, its a deep disdain. Add on that now Shiites run the show... look out.

I could honestly care less about Zarqawi, of course its obvious his death is good, but hes just one guy and there are millions waiting in line to take his place. He can do nothing to widen the Sunni/Shi' gap, there has been a multitude of Sunni attacks on Sunnis. A few by Zaraqwi-ists is just pouring salt on a already gaping wound.

<headline>Death toll back at pre-election levels</headline> <!--articledetails--> <byline>By Paul McGeough</byline>
<date>February 10, 2005

</date><!--id:pagetools-wrap--><bod></bod>Intensified suicide bombings and assassinations in Iraq ahead of the release of final election figures have restored the insurgency-inflicted, mostly Iraqi, death toll to pre-election levels of about 100 a week.

As electoral officials indicated that the outcome of the January 30 poll could be completed as early as today, there was a series of attacks.

The bombing of a Baghdad military recruiting centre and the assassination of the two sons of a controversial political figure on Tuesday helped push the number of deaths since January 30 to 170.

Provisional tallies indicate that Shiite religious parties, campaigning as List 169, will control more than half of the 275-seat National Assembly. But with the coalition headed by the interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, likely to run a distant third, parties representing the Kurdish north could snatch a king-maker role with the second biggest block of seats.

Influential Shiite clerics are already demanding that elements of sharia, or strict Islamic law, be enshrined in Iraq's new constitution. But their spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said on Tuesday that the drafting of a new national charter should be left to the National Assembly.

In keeping with his rare and Delphic statements in the past, a spokesman for the grand ayatollah said only that the constitution "should respect the Islamic cultural identity of the Iraqi people".

The words are deliberately ambiguous and give no indication of how Ayatollah Sistani or his aides will respond to developments. But US officials who have acted contrary to his wishes have discovered in the past two years that the unelected grand ayatollah is Iraq's single most powerful figure.

More than 100 of those who have died since the easing of a vice-like security clamp for three days around the election were Iraqi soldiers or policemen; 15 were US troops.

The recruitment centre attack, by a pedestrian wearing a bomb-vest, was the deadliest since the election. Apart from killing at least 21, it wounded nearly 30 other applicants for military service.

Responsibility for the attack and two others earlier in the week was claimed by al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate, which is led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

A spokesman for Dr Allawi reacted angrily to the renewed violence. "To attack and brutally murder patriotic and innocent Iraqis on their way to volunteer to protect their homeland is a crime against all people of Iraq. We will fully investigate this incident and bring these perpetrators to justice," he said.

The political figure who came under attack in Baghdad was Mithal al-Alusi, a former member of the Ahmed Chalabi-led Iraqi National Congress who has been strident in his criticism of Syria and Iran and who provoked much criticism by visiting Israel last year.  Reuters reports: Gunmen abducted an Iraqi Interior Ministry official, Colonel Riyadh Katei Aliwi, yesterday, dragging him from his car in Baghdad. In Basra, the local correspondent of the US-funded television station Alhurra was assassinated outside his house.

[chinaski]

...and another 50 dead today, while I typed that last post....

hxxp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[Dutch]

...and another 50 dead today, while I typed that last post....

hxxp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
And your contention is that Americans killed those people? What a jerk.

[flere-imsaho]

US troops have pretty much wiped out most of the Iraqi-based terrorists by now.

So, the continuing car bombings and assassinations are what? A mirage?

[chinaski]

And your contention is that Americans killed those people? What a jerk.
Am i missing something? How in the hell did you get that conclusion? Ive never mentioned Americans killing ANYONE in any of my posts. Between your insurgency comment and this, i have a feeling your not reading any of these posts.

[rexallllsc]

Am i missing something? How in the hell did you get that conclusion? Ive never mentioned Americans killing ANYONE in any of my posts. Between your insurgency comment and this, i have a feeling your not reading any of these posts.

"WHY DO YOU HATE OUR FREEDOM?" -typical wartard

[Dutch]

Am i missing something? How in the hell did you get that conclusion? Ive never mentioned Americans killing ANYONE in any of my posts. Between your insurgency comment and this, i have a feeling your not reading any of these posts.We (The United States) have inticed a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, because of our actions in invading Iraq.Maybe I misread this. But my contention is that the United States did not create this problem, we are trying to correct it.

[rexallllsc]

Maybe I misread this. But my contention is that the United States did not create this problem, we are trying to correct it.

The only way to correct it would be to draw new borders.

BTW, we may not have created the problem, but we're most certainly fanning the flames.

[Dutch]

Perhaps if journalists were *allowed* to report on Saddam Hussein's atrocities in grueling day to day action for the last 30 years you would see things differently.

I do agree on the "draw new borders" but I don't think Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, or the UN would agree.

[rexallllsc]

Perhaps if journalists were *allowed* to report on Saddam Hussein's atrocities in grueling day to day action for the last 30 years you would see things differently.

I do agree on the "draw new borders" but I don't think Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, or the UN would agree.

Saddam is scum. I don't need to read anything further in regards to that. However, I think he was merely a pawn in this game. There are plenty of brutal dictators in this world to take out, if that's our goal.

That being said, I think the "destabilization" of the country has sparked this stuff, and once we leave, it's going to blow up.

That's just my opinion, anyways.

[BishopMVP]

It is never a good thing to attract attacks on our own soldiers.Maybe I'm too Machiavellian, but if someone is determined to attack Americans, I'd rather have them going after our soldiers in a foreign country than attacking civilians over here.I found this article and a yahoo news article that questioned the accuracy of the 14 million voter number.The 14 million was more or less based on UN Food ration cards. So claiming that 80%+ of registered voters vote in the US (which, quite honestly, seems a little high to me) while only ~45% of eligible Iraqis voted seems a very disingenous comparison of apples and oranges, only advanced if the person is trying to portray the Iraqi election in a worse light.Thats some pretty weak rationale. Do you honestly believe that a countries first ever election would or should have a 45% turnout? Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout?No, I don't, because well, in 1789 the first time an election occurred, women weren't allowed to vote, almost all black people were not allowed to vote, and I think poor or illiterate white men weren't allowed to vote either. It would have been statistically impossible to have 45% of the voting-age population turn out until at least 1920, but that seemed to work out in the long run. Actually looking at the numbers, it appears George Washington may have gotten a grand total of 69 votes in the first election (unless states had votes to apportion their electors, but I doubt that) and 12 others (NY/Ohio) didn't even bother to cast their votes, while 2 other states that would join under Washington's presidency (RI/NC) weren't allowed to vote. But, as you say, comparing the Iraqi election to an American one over 200 years ago is pretty ridiculous.Ive just been reading the world news like I always do... civilian attacks are up, there has been at least 500 killed in and around Baghdad since the elections, all Sunni/Shiite related attacks. None of which were credited to Zarqawi. Yesterday there were 30+ killed ina car bombing at a Shiite religious ceremony, today another 16 (same way).. couple days before that there were another 40... its escalating.Yet the article you choose to illustrate your point says attacks "Back to pre-election levels" and says at least 3 attacks were claimed by Zarqawi's network. The elections were not a panacea, miraculously curing all of the ills, but it is a step in the lengthy process.(Al-Zarqawi) can do nothing to widen the Sunni/Shi' gap, there has been a multitude of Sunni attacks on Sunnis. A few by Zarqawi-ists is just pouring salt on a already gaping wound.Pretty much every deadly attack on a She'at religious site has been claimed by Zarqawi's network. One year ago at the beginning of Ashura as well, which is partially why there are more large-scale attacks these past couple days.

Also, just out of curiosity, wouldn't this kind of put a lie to any talk of a nationalist insurgency? And then if you say it's just the small minority Sunnis fighting and this means a civil war has started, where are the attacks on Sunnis by She'ates?

[mhass]

No matter your (plural) views on Iraq, 25 years from now we will all be looking back at the last 3-5 years as semial. The Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians all VOTED for new leaders in a region where open elections are dangerous and rare. The Middle East is already radically different today than it was even in 2001. There is no more violence there today than before the invasion, but Americans are dying to further this change. Dissent at this point is moot. We're going to finish what was started and we're going to see more elections thereafter - militarily enduced or otherwise.

[Dutch]

Saddam is scum. I don't need to read anything further in regards to that. However, I think he was merely a pawn in this game. There are plenty of brutal dictators in this world to take out, if that's our goal.
I think I didn't suggest we should continue to investigate Saddam's past.

That being said, I think the "destabilization" of the country has sparked this stuff, and once we leave, it's going to blow up.

That's just my opinion, anyways.
Well, then maybe we shouldn't leave as the Bush Administration has said repeatedly, until the job is done. I'm surprised the leftist opposition who "cares" so deeply for the Iraqi people are the only ones suggesting we leave.

[SunDevil]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/opinion/21herbert.html?ei=5070&en=c38425d9e49378ab&ex=1109134800&pagewanted=print&position

[Dutch]

SunDevil,

Did you even see a slant in that story? You post the link like it's the end all be all of stories. Another beautiful example of how the media slants. Granted, it's an editorial piece, but the New York Times is not one to offer an alternative story written by somebody who disagrees.

It mentions a senior US Intelligence officer who says we should not invade Iraq. It does not mention the multitudes of senior Intelligence officers who said we should invade Iraq. It then says Bush disregarded all warnings when we all know that Bush did not in fact disregard all warnings but heeded most warnings by his intelligence services which warned about the .

It's BS, but...as long as people are buying the paper, that's what's most important.

[NoMyths]

I'm surprised the leftist opposition who "cares" so deeply for the Iraqi people are the only ones suggesting we leave.Though it's not surprising you're being dishonest, it should probably be pointed out that there are plenty of people on the right-wing side of things that think we should abandon the region and leave them to their own devices. A fact of which you are well aware. I suppose that making rhetorically inflated comments like this allows you to cap out your "leftist" slurs for the day, but it certainly doesn't improve your reputation when it comes to these kinds of debates.

[SunDevil]

Dutch,

Everytime I post a link all I try to do is add more info to the topic. Not trying to make a point either way. Just saw the article and posted it in the thread so other people can see it.

You can believe whatever you want. It is not my intent to convince people either way.

[Honolulu_Blue]

SunDevil,

Did you even see a slant in that story? You post the link like it's the end all be all of stories. Another beautiful example of how the media slants. Granted, it's an editorial piece, but the New York Times is not one to offer an alternative story written by somebody who disagrees.

It mentions a senior US Intelligence officer who says we should not invade Iraq. It does not mention the multitudes of senior Intelligence officers who said we should invade Iraq. It then says Bush disregarded all warnings when we all know that Bush did not in fact disregard all warnings but heeded most warnings by his intelligence services which warned about the .

It's BS, but...as long as people are buying the paper, that's what's most important.
Sure, this is an op-ed piece. There is a slant.

But was amazes me is how the majority of the right seems completely unable to ever admit that the Iraq situation is not good. That it has not gone as planned. And the Administration made improper assumptions and could have handled things much, much better. Bush is not infallable, just as he's not completely incompotent.

But it appears to me that whenever any cirticism of the Administration is reported the right NEVER believe's it has any base in fact. It's always a "liberal media bias" or some "slant." It's unbelievable.

[Arles]

Thats some pretty weak rationale. Do you honestly believe that a countries first ever election would or should have a 45% turnout? Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout? We rode mid to low 60% turnout rates all through the 50's and 60's... and even with a complacent, coddled, nothing to care about society that we have in America today, we still hover in the 50's %.

Iraq is nothing like America and has been nothing like America for 1000's of years longer than weve been in existance, so Amercias turnout numbers are completely irrelevant on every imaginable level.
Then compare them to America's numbers in the 1800s when the country was just getting going. The point is that 45-60% is well inline with many of the voting seasons that happened around the Civil War period and our country has certainly avoided major legitimacy issues at that time (when we were at a similar period of internal strife).

[Arles]

Sure, this is an op-ed piece. There is a slant.

But was amazes me is how the majority of the right seems completely unable to ever admit that the Iraq situation is not good. That it has not gone as planned. And the Administration made improper assumptions and could have handled things much, much better. Bush is not infallable, just as he's not completely incompotent.

But it appears to me that whenever any cirticism of the Administration is reported the right NEVER believe's it has any base in fact. It's always a "liberal media bias" or some "slant." It's unbelievable.
My frustration is how very little positive news is covered by the news. Everything over there is "violence and death" when you are still talking about only a couple incidents every few days. There's no mention of the swell of nationalism in the Iraqi people and how the number of volunteers for their army has increased significantly since the election (a fact many of you did not know, I would bet). There are a few different blogs run by current US soliders that discuss all the positive things occuring in Iraq from improved power, schools and road infrustructure to young Iraqi kids turning in the location of foreign fighters that are part of this imported terror network.

But, I haven't heard one thing about any of these stories by the national media and have to hunt and search to find them. I'm not saying everything is 100% rosy in Iraq, there's still a lot of issues with the insurgency and terrorism. But, it bothers me that the American people are getting about a 90-10 split on negative/positive news in Iraq and really not getting the big picture on what is going on over there. Then again, I think it says a lot about the people in the US to see the resolve to stay in Iraq at the level it is given the 90-10 split on negative news.

[flere-imsaho]

Wounded Guard and Reserve Soldiers Lose Medical Care (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/10958715.htm)

I heard this story on NPR this morning, but this link is the only one (so far) that I've seen on-line for what's a more-or-less breaking story.

Basically, the Government Accountability Office did a study to find out why wounded Guard and Reserve soldiers were losing their medical coverage. What it found, and concluded, was that the administrative system in place for those units has been overwhelmed by their involvement in the war, and has resulted in dropping injured soldiers from active status after they've been injured/wounded for a while.

The result, of course, is that they lose their pay, their medical benefits and their family's medical benefits. All for serving their country and getting wounded in action in Afghanistan or Iraq.


Now for the op-ed....


Of course, this is yet another example of exactly how little this Administration planned ahead when deciding to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Reserves are an emergency force and the Guard is a civil defense force. They're not toy soldiers to be used as cannon fodder. However, given the way this Administration has treated them, you could be excused for thinking so.

[NoMyths]

Then compare them to America's numbers in the 1800s when the country was just getting going. The point is that 45-60% is well inline with many of the voting seasons that happened around the Civil War period and our country has certainly avoided major legitimacy issues at that time (when we were at a similar period of internal strife).Intriguingly enough, I'm teaching about this very subject in a few hours. According to my information, in 1824 the turnout was only 26.9%. From 1828-1836 it jumped to the range you mention, 55.4-57.8%. But between 1840-1860 we saw turnouts raning from 69.6% to a high of 81.2% in the 1860 election.

[flere-imsaho]

But, it bothers me that the American people are getting about a 90-10 split on negative/positive news in Iraq and really not getting the big picture on what is going on over there.

Maybe they don't want a re-run of "They'll greet us with flowers" followed by 1000+ U.S. casualties again.

Honestly, what positive news do you want them to report?

"We're rebuilding schools!" - that the U.S. destroyed in the invasion

"We now have power!" - that they had before the invasion

"We kind of have gas now!" - that they had before the invasion

"We got rid of a brutal dictator!" - and have now elected a slate of candidates backed by a prominent Shiite cleric, whilst giving virtually no representation to the minority Sunnis. That'll end well.


Iraq has a major security issue, a (now) lack of good infrastructure, a fledgling political system that remains untested, an inability to yet exploit its natural resources, and a real problem in re-developing it's armed and police forces. No offense, but 90% of it is bad news. To say otherwise is to just simply hide yourself behind some rose-colored glasses.

[Arles]

Iraq has a major security issue, a (now) lack of good infrastructure, a fledgling political system that remains untested, an inability to yet exploit its natural resources, and a real problem in re-developing it's armed and police forces. No offense, but 90% of it is bad news. To say otherwise is to just simply hide yourself behind some rose-colored glasses.
You think 90% of the news on what's going on in Iraq are attacks by terrorists? That's a pretty amazing statement. But, I can't really fault you when you get your news from the New York Times. It would certainly seem that way given their coverage.

Iraq has a major security issue, but that's one issue out of around 100 that the US and Iraqi governments are dealing with. The other "10%" includes such trivial things as national elections, getting Iraq close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil (and beginning to create a national economy), improving their water and road system to INCREASE the service coverage in Iraq over what Saddam provided, vastly expanding the telecommunications capability of the country, setting up a non-government monitored media, building MORE hospitals and schools than existed prior to our entrance and setting up a representative governmental policy that involves all of the different groups. Most of these (if not all) involve very positive advancements in Iraq to a point many never felt were possible - definately not under Saddam.

But, yeah, none of this should take precendence over the one to two attacks every few days. That's where all our focus should be. All this other "fluff" is just lies by the Bush administration - right?

[Arles]

Intriguingly enough, I'm teaching about this very subject in a few hours. According to my information, in 1824 the turnout was only 26.9%. From 1828-1836 it jumped to the range you mention, 55.4-57.8%. But between 1840-1860 we saw turnouts raning from 69.6% to a high of 81.2% in the 1860 election.
Well, considering Iraq started at around 50%, I would expect they will be easily beating our numbers in the early 1800s 5-10 years down the road. As to the turnout in 1850-1860, perhaps Iraq can also reach those marks in the years 2030 and beyond.

[Fritz]

Well, considering Iraq started at around 50%, I would expect they will be easily beating our numbers in the early 1800s 5-10 years down the road. As to the turnout in 1850-1860, perhaps Iraq can also reach those marks in the years 2030 and beyond.

Arles, Bry

how can you compare voter turnouts in Iraq with historic US turnouts?

[flere-imsaho]

You think 90% of the news on what's going on in Iraq are attacks by terrorists? That's a pretty amazing statement.

Wow, you totally didn't read what I wrote. Try again.

[Arles]

Arles, Bry

how can you compare voter turnouts in Iraq with historic US turnouts?
What would be a better comparison? It's not a perfect match but it gives a frame of reference for another country that has started its own democracy in the past 200-300 years under the garb of internal strife and fighting.

Plus I was responding to this statment:

Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout?

[Klinglerware]

Intriguingly enough, I'm teaching about this very subject in a few hours. According to my information, in 1824 the turnout was only 26.9%. From 1828-1836 it jumped to the range you mention, 55.4-57.8%. But between 1840-1860 we saw turnouts raning from 69.6% to a high of 81.2% in the 1860 election.

Are you sure the denominator is the same in these percentages? There is a big difference if you are dividing by Voting Age Population, eligible voters, or registered voters. Turnout percentages can be quite high if you are going by registered voters. VAP is typically the standard these days, though media/government/politicians/think tanks can use different denominators depending on how they want to spin turnout. Often, if you want to say "turnout sucks", use VAP, if you want to say "turnout is great", use registered voters. Oftentimes, two different conclusions can be reached in analyzing the same election...

As for your 1800s numbers, it would be difficult to compare them regardless, since changes in voter eligibility will skew the trend a bit...

[Arles]

Wow, you totally didn't read what I wrote. Try again.
OK, you think 90% of what's going in Iraq is bad news? That's a pretty amazing statement.

Any better?

[flere-imsaho]

But, I can't really fault you when you get your news from the New York Times. It would certainly seem that way given their coverage.

I get hardly any of my news from the New York Times, but feel free to make stupid assumptions. Speaking of which, you clearly only get your news from the Republicans' talking points memos, if this is any indication:

The other "10%" includes such trivial things as national elections, getting Iraq close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil (and beginning to create a national economy), improving their water and road system to INCREASE the service coverage in Iraq over what Saddam provided, vastly expanding the telecommunications capability of the country, setting up a non-government monitored media, building MORE hospitals and schools than existed prior to our entrance and setting up a representative governmental policy that involves all of the different groups. Most of these (if not all) involve very positive advancements in Iraq to a point many never felt were possible - definately not under Saddam.

Each and every "point" you make is overblown and presented in a "best-case" manner. Such thinking is what got us involved in Iraq in the first place ("they'll greet us with flowers").

Until the security problem is solved, any forward progress is in serious jeopardy. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

By the way, feel free to continue to trivialize the continuing attacks. I don't expect any Bush Apologist to be concerned with the continuing escalation of U.S. casualties in Iraq. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm)

[Leonidas]

But was amazes me is how the majority of the right seems completely unable to ever admit that the Iraq situation is not good. That it has not gone as planned. And the Administration made improper assumptions and could have handled things much, much better. Bush is not infallable, just as he's not completely incompotent.


Has any war ever "gone as planned"? You can find plenty of FUBARs in every military action we have ever participated in. We set ourselves up by being too successful in DSI and now are paying for it with second-guessing at every point when it isn't all so neat and simple. Guess what, war by it's very nature is an ugly, grotesque beast and no battle plan has ever fully survived it's initial contact with the enemy.

[Klinglerware]

What would be a better comparison? It's not a perfect match but it gives a frame of reference for another country that has started its own democracy in the past 200-300 years under the garb of internal strife and fighting.



I don't think it's a very good point of comparison. In the first century of US independence, voting eligibility varied widely by state. It was not until the 1840s that most white males had the right to vote. The trend you see is not really measuring interest in voting, it is really capturing the artifact of changes in voting eligibility rules. Also, unless NoMyths corrects me, I'm not sure the criteria for the denominator is the same in the figures he quotes--I find it difficult to believe that 1860 figure is really that high unless the criteria is registered voters. 1824 seems awfully low if we are judging by the same criteria.

Iraq is a different creature entirely, the trend we will eventually see will more or less capture interest in voting, since everyone presumably already has voting rights...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Has any war ever "gone as planned"? You can find plenty of FUBARs in every military action we have ever participated in. We set ourselves up by being too successful in DSI and now are paying for it with second-guessing at every point when it isn't all so neat and simple. Guess what, war by it's very nature is an ugly, grotesque beast and no battle plan has ever fully survived it's initial contact with the enemy.
I agree. I never said there had been, nor would I ever exepect a military campaign to go off all neat and tidy.

War by it's very nature is an ugly, grotesque beast. And I am sure no battle plan has ever fully survived it's initial contact with the enemy.

That said, there are FUBARs and then there are FUBARs. For example, I am sure there were hunderds, if not, thousands of FUBAR type situations in WWII. That said, I have never heard anyone ever claim that, say, for example, the Vietnam War was a more successful military campaign than WWII. Or that Custer's tactical decisions at Little Big Horn were right up there with Henry V's at Agincourt. Or that the German invasion of Russia in WWII was as successful as its invasion of France. There are levels of fuck-ups. Some are minor, some are major, some are in between. But fuck-up are invetible. And some of these FUBARs can be blamed, in some part (not totally) on poor planning, strategy, or tactics.

At the moment Iraq is looking like a bit of a middling-to-major FUBAR situation. Maybe I am wrong about this. Maybe Iraq is exactly in the place those in command thought it would be. Maybe this is not FUBAR'd at all.

By all accounts, however, the US has more or less admitted it never really had a proper exist strategy or plan after the initial invasion. In fact, I recall listening to the congressional debates about this topic and many conservatives basically said "we'll think about that later." Well, it appears that was inadequate planning and now our troops and the Iraqis people are paying for that. Yes, war is ugly. It's bloody, it's blowing people heads off, it's messy, it's confusing, it's a horrible, horrible thing. And you can plan all you want, thinking you have all your bases covered, and then something goes wrong and it's blown to hell. No one denies that.

It just appears that in this situation, like Vietnam, like Little Big Horn, like the German invasion of Russia, that poor planning and poor strategy has made a bad situation worse. To what extent what's going on is a result of the planning, I have no idea.

Maybe this is a situation where the planning was as good as it could be, but shit just went down wrong. Maybe it is. But, from what I read, that is not the case. No one can plan for all contigencies, especially in war, but from what I have been able to read about this campaign, poor planning and strategy has created a number of these problems.

Hopefully the ship will right itself and all will be well.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Dola.

Leo, you're a military guy. Based on what you've read and such, do you think this war was well planned? That there was a solid post-occupation strategy? I am just curious. at some level, even the best laid plans and tactics, will go to shit. As mentioned, war is a messy, confusing, ugly, and unpredictable endeavor. That said, a strong plan/tactic/strategy, while never being able to remove these "X-Factors", can hope to limit them.

[Dutch]

Though it's not surprising you're being dishonest.
I am sad to see you say that. How am I being dishonest?

But Fiero gets a free pass. You can be dishonest as long as your a liberal?
Honestly, what positive news do you want them to report?

"We're rebuilding schools!" - that the U.S. destroyed in the invasion

"We now have power!" - that they had before the invasion

"We kind of have gas now!" - that they had before the invasion

"We got rid of a brutal dictator!" - and have now elected a slate of candidates backed by a prominent Shiite cleric, whilst giving virtually no representation to the minority Sunnis. That'll end well.
All I am asking for is fair and balanced reporting in the news and television. Most people trust what they say or write. Is that not fair of me to ask for that?

[Dutch]

Dutch,

Everytime I post a link all I try to do is add more info to the topic. Not trying to make a point either way. Just saw the article and posted it in the thread so other people can see it.

You can believe whatever you want. It is not my intent to convince people either way.
Do me a favor please, can you go to the NY Times Editorial Section and bring up the rebuttal to your first link. Then you are provided more than just half the story. I mean, since you are just trying to be fair.

[Arles]

I get hardly any of my news from the New York Times, but feel free to make stupid assumptions.
I guess there's another flere-imsaho that routinely cites Maureen Dowd. Perhaps I should have said NPR as well to be fair.


The other "10%" includes such trivial things as national elections, getting Iraq close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil (and beginning to create a national economy), improving their water and road system to INCREASE the service coverage in Iraq over what Saddam provided, vastly expanding the telecommunications capability of the country, setting up a non-government monitored media, building MORE hospitals and schools than existed prior to our entrance and setting up a representative governmental policy that involves all of the different groups. Most of these (if not all) involve very positive advancements in Iraq to a point many never felt were possible - definately not under Saddam.

Each and every "point" you make is overblown and presented in a "best-case" manner. Such thinking is what got us involved in Iraq in the first place ("they'll greet us with flowers").
What makes you think all that I posted is "overblown"? Let's go through each item:

1. National elections did occur with mostly positive results.
2. Iraq is very close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil and actually having their country benefit from its proceeds (not just Saddam).
3. There is now more road coverage than under Saddam and the water systems are currently more sanitary than under Saddam.
4. There is much higher quality telecommunications network in places in Iraq ranging from Baghdad to Fallujah.
5. There are more public access schools and hospitals in Iraq now than there were under Saddam.
6. The Iraqi government is on the path with a blueprint for their constitution and the beginnings of a representative assembly and leadership.

These are all facts that you can look up regarding Iraq right now. Perhaps you can point out which of these facts are "overblown".

By the way, feel free to continue to trivialize the continuing attacks.
I don't think asking for equal time in the press on the above points is trivializing the attacks that occur. It's simply offering a broader picture on the reality of the US efforts in Iraq.

[Fritz]

By all accounts, however, the US has more or less admitted it never really had a proper exist strategy or plan after the initial invasion.

are you aware of any exit strategy that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement?

[Dutch]

are you aware of any exit strategy that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement?It's a beautifully fabricated catch-22 by the left. The left knows very well that if the US or US Military says, "We will have all terrorists mopped up by February 25, the Iraqi Govt will be stable on March 1st, and the US will leave on March 15th" then we lose no matter what.

Fighting a war is a bit more serious than say, making a video game. But when people scream, "When is the video game gonna be done?!?!?!?"

What should the developer say that is safest? That's right, "It will be done when it's done."

Same thing goes with toppling corrupt governments that threaten the US and our interests.

Period.

[NoMyths]

Fritz & Klinglerware: I wasn't making any comparison or statement about comparisons. Just providing numbers in response to Arles statement...his percentages seemed a bit low, and so I wanted to make sure the accurate data was out there.

[Arles]

Fritz & Klinglerware: I wasn't making any comparison or statement about comparisons. Just providing numbers in response to Arles statement...his percentages seemed a bit low, and so I wanted to make sure the accurate data was out there.
I agree with each of you that it is hard to tie in data because of the different laws and the idea of registration. The point I was trying to make was that we had lower (compared to other elections at the timeframe) turnout during parts of the Civil War because of many logistical and safety issues - much like the situation in Iraq. Yet, we didn't view the president during that period as any less viable. So, I would think that if turnout ends up ranging in the 45-60% scope that has been asserted, it's enough to grant legitimacy to the new Iraqi government. Which, in essence, is all this entire discussion has been about.

[flere-imsaho]

I guess there's another flere-imsaho that routinely cites Maureen Dowd. Perhaps I should have said NPR as well to be fair.

I cited her once. Does "cited once" equal "routinely cites" in your world? At least attempt to be correct, OK? Oh wait, you're a Bush Apologist, trading in misinformation is what you do. My bad.

1. National elections did occur with mostly positive results.

Sorry? You're using Iraq's National elections as an example of positive news that didn't get enough press in the States? This was the same election that was plastered across broadcasts for days and still commands significant airtime in many sectors? Um, OK.

2. Iraq is very close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil and actually having their country benefit from its proceeds (not just Saddam).

Good, back to status quo. Only took 2 years. We're supposed to be jumping for joy about this? After all, in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said the following: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.... ...oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Given this, and the $18 billion we've spent on reconstruction so far, it seems to me that news of Iraq's oil industry starting to recover is more a source for cautious optimism, than raucous celebration.

But you wouldn't be a Bush Apologist if you thought that way.

3. There is now more road coverage than under Saddam and the water systems are currently more sanitary than under Saddam.

Both were of reasonable quality under Saddam. Good news, but hardly earth-shaking. Let's not forget that most of the repairs that had to be undertaken were due to damage done by coalition troops during the invasion. How many children and elderly died from poor sanitation in this aftermath?

I guess that's OK because they're "collateral damage".

5. There are more public access schools and hospitals in Iraq now than there were under Saddam.

A metric achieved simply by switching private access schools & hospitals to public access. Sure, it's good, but I'd hope the U.S. would believe in more public access to these services than a dictator.

6. The Iraqi government is on the path with a blueprint for their constitution and the beginnings of a representative assembly and leadership.

Says you. Unless the ruling Shiites decide that a theocracy led by the example of Sistani is the way to go. Unless the Kurds decide to use their new power-broking position as a way to get an independent Kurdistan. Unless everyone gangs up on the Sunnis. Again, a source for cautious optimism, not wild celebration.

[flere-imsaho]

It's a beautifully fabricated catch-22 by the left. The left knows very well that if the US or US Military says, "We will have all terrorists mopped up by February 25, the Iraqi Govt will be stable on March 1st, and the US will leave on March 15th" then we lose no matter what.

Hey, sorry you got yourself into your own catch-22. Maybe your President shouldn't have been so quick to do this:

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/mission-accomplished.jpg

Fighting a war is a bit more serious than say, making a video game.

That's funny, because that's not the impression I get from what this Administration has to say about it.

[flere-imsaho]

Fritz & Klinglerware: I wasn't making any comparison or statement about comparisons. Just providing numbers in response to Arles statement...his percentages seemed a bit low, and so I wanted to make sure the accurate data was out there.

Would a better comparison be India's first election after British rule? I believe that election was more-or-less universal suffrage, with some concern about disruption from various parties. I have no data on the turnout, though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

are you aware of any exit strategy that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement?That whole post-WWII Europe and Japan thing seemed to work pretty well. Dontcha ya think?

[Fritz]

That whole post-WWII Europe and Japan thing seemed to work pretty well. Dontcha ya think?

I do, for an after the fact set of policies.

I don't know that this helps your point though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I do, for an after the fact set of policies.

I don't know that this helps your point though.
What point? You were the one trying to make a point with this.

My point is simple:

What is going on in Iraq right now appears to be, to some extent, a result of poor military and planning and strategy and poor (or no) post-war (remember, according to the Bush Administration, the war (major combat operations) has been over since May 2003) policies/exit strategy. End of.

WWII appears to be the opposite. A successful campaign thanks to strong (or perhaps lucky) military tactics and strategy and strong post-war policies/exist strategy.

[33sherman]

That whole post-WWII Europe and Japan thing seemed to work pretty well. Dontcha ya think?

This did work well but the circumstances were radically different. Our allies in the war(England, France, etc) were also bankrupt and ruined by war, and US manufacturing was stronger than ever, so under the Marshall Plan financial aid that was given to those companies was spent through specific US companies that got great contracts to rebuild those countries.

The situation now is almost completely reversed--the US has no manufacturing, relies almost completely on foreign investors who buy into the confidence trick that the US is central to world security, thus the dollar is falling and continues to fall. Yes it's true that some of the money will come back to certain US oil comapnies who get good deals, but we live in age of multinational corporations so that money will not likely recirculate in the US to any beneficial degree.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This did work well but the circumstances were radically different. Our allies in the war(England, France, etc) were also bankrupt and ruined by war, and US manufacturing was stronger than ever, so under the Marshall Plan financial aid that was given to those companies was spent through specific US companies that got great contracts to rebuild those countries.

The situation now is almost completely reversed--the US has no manufacturing, relies almost completely on foreign investors who buy into the confidence trick that the US is central to world security, thus the dollar is falling and continues to fall. Yes it's true that some of the money will come back to certain US oil comapnies who get good deals, but we live in age of multinational corporations so that money will not likely recirculate in the US to any beneficial degree.
I agree completely. The circumstnaces are entirely different. Different worlds.

I was simply giving an example of, what appears to me at least, of an "exit strategy" that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement.

Mayhap it's too early to judge yet if there is a proper plan. Mayhap the wheels are still in motion and in 2, 5, or 10 years down the line it will all fall into place and we'll be praising the "Rove Plan" or something.

[Fritz]

What point? You were the one trying to make a point with this.

My point is simple:

What is going on in Iraq right now appears to be, to some extent, a result of poor military and planning and strategy and poor (or no) post-war (remember, according to the Bush Administration, the war (major combat operations) has been over since May 2003) policies/exit strategy. End of.

WWII appears to be the opposite. A successful campaign thanks to strong (or perhaps lucky) military tactics and strategy and strong post-war policies/exist strategy.

My point is that "strong post-war policies/exit strategy" has not existed prior to hostilites. It didn't exist for WW2, nor has it more recently.

I do agree somewhat that planing could have been better, given that projections of force requirements appeart to have been optimisticly low.

[Honolulu_Blue]

My point is that "strong post-war policies/exit strategy" has not existed prior to hostilites. It didn't exist for WW2, nor has it more recently.

I do agree somewhat that planing could have been better, given that projections of force requirements appeart to have been optimisticly low.
Ah. I see it now. I was being dense. It happens. Fair point and correct.

Though there appears to be a two major differences between this military campaign and all prior campaigns.

First, we chose exactly when to go to war. There was nothing really forcing our hand here. There was no Pearl Harbor, no "imminent" fall of Vietnam to the Commies, no invasion of Kuwait. We basically sat back, debated the issue for a while, and then went ahead. Was this the US's first pre-emptive strike war?

Second, we appeared to have infinitely more intelligence about what we were facing in the terms of opposition.

Also, so we never had an "exit strategy" prior to any military action, that doesn't necessarily mean such a pre-war strategy wasn't necessary or should not have been explored in this instance. Learning from one's mistakes (Vietnam, for example) is a good thing.

[Klinglerware]

I agree with each of you that it is hard to tie in data because of the different laws and the idea of registration. The point I was trying to make was that we had lower (compared to other elections at the timeframe) turnout during parts of the Civil War because of many logistical and safety issues - much like the situation in Iraq. Yet, we didn't view the president during that period as any less viable. So, I would think that if turnout ends up ranging in the 45-60% scope that has been asserted, it's enough to grant legitimacy to the new Iraqi government. Which, in essence, is all this entire discussion has been about.

Okay, I buy your argument on Iraqi turnout levels and legitimacy. Overall turnout of anything over 40% of eligible voters (not necessarily registered) in a state that does not require citizens to vote by law seems pretty reasonable to me. (Though the case can certainly be argued that if any region of that state has pretty low turnout <25%, then that region has not bought into the system, calling the system's legitimacy into question, especially in weak states.)

The problem with the country comparison actually is with using the US data--there have been so many changes in voting laws during the period, the resulting US turnout data is of questionable use. If you were to do a comparison, Flere might be right in using a state like India where the data period has full suffrage throughout...

[Arles]

I agree completely. The circumstnaces are entirely different. Different worlds.

I was simply giving an example of, what appears to me at least, of an "exit strategy" that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement.

Mayhap it's too early to judge yet if there is a proper plan. Mayhap the wheels are still in motion and in 2, 5, or 10 years down the line it will all fall into place and we'll be praising the "Rove Plan" or something.
I have seen no evidence that the US had a plan to rebuild Germany and Japan right after Pearl Harbor (when the US entered). The plan was changed numerous times as the war wound down until what we know of the Marshall plan today.

Had the US defeated Hitler and Japan with the same efficiency that the US defeated Saddam, I expect a similar amount of initial chaos would have taken place until the US had time to really look at what they had left. The fact that WWII involved a slow defeat of Germany throughout Europe in a piece by piece manner allowed the reconstruction more time to get planned.

[Arles]

First, we chose exactly when to go to war. There was nothing really forcing our hand here. There was no Pearl Harbor, no "imminent" fall of Vietnam to the Commies, no invasion of Kuwait. We basically sat back, debated the issue for a while, and then went ahead. Was this the US's first pre-emptive strike war?

Second, we appeared to have infinitely more intelligence about what we were facing in the terms of opposition.

Also, so we never had an "exit strategy" prior to any military action, that doesn't necessarily mean such a pre-war strategy wasn't necessary or should not have been explored in this instance. Learning from one's mistakes (Vietnam, for example) is a good thing.
I think this is certainly a "more fair" way to look at the situation. The number one priority in any war is to win the miltary battles. So, obviously you have to do everything with that sole goal until you win (if you try to plan post-victory too early you could end up with what happened to Russia in afghanistan).

That said, I do think it's fair to criticize the administration for not moving quick enough on certain things once the main fighting was over. Still, it's hard to plan for a 2-month military victory and its even harder to start rebuilding when half your enemy fled the battlefield and hid back in different communities.

From a historical perspective, there's been no precident for the level of success that US has had in Iraq. To go from a tyrannical regime to a national election for a new form of government in less than two years is unheard of. What's amazing to me is that the US could have done an even better job had they made better decisions at certain point. Still, the efficiency and progress made from a historical context is something that rarely gets looked into - which is very surprising to me.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think this is certainly a "more fair" way to look at the situation. The number one priority in any war is to win the miltary battles. So, obviously you have to do everything with that sole goal until you win (if you try to plan post-victory too early you could end up with what happened to Russia in afghanistan).

That said, I do think it's fair to criticize the administration for not moving quick enough on certain things once the main fighting was over. Still, it's hard to plan for a 2-month military victory and its even harder to start rebuilding when half your enemy fled the battlefield and hid back in different communities.

From a historical perspective, there's been no precident for the level of success that US has had in Iraq. To go from a tyrannical regime to a national election for a new form of government in less than two years is unheard of. What's amazing to me is that the US could have done an even better job had they made better decisions at certain point. Still, the efficiency and progress made from a historical context is something that rarely gets looked into - which is very surprising to me.
Hopefully, from a historical perspective, people will all sit back, look at the Iraq war, and marvel at it for unprecedented level of success that the US had. I really hope they do. I hope we can do it in the not-too-distant future.

It's just hard to start slappin' each other on the back for a "job well" done while dozens upon dozens of Iraqi citizens the very same people we freed from a tyrannical regime (not to mention small handfuls of US troops) are getting blowed up on a daily basis. Once that violence starts to fade, then we can begin examing the efficiency and progress made in a Iraq from a historical context.

[Arles]

I cited her once. Does "cited once" equal "routinely cites" in your world? At least attempt to be correct, OK? Oh wait, you're a Bush Apologist, trading in misinformation is what you do. My bad.

1. National elections did occur with mostly positive results.
Sorry? You're using Iraq's National elections as an example of positive news that didn't get enough press in the States? This was the same election that was plastered across broadcasts for days and still commands significant airtime in many sectors? Um, OK.
It was also brought up to refute your claim of 90% bad news in Iraq, but I guess we've already moved past that.

2. Iraq is very close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil and actually having their country benefit from its proceeds (not just Saddam).
Good, back to status quo. Only took 2 years. We're supposed to be jumping for joy about this?
The whole offensive had been less than two years - counting the military aspect. And, yes, we should be jumping for joy. For the first time in decades the Iraqi people actually have the ability to generate revenue from their own resources and create the semblance of a real economy. Something that was impossible under Saddam.

Given this, and the $18 billion we've spent on reconstruction so far, it seems to me that news of Iraq's oil industry starting to recover is more a source for cautious optimism, than raucous celebration.
It is mind-boggling how it is simply impossible for you to give the US even a sliver of credit for helping to restore a major economic resource to the people of that country and aiding them in creating their own economy. These people are actually able to better their lives now using this oil revenue that was previously untouchable and held by Saddam.


3. There is now more road coverage than under Saddam and the water systems are currently more sanitary than under Saddam.
Both were of reasonable quality under Saddam.

Good news, but hardly earth-shaking. Let's not forget that most of the repairs that had to be undertaken were due to damage done by coalition troops during the invasion. How many children and elderly died from poor sanitation in this aftermath?

I guess that's OK because they're "collateral damage".
How many have died in the past decade because Saddam deemed it more worthy to build palaces instead of provide sanitary water and useable roads to his people? You guys need to get off this "tropical paradise" Iraq was before the US came in. There were serious problems with disease, poorly sanitized water and chemical poisoning well before the US even sniffed its borders. Once again, this has gotten significantly better than it ever was under Saddam. So, a better question is how many would children and elderly would have been dead from poor sanitation over the upcoming few years had the US not come in?

5. There are more public access schools and hospitals in Iraq now than there were under Saddam.
A metric achieved simply by switching private access schools & hospitals to public access. Sure, it's good, but I'd hope the U.S. would believe in more public access to these services than a dictator.
You are finally starting to get it (I think). Iraq is no longer under the leadership of a tyrant and now all citizens have access to quality schools and health care. Hence, the country is much better off and actually has a bright future where things can continue to improve for all citizens not in the Baathist regime. But, again, I guess this is "no biggie" in your mind.

6. The Iraqi government is on the path with a blueprint for their constitution and the beginnings of a representative assembly and leadership.
Says you. Unless the ruling Shiites decide that a theocracy led by the example of Sistani is the way to go. Unless the Kurds decide to use their new power-broking position as a way to get an independent Kurdistan. Unless everyone gangs up on the Sunnis. Again, a source for cautious optimism, not wild celebration.
I don't see anyone asking for wild celebration, I'm simply asking that some of these items get coverage in the media so that I don't have to hunt through a million blogs and US Soldier accounts to hear about them. I'd be willing to bet a vast number of FOFC readers (some of the more affluent web and news readers there are) had no idea that some of the above was happening. That's unfortunate as people are basing their opinions on Iraq based on only a small piece of the puzzle.

But you wouldn't be a Bush Apologist if you thought that way.
You know, I may be supportive of the administration but I am certainly able to look at the system and admit certain faults that have occurred from a training and logistics standpoint in their efforts (esp under Bremer). You, on the other hand, are unable to give any credit to the US and must poo-poo all 6 listed aspects of an improved Iraq that I stated. How are you any better than what you perceive me to be?

[Passacaglia]

Has anyone ever hated to say "I told you so?"

[flere-imsaho]

Arles - The bottom line is that there is no country in the world (even Israel) that is suffering from as much terrorism and insurgency at the moment as Iraq. Thus it should be no surprise that this news is the what dominates what we hear out of Iraq.

Is it this topic that deserves 90% of the coverage? At the moment, yes. The continuing security concerns and terrorist attacks undermines any "good" happening in the country, and it shows no signs of abating. While it is certainly good that there is a new government, and that utilities are being restored, these things must be placed in the greater context of continuing violence.

[flere-imsaho]

Has anyone ever hated to say "I told you so?"

In this instance, yes. I hate to say "I told you so" because this means my prediction of significant U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties was correct. It means my prediction of sectarian violence was correct. It means my prediction of a theocracy in a few years is on its way. It means my argument that Iraq would become a haven for international terrorists has been borne out.

[sachmo71]

I believe Sudan is suffering

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I believe Sudan is suffering

Good timing for them! I've never seen so many American conservatives so concerned with the welfare of people in 3rd world countries. I had always thought they didn't give a shit about those people. How wrong I was. Sudan is lucky, they should be getting 150k U.S. troops to keep the peace any day now. Because Republicans want them to have schools and democracy and feminism and hospitals and electricty and Will and Grace. And they're willing to go to war for that. Because that's just the kind of standup people they are. Go America!

[yabanci]

......From a historical perspective, there's been no precident for the level of success that US has had in Iraq......

It just dumbfounds me to read babbling crap like this.

[rexallllsc]

I think this is certainly a "more fair" way to look at the situation. The number one priority in any war is to win the miltary battles. So, obviously you have to do everything with that sole goal until you win (if you try to plan post-victory too early you could end up with what happened to Russia in afghanistan).


I thought we already got to "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"?

I don't know what military battles we're fighting. Looks like it's just a big clusterf*** over there to me. Is it even possible to "win" (i.e. defeat who we're fighting)?

[Dutch]

Hey, sorry you got yourself into your own catch-22. Maybe your President shouldn't have been so quick to do this:

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/mission-accomplished.jpg



That's funny, because that's not the impression I get from what this Administration has to say about it.Great example of exactly what I'm talking about with regard to who is really doing the misleading. ;)

[Arles]

It just dumbfounds me to read babbling crap like this.
I'd be interested in hearing one other major offensive in world history that removed an oppressive regime and was more successful than the Iraq war to this point.

[33sherman]

I'd be interested in hearing one other major offensive in world history that removed an oppressive regime and was more successful than the Iraq war to this point.

Operation Barbarosa 1941, The Ukraine. The communist government of what is now known as as the single country 'The Ukraine' was removed. Of course Moscow and the whole shebang never fell. But after two years most of the Ukraine was still in German hands, and it was much larger front and against a much stronger adversary.

[Klinglerware]

I'd be interested in hearing one other major offensive in world history that removed an oppressive regime and was more successful than the Iraq war to this point.

You don't hear about many because you usually don't see successful regime change via external military force. Think about the major regime changes of the 20th century--Fall of the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact, colonial wars for independence, etc. Pretty much every one of those arose from internal movements. Regime change that results in democracy in particular seems to arise from indigenous popular movements. Outside goverments wishing to induce change typically did it through economic or covert means (supporting terrorist and guerilla operations, coup stagings, etc.), and not via direct military involvement. Military invasions usually fail to meet their political objectives.

The one major success of course is the fall of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan after WWII. But this was the result of 6 years of multilateral military cooperation, and it is unlikely that one nation would have defeated Germany and Japan without multilateral support.

As for invasions where one nation successfully removed opressive regimes, I can think of maybe a couple. A French invasion removed the self-proclaimed Emperor Bokassa of the CAE in the 1970s. The US invasion of Panama in 1989 was a similar event. However the installation of less repressive government was not really an objective in either case, they installed people more aligned with French and American wishes--France and the US did what they did to discipline misbehaving client states than to engage in socio-political engineering.

[sachmo71]

I think someone called me a Conservative. Does that mean I get to join the club? :D

[Leonidas]

Dola.

Leo, you're a military guy. Based on what you've read and such, do you think this war was well planned? That there was a solid post-occupation strategy? I am just curious. at some level, even the best laid plans and tactics, will go to shit. As mentioned, war is a messy, confusing, ugly, and unpredictable endeavor. That said, a strong plan/tactic/strategy, while never being able to remove these "X-Factors", can hope to limit them.

Sorry to take so long to reply, and I hope this may still be relevant to the conversation. I'm in Europe right now dependent on odd library hours so my responses aren't always timely.

Anyhow, I'll respond with some of my own thoughts and you can decide if I scratched your itch or not.

I think at the highest levels, there was probably a genuine belief this war was well planned. Lots of people seemed to be telling Bush & Co. that we'd be welcomed with open arms as liberators. Whomever those people were, they clearly were not well versed in Arab culture and politics. But that's another issue for another post on another day.

I think the very biggest mistake we made was breaking up the Iraqi Army. Gen Franks maintains in his book that this was never the plan, in fact he claims they intended all along to bring former Iraqi military (not Republican Guard mind you) into the fold, but says the military simply "vanished". They all went home after the invasion was clearly over and never came back. I don't know if this is totally true or not. But I do know that one of the great moves we made with the Marshall Plan after WWII was to bring certain Germans into the fold. For whatever reason you choose to believe, this wasn't done in Iraq and we're paying the price for that.

Gen Franks also brought up a real interesting point in his book. He claims to have laid out a lot of things he needed from other governmental agencies outside the military for a post-invasion recovery and even talks about courting these agencies and getting their blessing and committment for $$ and personnel to do these things, but when push came to shove and the time was nigh to put their money where their mouth was, these agencies bailed. SImply put, they told the Gen what he wanted to hear but never actually budgeted any of the resources they promised. It was beauracratic BS at its finest. I suspect the Gen is more than a little naive on these types of things and was severely taken advantage of by more politically savvy operators.

There are also some folks who maintain we had verbals from a lot more countries to partake in the post invasion recovery than actually showed. I suspect what happened was certain leaders said yeah, we'll help, and really meant it, but didn't count on the level of sustained opposition to the war from within their own countries and simply couldn't bring resources to bare when the time came for fear of losing their constituencies.

So in the end we may have made some leaps and assumptions based on political dealings that for whatever reasons fell through. I think Bush & Co. were told all the bases were covered and had no reason to doubt it, but their staff failed to come up with a solid backup plan when things started falling through the cracks.

As for the military part of this, I think the invasion was bold, innovative, and probably a bit risky. In the end it came off better than the planners at CENTCOM even dreamed it would. It is a plan that will be discussed at military academies for the next 50-100 years because it erased an awful lot of preconceived notions about ground warfare.

But ours is an Army of movement, not occupation. We are very good takers, not so good at being policemen and holding ground. I think the primary plan was to rely on an Iraqi Army that dissappeared and foreign help that failed to materialize. On paper the idea probably looked pretty good, but in reality there wasn't a sufficient back-up plan to account for political failings and other uncertainties. We've never been very good as an Army of occupation and we are learning some painful lessons in the process. It's not something you can easily train or prepare for, and if you could, it would take you years to learn how. We didn't have years to learn, we're stuck doing it on the fly.

[Arles]

Thanks for the comments, Leonidas. This makes a lot of sense and certainly points out some of the many areas that need to be looked at for the future.

[Klinglerware]

Very interesting comments, Leonidas. Interesting points regarding post WWII Germany too. We had no choice but to reintegrate former Nazis into the bureaucratic machinery of the West German government--not the top officials of course, but the country couldn't function without the former Nazis since all of the mid-level government workers probably had to be party members.

I wonder why the same thing didn't happen in Iraq--I wouldn't doubt that most of the mid-level Baath bureaucrats didn't really buy into Saddam but joined the party for career purposes. Did we want to keep the mid-level Baathists, and it was a case of them somehow disappearing like the Iraqi army? Or was there an effort to cut out all people with Baath ties?

The case could be made that the Baath people were primarily members of an Iraqi minority group, but for practical purposes they did know the infrastructure and could help administer...

[Arles]

You don't hear about many because you usually don't see successful regime change via external military force. Think about the major regime changes of the 20th century--Fall of the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact, colonial wars for independence, etc. Pretty much every one of those arose from internal movements.
I agree here, but we had waited decades for such a movement and the world (US and UN) bailed on the Iraqis when there was such a chance in the early 90s. So, expecting such a movement in Iraq did not seem very likely. Iran, however, may be a different situation altogether and hopefully will mimic many of these examples you have cited.

Military invasions usually fail to meet their political objectives.
That's the point I was after. You look at all the major military events in the past 70 years (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Russia and afghanistan, first Iraq, Somalia, ...) and they have all been either extremely difficult or never achieved a regime change.


The one major success of course is the fall of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan after WWII. But this was the result of 6 years of multilateral military cooperation, and it is unlikely that one nation would have defeated Germany and Japan without multilateral support.
What US did from a military standpoint is really unprecedented. To add in the rapid change in rebuilding the infrastructure and the speed in setting up a new government structure, and this whole effort is of historic proportion. It took decades to get Germany and Japan rebuild and focused after a war that took many years.

As for invasions where one nation successfully removed opressive regimes, I can think of maybe a couple. A French invasion removed the self-proclaimed Emperor Bokassa of the CAE in the 1970s. The US invasion of Panama in 1989 was a similar event. However the installation of less repressive government was not really an objective in either case, they installed people more aligned with French and American wishes--France and the US did what they did to discipline misbehaving client states than to engage in socio-political engineering.
But neither of these events involved the scope of Iraq. The panama invasion to remove Noriega was essentially done in the dead of night involving a small number of troops (less than 1000). Plus, Noriega was almost an outcast in his own country and the same government was continued with Endara and some current vice presidents basically sworn in the next day.

Again, the Iraq effort (troubles and all) still is closer to the "best case" scenerio most would have thought before the war began. The reconstruction has introduced many things that were not properly planned for or anticipated (as Leonidas explained). Still, the fact that the US has removed an entire regime with military force, rebuilt much of the infrustructure and already witnessed election for the new government less than two years since the initial invasion is quite remarkable.

Now, this doesn't mean everything is perfect in Iraq. But when you look at the normal pitfalls of major military efforts in a historical backdrop, this has to be looked on as a success to this point. The future will determine how well the overall effort changes (or doesn't change) the nature of Iraq to the world, but I have a hard time saying this mission has been a poor one to this point.

I shudder to think of how we would have handled WWI, WWII or even Korea had the current level of media scrutiny been prevalent during those times. I would not be surprised to see all of Europe speaking German had that been the case as I do not see the US people having the stomach to deal with the bloody battles in Europe on a 24-hour basis with video and the level of criticism that would have accompanied it.

[flere-imsaho]

It took decades to get Germany and Japan rebuild and focused after a war that took many years.

Decades after WWII Germany and Japan were preeminent world economic powers. Let me know when Iraq is there. Until then, comparing the rebuilding of Iraq to the rebuilding of the Axis powers is facile.

Again, the Iraq effort (troubles and all) still is closer to the "best case" scenerio most would have thought before the war began.

Closer to the best-case scenario than what? Predictions? The worst-case scenario? Go back and read what the Administration said about Iraq before the invasion. They predicted the best-case scenario.

Still, the fact that the US has removed an entire regime with military force, rebuilt much of the infrustructure and already witnessed election for the new government less than two years since the initial invasion is quite remarkable.

I thought pulling the election off, on its own, was very impressive. The Iraqi election authority, and all who helped them, should be proud, as should the U.S. military for providing enough security to have the election go off relatively peacefully.

I'm less impressed by the "rebuilding" efforts. I think they're about on-target for $18 billion.

The future will determine how well the overall effort changes (or doesn't change) the nature of Iraq to the world, but I have a hard time saying this mission has been a poor one to this point.

And this is the problem. From a greater geopolitical standpoint, the invasion of Iraq caused problems that will continue to have ramifications for decades. Increased power for regional fundamentalists. Easier recruiting for terrorist groups. Lawlessness in Iraq spilling over into neighboring countries. Potential decades-long sectarian violence, spilling over into neighboring countries. Potential geopolitical destabilization in the region due to the desire for an independent Kurdistan. The list goes on.

I'm not saying that the U.S. military, the U.S. contractors, and the Iraqis haven't accomplished a fair amount in getting Iraq back on its feet. What I'm saying is that this progress, though good, is immaterial given the security situation and the overall trends, both in Iraq and in the region, that the invasion and occupation caused. If the security problems and the sectarian violence can't be solved, then we'll have more-or-less ended up trading one dictator for another. On top of that we will have not helped our own cause in the Middle East.

I shudder to think of how we would have handled WWI, WWII or even Korea had the current level of media scrutiny been prevalent during those times. I would not be surprised to see all of Europe speaking German had that been the case as I do not see the US people having the stomach to deal with the bloody battles in Europe on a 24-hour basis with video and the level of criticism that would have accompanied it.

Mentions of WWII are so trite. It's as if you are saying "Gosh, if it was up to you, Hitler would still be alive today!"

WWI: This war shouldn't have happened. Maybe it would have been a good thing if we knew and saw how many men died in trenches for no reason. Maybe it would have been a good thing if the public were aware how soldiers were shot by their officers for retreating. Maybe if all of this happened public opinion would have made the powers that be get to the bargaining table a lot faster. Let's not forget that this was a war where Armistice was delayed by a number of ours, causing countless deaths, so that it could end at 11:11 on 11/11.

WWII: An extremely poor comparison, especially after 1941, when the U.S. knew the final intentions of the Axis powers. I very seriously doubt Americans would be anti-war in the majority against an enemy who planned to conquer them.

Korea: Public opinion, and eventually sane military opinion, eventually did decide that scores of American lives were not worth paltry territory gains in a regional conflict. It's a pity the lesson was not learned for Vietnam.

[Klinglerware]

I agree here, but we had waited decades for such a movement and the world (US and UN) bailed on the Iraqis when there was such a chance in the early 90s. So, expecting such a movement in Iraq did not seem very likely. Iran, however, may be a different situation altogether and hopefully will mimic many of these examples you have cited.


I'm not so sure, there were several anti-Saddam terrorist/revolutionary groups we could have sponsored. If we were to help stage a coup there, there were a number of people we could have installed. I think that a movement was unlikely because we didn't invest in one, in terms of money, intelligence, logistics and serious policy planning. The US has been stung by failed covert ops before, but we've had successes too--so I'm not sure why more was invested in incubating an internal movement. If regime change was what we were after, these would be more cost-effective methods to me. Which leads me to my overall point...


That's the point I was after. You look at all the major military events in the past 70 years (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Russia and afghanistan, first Iraq, Somalia, ...) and they have all been either extremely difficult or never achieved a regime change.


This always mystified me about the decision to invade Iraq. It makes very little sense from a realpolitik vantage point. The invasion cost a lot in American treasure, in service of a policy tool that doesn't have much of track record in achieving the radical political end we were after. If it was truly just regime-change we were after, then there were more cost-effective ways to go about it. The decision to invade certainly had little to do with oil--Russian oil production and Chinese consumption have more of an impact on petroleum market stability than events in the Middle-east these days. I really don't see it being about Islamic terrorism or WMD's--Saddam was a secularist who was afraid of the influence of Islam, I doubt that he would allow groups to operate in his state that could potentially undermine his political authority.

In the end, I really am not sure this invasion served the interests of American security in a traditional realpolitik sense since we are risking American economy strength and military capacity somewhat in order to effect policy change in a country that never really had much capacity to do much damage to us. I do think that idealism on the part of the civilian policy planners has more to do with the path we chose regarding Iraq. I think these guys were thinking about security, but only in an indirect sense. Much has been said that these guys are very idealistic in their beliefs on how the spreading American values can change the world for the better, and I tend to agree with that assessment of our civilian policy planners. I really do believe them when they say they want to spread liberal democracy abroad. I'm not sure that is the right way to run foreign policy, but Iraq is an experiment and we shall see if values really do have a place when thinking about security matters...

[Dutch]

In the end, I really am not sure this invasion served the interests of American security...The fact remains that everybody (USA/UN/Arab League) was sure that Saddam Hussein had WMD that he was hiding from inspectors.

The UN placed massive sanctions on Iraq because of this (among other issue encapsulated in the 17 UN Resolutions the Baath Party rejected). The WMD question was a very large concern primarily for American and Israeli security.

We assume now that they were all destroyed because of the invasion. If we are confident enough to proclaim that his stockpiles were in fact destroyed and not moved.

But since the invasion we have learned that Iraq was prepared to re-institute it's nuclear program the second UN Sanctions ended.

The regime simply had to go.

And we could have left after that, it's not like we are hanging around now to try and get popular opinion on the side of the USA. That's not going to happen. But it does seem possible that we are trying to leave something positive for the Iraqi people to work with. If democracy does take hold in Iraq, it will be a positive thing. Being free is very infectious.

Remember the jeolous Syrian men in Damascus when the exiled Iraqi Women went to vote. That's a beautiful thing. And should serve the purpose of international security much better than a Saddam infested middle east would ever allow.

[Klinglerware]

The regime simply had to go.



But my main point was that the US invasion is inconsistent with utilitarian geo-politics. If the conclusion was that regime change was necessary, there were other more cost-effective ways to promote regime change.

If removing Iraq's WMDs were truly the over-riding concern, and if an Iraqi capacity for developing and producing them truly did exist, the use of air power to destroy suspected Iraqi WMD development sites and targeted assassination of key scientific personnel could have neutralized that threat. This would have required more of an investment in intelligence, but would still cost less than a ground invasion.

Thus, to me, the conclusion had to be that the United States chose it’s policy in Iraq primarily for ideological reasons as an investment in greater security down the road. I don't really buy its feasibility overall and I have my doubts as to whether it will work in Iraq, but it is an interesting theory and I have to hand it to the neocons for being grand theoreticians. But as is the case with many deep thinkers, the actual practicalities of implementation may not have been as well thought out...

[Arles]

Any solution that would have left Saddam in power would have simply delayed the inevitable as we know he was prepared to restart even more aggressive nuclear programs once the sanctions were lifted. And I just don't see any realistic way to remove Saddam and get a new regime into Iraq that did not involve serious military force.

[Honolulu_Blue]

as we know he was prepared to restart even more aggressive nuclear programs once the sanctions were lifted.
Do we know that? It's possible we do. Not saying you're lying, I just don't recall hearing about that.

[Klinglerware]

And I just don't see any realistic way to remove Saddam and get a new regime into Iraq that did not involve serious military force.

Is that really true? Regime change has been successfully implemented with a lot less...

[Arles]

The Duelfer report said he had plans on reinstituting his WMD plans once the sanctions were lifted:

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040917-095116-2225r.htm

Plus, three of the scientists interviewed mentioned that Saddam's main interest once he did reinstitute these programs was in nuclear technology. One of them even shared this quote from Saddam:

"Keep nuclear scientists together at IAEC in order to pool their skills and have them available when needed"

Unless Saddam was removed from power, he would have atleast attempted to restart these programs once the sanctions were lifted.

[Arles]

Is that really true? Regime change has been successfully implemented with a lot less...
The problem was that (unlike Panama or other instances) there was no alternative waiting in the wings that had any kind of popular support. Plus, Saddam's regime (including his sons) would have easily continued as is had the US simply removed Saddam. I'd certainly be interested to hear other ideas, but I don't see how anything short of a complete removal of Saddam, his republican guard and most of the Baathists would have resulted in any kind of regime change.

[flere-imsaho]

The problem was that (unlike Panama or other instances) there was no alternative waiting in the wings that had any kind of popular support. Plus, Saddam's regime (including his sons) would have easily continued as is had the US simply removed Saddam. I'd certainly be interested to hear other ideas, but I don't see how anything short of a complete removal of Saddam, his republican guard and most of the Baathists would have resulted in any kind of regime change.

Augusto Pinochet. The Soviet Union. Red China. Ho Chi Minh.

[flere-imsaho]

Unless Saddam was removed from power, he would have atleast attempted to restart these programs once the sanctions were lifted.

Easy solution: Don't lift the sanctions. After all, the sanctions worked: we still haven't found any WMD, right? ;)

[Arles]

Augusto Pinochet. The Soviet Union. Red China. Ho Chi Minh.Those were completely different situations and many took decades to come to fruition. I'd rather not wait until 2020 for enough resistance to build up in Iraq to remove Hussain.


Easy solution: Don't lift the sanctions. After all, the sanctions worked: we still haven't found any WMD, right? ;)
And I thought you were the one worried about the Iraqi people dying because of the initial assault by the US. What do you think another decade of sanctions would have done to them?

[flere-imsaho]

Those were completely different situations and many took decades to come to fruition. I'd rather not wait until 2020 for enough resistance to build up in Iraq to remove Hussain.

Of course not, because you'd rather spend countless lives, destabilize the region, provide a training ground for terrorists, give rise to a potential fundamentalist theocracy and weaken the position of many moderate groups throughout the Middle East for the goal of removing Saddam Hussein.

Look, if you wanted to remove evil dictators, Robert Mugabe and the leaders of the Sudan would have been far easier.

And I thought you were the one worried about the Iraqi people dying because of the initial assault by the US. What do you think another decade of sanctions would have done to them?

Prove to me that more would have died under sanctions than have died and will die given the situation now and in the future. You can't, of course, and I can't prove the converse. While I would definitely be interested in a U.S. foreign policy that practiced intervention for humanitarian purposes, such a policy isn't going to happen. Is removing Saddam Hussein in the manner we did of overall benefit? Well, it certainly is for those he oppressed. But given the manner in which we did it, how many of those will now suffer years of problems from terrorism and sectarian violence? Have we removed one problem only to give them another?

[rexallllsc]

The problem was that (unlike Panama or other instances) there was no alternative waiting in the wings that had any kind of popular support. Plus, Saddam's regime (including his sons) would have easily continued as is had the US simply removed Saddam. I'd certainly be interested to hear other ideas, but I don't see how anything short of a complete removal of Saddam, his republican guard and most of the Baathists would have resulted in any kind of regime change.

So we have to remove every leader we view as a "brutal dictator" huh? Wonder why we didn't start with more a threat?

[Glengoyne]

....

Prove to me that more would have died under sanctions than have died and will die given the situation now and in the future. You can't, of course, and I can't prove the converse. While I would definitely be interested in a U.S. foreign policy that practiced intervention for humanitarian purposes, such a policy isn't going to happen. Is removing Saddam Hussein in the manner we did of overall benefit? Well, it certainly is for those he oppressed. But given the manner in which we did it, how many of those will now suffer years of problems from terrorism and sectarian violence? Have we removed one problem only to give them another?
I'd say yes we have only removed one problem(Saddam's oppressive regime), and substituted another(a General Lack of Security). I'd say the biggest difference between the two problems is that now there is hope, where before there was none.

From the interviews read/heard with typical Iraqis most are very happy to have Saddam out of power, most are very happy with their newfound democracy, most are very disatisfied with the security situation, most/many are fundamentally dissatisfied with the presence of US troops, but most are also aware that those troops are needed to stave of Chaos for the time being.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The Duelfer report said he had plans on reinstituting his WMD plans once the sanctions were lifted:

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040917-095116-2225r.htm


The Jan. 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly had two of the best articles I've read to date on Iraq. The first is Kenneth Pollack's Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong, a story about how so many people were wrong on the WMD's. Pollack, as you may recall, wrote a book earlier, advocating invasion, called The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Pollack offered a detailed account what happened with Saddam's weapons programs since the first Gulf War. His conclusions are similar to what are suggested in Duelfer's report: that Saddam had fully dismantled his weapons programs and was lying low with the hope that he could get sanctions lifted and start anew. This leads to two equally interesting conclusions: a) Saddam still hoped to restore his weapons program, and b) despite flaws and corruption, the sanctions were amazingly effective.

The other great article in that issue was by James Fallows, the cover story: Blind Into Baghdad. Fallows details all of the reports and investigations prepared by the government prior to invading Iraq. He finds that a surprising amount of effort was invested. The CIA, the State Department, the army, and others had all prepared in-depth reports of what they expected from an occupation of Iraq. None of them talked about being greeted with flowers. In fact, they fairly accurately predicted most of the difficulties that followed - the looting, the insurgency, various problems with the civil infrastructure, etc. These reports were unfortunately ignored (and sometimes discredited) by the higher-ups in the administration. The general inference here was that they didn't want these reports to be featured in the public discourse because they would tend to discourage enthusiasm for war. Of the many mistakes and crimes of which the administration is sometimes accused, this, to me, is the most damning.

[Glengoyne]

Of the many mistakes and crimes of which the administration is sometimes accused, this, to me, is the most damning.
Yes. You have hit it on the head! Right on the Head. The problem is the left is too busy touting the Halliburton tripe, or the "manipulation of the media" garbage to actually bring up the meaningful points.

[Klinglerware]

The problem was that (unlike Panama or other instances) there was no alternative waiting in the wings that had any kind of popular support. Plus, Saddam's regime (including his sons) would have easily continued as is had the US simply removed Saddam. I'd certainly be interested to hear other ideas, but I don't see how anything short of a complete removal of Saddam, his republican guard and most of the Baathists would have resulted in any kind of regime change.

I didn't agree with the premise that Saddam needed to be removed, the sanctions really did cripple his ability to do anything of consequence to us. The sanctions and no-fly zones did succeed in containing him. The whole idea of the sanctions being lifted is moot-the US has veto power in the UN Security Council, they would never allow sanctions to be lifted.

The democratic process currently taking place is not going to necessarily result in a pro-American government in Baghdad, in fact it is just as likely to result in a government more sympathetic to Tehran. The smartest move in my opinion was to keep Saddam weak but stable enough so Iran could not take advantage of any instability. If you cared that much about WMDs, then you could still have neutralized any supposed WMD development centers via airstrike or covert action and assassinated his scientists.

But since the decision to remove him was made, I am arguing that it could have been done at much less cost and would serve American interests better. As the elections show, multiple currents of opposition did exist (Shiite islamists, Kurds, marsh Arabs, various Sunni secularists) . The US just did not invest the time and cost in identifying and supporting these groups. The US could have taken on one or more of the militant groups and other potential opposition figures as clients and funded an insurgency in order to destabilize, intimidate, and ultimately overthrow the Iraqi regime. Do you think Saddam really could have done a thing if we decided to channel large amounts of money and armaments into Iraq? If the strategy is successful (a big if, I admit), the resultant Iraqi government composed of our clients would be more loyal to us and our security concerns than the government arising from the present day chaos would, and at lower cost than a ground invasion.

[Dutch]

Easy solution: Don't lift the sanctions. After all, the sanctions worked: we still haven't found any WMD, right? ;)
Maintaining sanctions wasn't easy. Our pilots were shot at on an almost daily basis for years. Thousands of soldiers have endured constant family seperations. High military ops tempo is required by US/UK/Aus forces to maintain the UN sanctions.

The regime change was a means to an end. Not a way to keep the status quo. Not when our presence in the region was brewing such animosity from terror groups.

Saddam simply had to go.

[NoMyths]

Maintaining sanctions wasn't easy. Our pilots were shot at on an almost daily basis for years. Thousands of soldiers have endured constant family seperations. High military ops tempo is required by US/UK/Aus forces to maintain the UN sanctions.Thank god none of that is happening anymore.

Not when our presence in the region was brewing such animosity from terror groups.Or that.

[Arles]

Maintaining sanctions wasn't easy. Our pilots were shot at on an almost daily basis for years. Thousands of soldiers have endured constant family seperations. High military ops tempo is required by US/UK/Aus forces to maintain the UN sanctions.

The regime change was a means to an end. Not a way to keep the status quo. Not when our presence in the region was brewing such animosity from terror groups.

Saddam simply had to go.
The option was to continue to keep sanctions until the world (and US) willpower eventually slipped. Pictures were already shown of kids starving in Iraq and the sanctions paying pretty big toll on the Iraqi people. How many potential Usama Bin Laden's do you think that created from 95-2000 when all people in Iraq heard everyday was how the evil US was keeping them from food and supplies by using sanctions? That's probably one of the big miscalculations of this war in underestimating the negative feel many Iraqis had for the US and UN because of the sanctions.

At some point, though, they would have been removed (my guess is some reuters reporter would take a picture of a starving child) and we would be back to the early 90s.

To me, this whole thing was like having a scorpion trapped on the ground in plastic cup and the options are to go to work and leave the plastic cup hoping he never leaves - or to remove the cup and squash the scorpion.

[Dutch]

Thank god none of that is happening anymore.

Or that.
NoMyths,

I understand what you are saying. I think we simply disagree on how the Iraq situation would conclude.

Everyone has been in agreement that our soldiers should not maintain a police action in Iraq. The question in the late 90's was how to end it without allowing Iraq to simply disregard direct UN orders (resolutions).

Our government (Clinton Administration) came to the conclusion that regime change was the only "safe" way. I am convinced that had 9/11 not happened and Al Gore was president, we still would be right where we are today. Because this was the philosophy since Operation Desert Fox when Clinton finally realized there was nothing we could do to Saddam Hussein and his gang of thugs.

[Dutch]

That's probably one of the big miscalculations of this war in underestimating the negative feel many Iraqis had for the US and UN because of the sanctions.
And the middle east in general. Trust me. They all hated the UN sanctions.

[rexallllsc]

Maintaining sanctions wasn't easy. Our pilots were shot at on an almost daily basis for years. Thousands of soldiers have endured constant family seperations. High military ops tempo is required by US/UK/Aus forces to maintain the UN sanctions.

Were any of those planes ever shot down?

Thousands? Now we have HUNDREDS of thousands.

High military ops...what do you call this?

C'mon!

[Dutch]

Were any of those planes ever shot down?The planes that Iraq agreed to let fly over Iraq that they were shooting at daily? No, but they were getting closer. They used to do some pretty interesting tactics to try and shoot an allied plane down. I remember one instance where they turned on a SAM site (we always knew when they turned them on as we could detect them) and we sent in a helicopter to destroy it, but after the helicopter passed a certain waypoint, they turned a 2nd one on and attempted to shoot down the ambushed helicopter. Fortunately we were flying air cover for the helicopter that the Iraqi's didn't know about (F-16s) and blew the 2nd SAM sight up before it could attack the helicopter. And then the helicopter blew up the first. 2 for 1! (Edit: I just re-read that and it almost sounds like I was involved...I was not, I'm a comm troop.)

Thousands? Now we have HUNDREDS of thousands.

High military ops...what do you call this?This is surge operations. Obviously. It takes a lot of people to fight a war.

As for the post-military state, I will say this. It's much more difficult in the middle east to set up a democracy, than say--post war Europe in the late 40's. I do worry about that. I am concerned that failure will completely embarrass the USA. In Germany and Japan, after WWII, those people were highly regarded by their rulers, they had national pride, they wanted to work, and they wanted to rebuild after the war. In Iraq, Saddam treated almost everybody except the small minority of Sunni's as either serfs or enemies. And now, the rest of the middle east power players (such as the Islamic terrorists) are disgusted by this Iraqi sense of self-worth (instead of serving them for Allah). Most rulers in the middle east assume that all people work through their leaders for Allah, not for themselves. Civil Rights is completey foreign. It is an import. So, it's easy to recruit terrorists to go blow themselves up in a Democratic Iraq. Because they have not experienced democracy.

But again, the Syrian men who looked disdainfully at the exiled Iraqi women voting for their ruler was profound. They aren't animals, they will remember that sight for the rest of their lives. Freedom is a powerful lure.

[Klinglerware]

At some point, though, they would have been removed (my guess is some reuters reporter would take a picture of a starving child) and we would be back to the early 90s.


There is no way in hell the US would have allowed sanctions to be lifted. You underestimate American willpower. Anti-Israeli declarations are passed by the general assembly with clockwork regularity. The US votes against those every time. So if the US can hold its ground on somthing as frivolous as a stupid "Zionism is racism" declaration, why wouldn't they do so in the security council for something as serious as extending sanctions?

Why the impatience in getting rid of Saddam if he wasn't going to do a damn thing to us while he was sanctioned? Yeah we could have removed the regime in time, but why not take the time to get our ducks in a row and made sure we identified and established relationships with Iraqi partners on the ground first?

[Klinglerware]

In Iraq, Saddam treated almost everybody except the small minority of Sunni's as either serfs or enemies. And now, the rest of the middle east power players (such as the Islamic terrorists) are disgusted by this Iraqi sense of self-worth (instead of serving them for Allah). Most rulers in the middle east assume that all people work through their leaders for Allah, not for themselves. Civil Rights is completey foreign. It is an import. So, it's easy to recruit terrorists to go blow themselves up in a Democratic Iraq. Because they have not experienced democracy.

But again, the Syrian men who looked disdainfully at the exiled Iraqi women voting for their ruler was profound. They aren't animals, they will remember that sight for the rest of their lives. Freedom is a powerful lure.

I disagree with you in your insinuation that Iraqis have no pride for their country. That is part of the reason why many of them are so opposed to the occupation, while most certainly appreciate the removal of Saddam, many still consider the invasion as an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.

Also, I think that the government-religion connection is way overstated. I would venture to guess that the majority of middle eastern leaders pay mere lip-service to their faith in Islam. Actually, most (especially the secularists like Saddam) are deathly afraid of the influence of fundamentalist Islam on their populace--thus their impulse is to repress it or "pay the religious people off", and that makes their problems worse.

Finally, perhaps we should be careful what we wish for when it comes to democracy. Again, it is not clear what the will of the people will end up being after we leave. If the Shiite Islamist religious movement continues to play the leading role in shaping Iraqi opinion, the resulting governments may not be so aligned with American political interest. Iran has many features of a democracy, there is universal suffrage and voters do have input in the makeup of their governments, yet personal freedoms are not guaranteed--and the reality is that this is the result of popular will whether we chose to admit this or not...

[Dutch]

I disagree with you in your insinuation that Iraqis have no pride for their country. That is part of the reason why many of them are so opposed to the occupation, while most certainly appreciate the removal of Saddam, many still consider the invasion as an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.
I am saying that a vast majority of the populace has not enjoyed nationalist pride (Kurds and Shia's, I doubt were ever proud to be part of the Baathist Regime in anyway). Certainly they have pride in their homeland.

Also, I think that the government-religion connection is way overstated. I would venture to guess that the majority of middle eastern leaders pay mere lip-service to their faith in Islam. Actually, most (especially the secularists like Saddam) are deathly afraid of the influence of fundamentalist Islam on their populace--thus their impulse is to repress it or "pay the religious people off", and that makes their problems worse.
I agree.

Finally, perhaps we should be careful what we wish for when it comes to democracy. Again, it is not clear what the will of the people will end up being after we leave. If the Shiite Islamist religious movement continues to play the leading role in shaping Iraqi opinion, the resulting governments may not be so aligned with American political interest. Iran has many features of a democracy, there is universal suffrage and voters do have input in the makeup of their governments, yet personal freedoms are not guaranteed--and the reality is that this is the result of popular will whether we chose to admit this or not...
In my mind, the purpose of reform (exporting democracy) in the middle east is not to install puppet US governments. It's to install governments that are operated mostly by the will of the people. It's hard to find a democratic country with free press getting away with successful propaganda. I personally don't care if Iraq votes in a government that worships used car salesman, so long as they respect international law and police their own. That's all anyone can ask of other cultures.

The perception of Middle Eastern Reform has been very negative, but over time, I believe we will see major dividends paid as far as peace and security are concerned.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I disagree with you in your insinuation that Iraqis have no pride for their country. That is part of the reason why many of them are so opposed to the occupation, while most certainly appreciate the removal of Saddam, many still consider the invasion as an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.

I question how much true Iraqi nationalism there is. The (mostly Sunni) insurgents are more than happy to attack Shiites, likely with the intention of starting a civil war. The Kurds want nothing more than to split off a make their own country. The Shiites are the only ones who appear interested in a unified Iraq, probably because they know they have a majority in the population and will rule it.


Also, I think that the government-religion connection is way overstated. I would venture to guess that the majority of middle eastern leaders pay mere lip-service to their faith in Islam. Actually, most (especially the secularists like Saddam) are deathly afraid of the influence of fundamentalist Islam on their populace--thus their impulse is to repress it or "pay the religious people off", and that makes their problems worse.

There can be little doubt but that this is true. I was recently reading (don't recall where, NY Times?) about Syria allowing Islamic fighters to cross their borders into Iraq. The story claimed (I don't know how accurate this is) that the government allowed this, not because they wanted to destabilize Iraq, but because they saw it as a good way for militants in their country to "blow off steam" and probably get killed in the process.


Finally, perhaps we should be careful what we wish for when it comes to democracy. Again, it is not clear what the will of the people will end up being after we leave. If the Shiite Islamist religious movement continues to play the leading role in shaping Iraqi opinion, the resulting governments may not be so aligned with American political interest.

I really don't think this should be the basis on which we evaluate our promotion of democracy. This was pretty much the Cold War policy -- we'd allow democracy where it favored us and overthrow it where it didn't. I don't feel like that worked out terribly well. Democratic nations may be opposed to us, but they're likely to be far less militant and aggressive, and I think over time would trend towards more similar values to us. The EU would be an invaluable ally if Iraq or Iran were to have functioning democracies. I think they, like Turkey, would be quite keen on associating with the EU, even though they were still pissed at the US.

However, as I think I've stated previously, I'm concerned about the new democracy in Iraq due to the fact that I don't see how it can succeed given the ethnic/religious tension in the country. Majoritarian rule is problematic where the majority in the nation has a real desire to oppress the minorities (and where the minorities would rather strap bombs to themselves than submit to rule by the majority). Democracy works best where the population is at least somewhat homogenous. So I'm less worried about what a democratic Iraq would do, than with what happens if Iraq's democratic government collapses into chaos.

[BishopMVP]

I question how much true Iraqi nationalism there is. The (mostly Sunni) insurgents are more than happy to attack Shiites, likely with the intention of starting a civil war.The ones trying to blow up She'ates and start a civil war are pretty much all foreign terrorists. The Sunni groups want to be a part of a new government and know they would lose a civil war. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1029862,00.html and http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20050220-1050-iraq.html provide recent indications along these lines.The Kurds want nothing more than to split off a make their own country.We are pretty much the only friend the Kurds have ever had. They're willing to acquiesce to near-autonomy in order to avoid pissing us off.The Shiites are the only ones who appear interested in a unified Iraq, probably because they know they have a majority in the population and will rule it."The Shi'ites" are not that unified a political force - it worked well to win the initial vote, but the more actual decisions get made, the more fractured the bloc will become.I was recently reading (don't recall where, NY Times?) about Syria allowing Islamic fighters to cross their borders into Iraq. The story claimed (I don't know how accurate this is) that the government allowed this, not because they wanted to destabilize Iraq, but because they saw it as a good way for militants in their country to "blow off steam" and probably get killed in the process.That's not all the Syrians are doing - http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=525013 They think that when Iraq begins to stabilize, they will be next, so they (along with the Iranians) are doing their best to prevent that from happening. In the long run, I think they'll fail, but I hope they're right in their assumption.

[Leonidas]

All this debate about why we invaded Iraq, oil, WMD, democracy. Hey, all that's window dressing. I never understood why the Bushies pushed this war the way they did because I think they could have better justified it to the nation and the world if they levelled from the get go. I served in the invasion, I have been to Iraq, I am currently supporting planes flying into Iraq every day and I fully supported this war for what it's real purpose was, regardless of what end-arounds were made by the neo-cons to make it fly.

This war was fought to change the paradigm of the war on terror. It was meant to shift the focus of ops for al Qaida from the US to the Middle East, end of discussion, and it has worked. We flushed them out of Afghanistan, but that left a huge chunk of territory from Syria to Iran for AQ to move to, operate from, and plan more attacks on US soil. The Bushies weighed their options, and decided Iraq was the best option to break up this block of territory. I am willing to admit AQ wasn't fully operating in Iraq when the decision to invade was made, but is there any serious doubt it was just a matter of time? At the very least Iraq would have provided a ready route and willing counduit for terrorists to move from Iran westward to other locales where they could more easily gain access to the US.

And what has happened? The war on terror is now being fought against insurgents, AQ, and AQ wannabees in Iraq. The paradigm has shifted. Terrorists have been diverted from the US and are now battling US and Iraq troops in Iraq. Is that really so much worse than having more 9/11's? As a military member, I am proud to take on the brunt of this battle "over there". There is a "however" in all this though. This is a temporary fix. We can't keep the battle "over there" indefinitely. Eventually AQ will regain its focus and find a way to bring the fight back to the US. And eventually the American public will get fed up with a war with no end. Now the big question is what are the Bushies going to do long term to deal with that.

[flere-imsaho]

This war was fought to change the paradigm of the war on terror. It was meant to shift the focus of ops for al Qaida from the US to the Middle East, end of discussion, and it has worked. We flushed them out of Afghanistan, but that left a huge chunk of territory from Syria to Iran for AQ to move to, operate from, and plan more attacks on US soil. The Bushies weighed their options, and decided Iraq was the best option to break up this block of territory. I am willing to admit AQ wasn't fully operating in Iraq when the decision to invade was made, but is there any serious doubt it was just a matter of time? At the very least Iraq would have provided a ready route and willing counduit for terrorists to move from Iran westward to other locales where they could more easily gain access to the US.

One of the few things Saddam Hussein was consistent about was supressing religious troublemakers. Records from the 90s show that Al-Qaida tried, and repeatedly failed, to make any inroads with him. Now you want me to believe he would have made Iraq a haven for Al-Qaida? What's in it for him? Let's see:

*Even greater scrutiny from the West.
*An armed group operating in his borders but outside of his jurisdiction.
*Pissing Saudi Arabia off.

Sorry, that argument doesn't fly.

Luckily for Al-Qaida, though, we've now ensured years, if not decades of disorder in Iraq, so they can set up shop with (relative) ease.

[flere-imsaho]

And what has happened? The war on terror is now being fought against insurgents, AQ, and AQ wannabees in Iraq. The paradigm has shifted. Terrorists have been diverted from the US and are now battling US and Iraq troops in Iraq. Is that really so much worse than having more 9/11's? As a military member, I am proud to take on the brunt of this battle "over there". There is a "however" in all this though. This is a temporary fix. We can't keep the battle "over there" indefinitely. Eventually AQ will regain its focus and find a way to bring the fight back to the US. And eventually the American public will get fed up with a war with no end. Now the big question is what are the Bushies going to do long term to deal with that.

So invading Iraq bought us what, 5, 10 years of respite from Al-Qaida attacks on U.S. soil? Uh, great. Except that it's not even true - according to the government, we continue to be under threat. (http://news.google.com/news?q=warn%20terrorist%20threat&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&sa=N&tab=wn)

I'm sure there are solutions to the terrorism problem, but invading Iraq doesn't look like it was one of them.

[Leonidas]

One of the few things Saddam Hussein was consistent about was supressing religious troublemakers. Records from the 90s show that Al-Qaida tried, and repeatedly failed, to make any inroads with him. Now you want me to believe he would have made Iraq a haven for Al-Qaida? What's in it for him? Let's see:

*Even greater scrutiny from the West.
*An armed group operating in his borders but outside of his jurisdiction.
*Pissing Saudi Arabia off.

Sorry, that argument doesn't fly.

Luckily for Al-Qaida, though, we've now ensured years, if not decades of disorder in Iraq, so they can set up shop with (relative) ease.

Pissing off Saudi Arabia should have scared Saddam how? And I didn't say Saddam would have necessarily in cahoots with AQ, I said Iraq would have made a perfect conduit for terrorists to hide or pass through in a region extending from Iran through Syria. The Arabs created the proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and this would especially hold true for Saddam and AQ against the US. The US is a shared enemy that would easily transcend any emnity Saddam and AQ had. And you may or may not recall shortly before the invasion (around fall 0f 02) Saddam suddenly found religion so it's not as though he would have been unwilling to redefine himself to make him a more suitable ally to AQ. The walls between AQ and Saddam were far from insurmountable. A little cash and a shared enemy would have gone a very long way to forgetting their differences.

And yes, I think we did buy just limited time. Again, I said that up front. Maybe not even 5-10 years, but it's been over 3 years so far and counting. My last point concedes this is a very near-sighted strategy. It buys us time and allows a place where US forces can battle terrorists directly, but it's only a matter of time before AQ shifts focus back to US soil. But for now they are clearly concerned with fighting US forces on the ground in Iraq.

It's the same strategy Bin Laden used against the Soviets in the 80's and it helped to destory Soviet prestige as well as cripple morale of the Soviet military, which has never really recovered. Bin Laden himself has frequently refered to Vietnam and how US forces were demoralized by that war and made direct comparisons with the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It took nearly 20 years for our military to recover from Vietnam. Bin Laden is fully aware of that and is trying to achieve something between a repeat of Vietnam and a repeat of Mujahadeen success against the Soviets in Afghanistan. For now AQ is content to engage US forces on that front. In time it will change and I'm interested in what our foreign policy wonks have in mind to be ready when that changes.

[Klinglerware]

This war was fought to change the paradigm of the war on terror. It was meant to shift the focus of ops for al Qaida from the US to the Middle East, end of discussion, and it has worked. We flushed them out of Afghanistan, but that left a huge chunk of territory from Syria to Iran for AQ to move to, operate from, and plan more attacks on US soil. The Bushies weighed their options, and decided Iraq was the best option to break up this block of territory. I am willing to admit AQ wasn't fully operating in Iraq when the decision to invade was made, but is there any serious doubt it was just a matter of time? At the very least Iraq would have provided a ready route and willing counduit for terrorists to move from Iran westward to other locales where they could more easily gain access to the US.


Interesting, but a couple of points here:

1. When al-Qaeda was "flushed", there were much easier roads to hoe than schlepping to Iraq where Saddam wasn't going to give them a warm welcome. Again, Iraq would support the more nationalist/pseudo-socialist terror groups targeted against their rivals, but Saddam would be loath to support islamist groups that could potentially cause stirrings in the population. After all, the Iranians had been supporting fundamentalist terror groups against Iraq for years. Of course there are differences in ideology between AQ and Iranian backed fundamentalist groups, but why would Saddam trust either?

Also, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan didn't have to move very far: they could have moved to parts of Afghanistan not fully under control, or Pakistan. Pakistan would have been an easier conduit for AQ people to leave the Middle East altogether (bound for the African horn, East Africa, and points beyond.


And what has happened? The war on terror is now being fought against insurgents, AQ, and AQ wannabees in Iraq. The paradigm has shifted. Terrorists have been diverted from the US and are now battling US and Iraq troops in Iraq. Is that really so much worse than having more 9/11's? As a military member, I am proud to take on the brunt of this battle "over there". There is a "however" in all this though. This is a temporary fix. We can't keep the battle "over there" indefinitely. Eventually AQ will regain its focus and find a way to bring the fight back to the US. And eventually the American public will get fed up with a war with no end.


2. How efficacious can this "low-hanging fruit strategy" really be? If AQ is really involved in Iraq, it is just a side-show for them. AQ has turned into an umbrella organization at this point, where planning and execution can occur from any number of places. Even prior to the Afghanistan campaign, much of the logistical planning for attacks in the West occured in the West. While AQ is currently in a greatly weakened state, it retains the capacity for global ops because it's logistical planning capacity is scattered globally.

If the terror war was indeed the real reasoning behind the Iraq invasion, you are right that this is only a temporary solution. But if it was the real reasoning, then why attempt to stabilize Iraq at all?

Now the big question is what are the Bushies going to do long term to deal with that.

By their own admission, the administration is not going to be around for that eventuality. But it will be interesting to see how they'll lay the ground work.

[Dutch]

Let's not forget that Saddam Hussein didn't have to give anybody a warm welcome in the North or South "No-fly zones". They were great in theory and perfect for protecting Kurds and Shia's from Saddam, but they provided blanket protection for everybody.

There were Al Qaeda sponsored camps in the north on the Iranian border. If Saddam moved troops on them, it would have been done without air support. The Iraqi military on the ground would also have to fight through UN Air Power (okay, US/UK/Aus air power) who were on 24 hour guard to fight any Iraqi mobilization against people in these zones.

Need to get terrorists/supplies/weapons/explosives/drugs from Pakistan to Israel? No problem, Iran will let anybody pass, northern Iraq was out of control, Syria...same as Iran. It's not as easy today.

One of the things that has been overlooked in this War on Terror is the near capitulation of the Hamas in Israel. Saddam Hussein was the primary provider for them.

Just some more reasons why the sanctions had to end.

[Klinglerware]

One of the things that has been overlooked in this War on Terror is the near capitulation of the Hamas in Israel. Saddam Hussein was the primary provider for them.


Not really true that Saddam was the primary sponsor for Hamas. Actually, while he did make a big show of sending out the money to suicide bombers' families, he was barely a bit player when it came to Hamas funding. Iran is the primary state sponsor of the group, and Hamas is also heavily dependent financially on organizations fronting as Islamic charities. Hamas' near-neutralization in recent times is due to the US going hard against the front organizations and Israel's highly effective assasination campaign against the Hamas leadership.

[Dutch]

Fair enough. I will maintain that Saddam Hussein's bonus money was a root motivator for suicide bombers in Israel. Even if the only proof I have is the lack of funding which seems to coincide with the lack of bombings.

But we cannot beat our chests too much in victory, because Saddam Hussein's ability to communicate with suicide bombers pales in comparison to the Al Qaeda network. You would be amazed at just how organized they are.

[Klinglerware]

But we cannot beat our chests too much in victory, because Saddam Hussein's ability to communicate with suicide bombers pales in comparison to the Al Qaeda network. You would be amazed at just how organized they are.

Agreed. Their organizational and logistical capacity boggles the mind.

[flere-imsaho]

In the category of "Old News, Now With New Detail" today's New York Times has an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/international/middleeast/07armor.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=4c8f9c351e1cfaa3&hp&ex=1110258000&partner=homepage) that goes into extensive detail about mistakes at the Pentagon and how they led to the variety of armor problems for troops in Iraq.

My brother, who is in the Guard and will be in Iraq in a few months, told me that his commander, who has already served over there, has taken the money the unit has been given and gone to 3rd parties to buy the armor and other equipment they'll need in Iraq and can't count on the Pentagon to provide. Thanks to this article, we now know why.

[Dutch]

What's the solution Flere?

[Glengoyne]

What's the solution Flere?
I'm not Flere. But how about this?

The Pentagon could have awarded a "no-bid" contract to Armorworks. They were a tried and true supplier of the bullet proof ceramic plates that had "tooled up" to mass produce the goods.

Oh yeah. That would have been just another scandal for the Pentagon to deal with. Better to go with the low bidder.

[Arles]

Sure makes you glad you had the world's leader in oil management and production join the Iraq team in Halliburton. I shudder to think of all the similar issues that could have come up with their low-bid, under-prepared competitors from outside the US.

[flere-imsaho]

What's the solution Flere?

Assess your military's capabilities properly before engaging in a war for which you have the luxury of determing the date of invasion.

[Glengoyne]

Assess your military's capabilities properly before engaging in a war for which you have the luxury of determing the date of invasion.
I agree. I also think this Cody fellow should be ejected from the millitary for deciding or at least signing off on the idea that we didn't need armor for every soldier sent to Iraq.

[flere-imsaho]

Today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?ei=5094&en=e7534dd977e6dc08&hp=&ex=1110776400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=) has an article about the systematic looting that was done immediately after the U.S. invasion. Apparently organized groups were able to dismantle and carry away, en masse high-tech pieces of machinery, including machines that could be used as part of a process to create nuclear weapons.

Let's assume this is true. Why wasn't this equipment secured by U.S. forces? After all, wasn't securing WMD one of the Administration's goals in Iraq? Wasn't this exactly the equipment they were afraid of falling into the hands of bad people?

Colin Powell, amongst others, said that if you were going to invade Iraq, you needed to do it with a massive force of troops, in order to establish security and avoid exactly this kind of activity. I'm so glad wiser, and more experienced heads prevailed....

Article posted below for those who don't want to register for NYTimes:


In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

"They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."

The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion.

Dr. Araji's statements came just a week after a United Nations agency disclosed that approximately 90 important sites in Iraq had been looted or razed in that period.

Satellite imagery analyzed by two United Nations groups - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or Unmovic - confirms that some of the sites identified by Dr. Araji appear to be totally or partly stripped, senior officials at those agencies said. Those officials said they could not comment on all of Dr. Araji's assertions, because the groups had been barred from Iraq since the invasion.

For nearly a year, the two agencies have sent regular reports to the United Nations Security Council detailing evidence of the dismantlement of Iraqi military installations and, in a few cases, the movement of Iraqi gear to other countries. In addition, a report issued last October by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq, Charles A. Duelfer, told of evidence of looting at crucial sites.

The disclosures by the Iraqi ministry, however, added new information about the thefts, detailing the timing, the material taken and the apparent skill shown by the thieves.

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.

"Targeted looting of this kind of equipment has to be seen as a proliferation threat," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a private nonprofit organization in Washington that tracks the spread of unconventional weapons.

Dr. Araji said he believed that the looters themselves were more interested in making money than making weapons.

The United Nations, worried that the material could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it, largely unsuccessfully, across the Middle East. In one case, investigators searching through scrap yards in Jordan last June found specialized vats for highly corrosive chemicals that had been tagged and monitored as part of the international effort to keep watch on the Iraqi arms program. The vessels could be used for harmless industrial processes or for making chemical weapons.

American military officials in Baghdad did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the findings. But American officials have said in the past that while they were aware of the importance of some of the installations, there was not enough military personnel to guard all of them during and after the invasion.

White House officials, apprised of the Iraqi account by The New York Times, said it was already well known that many weapons sites had been looted. They had no other comment.

Daily Looting Reports

Many of Iraq's weapons sites are clustered in an area from Baghdad's southern outskirts to roughly the town of Iskandariya, about 30 miles south. Dr. Araji, who like many others at the Industry Ministry kept going to work immediately after the invasion, was able to collect observations of the organized looting from witnesses who went to the ministry in Baghdad each day.

The Industry Ministry also sent teams of engineers to the looted sites in August and September of 2003 as part of an assessment undertaken for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the interim American-led administrative apparatus. By then, virtually all of the most refined equipment was gone, Dr. Araji said.

The peak of the organized looting, Dr. Araji estimates, occurred in four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 as teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. That operation was followed by rounds of less discriminating thievery.

"The first wave came for the machines," Dr. Araji said. "The second wave, cables and cranes. The third wave came for the bricks."

Hajim M. al-Hasani, the minister of industry, referred questions about looting to Dr. Araji, who commented during a lengthy interview conducted in English in his office on Wednesday and a brief phone interview on Friday.

Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.

David Albright, an authority on nuclear weaponry who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said that Syria and Iran were the countries most likely to be in the market for the kind of equipment that Mr. Hussein purchased, at great cost, when he was secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon in the 1980's.

Losses at Enrichment Site

As examples of the most important sites that were looted, Dr. Araji cited the Nida Factory, the Badr General Establishment, Al Ameer, Al Radwan, Al Hatteen, Al Qadisiya and Al Qaqaa. Al Radwan, for example, was a manufacturing plant for the uranium enrichment program, with enormous machine tools for making highly specialized parts, according to the Wisconsin Project. The Nida Factory was implicated in both the nuclear program and the manufacture of Scud missiles.

Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation. Last fall, Iraqi government officials warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that some 377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment.

The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. All of that "dual use" equipment also has peaceful applications - for example, a tool to make parts for a nuclear implosion device or for a powerful commercial jet turbine.

Mr. Hussein's rise to power in Iraq culminated in his military building not only deadly missiles but many unconventional arms. After the 1991 gulf war, international inspectors found that Baghdad was close to making an atom bomb and had succeeded in producing thousands of biological and chemical warheads.

Starting in 1991, the United Nations began destroying Iraq's unconventional arms and setting up a vast effort to monitor the country's industrial infrastructure to make sure that Baghdad lived up to its disarmament promises. The International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, was put in charge of nuclear sites, and Unmovic, based in New York, was given responsibility for chemical and biological plants as well as factories that made rockets and missiles.

A Western diplomat familiar with satellite reconnaissance done by the International Atomic Energy Agency said it confirmed some of the Iraqi findings. For instance, he said, it showed that the Nida Factory had been partly destroyed, with some buildings removed, and some rebuilt. He added that the Badr General Establishment was almost entirely dismantled.

By contrast, he said, the agency's photo analysts found Al Ameer untouched, but only as seen from overhead. "The buildings could be totally empty," he said.

The diplomat added that the atomic energy agency's reconnaissance team found that Al Radwan was "significantly dismantled" and that Al Qadisiya had almost vanished. At the sprawling Hatteen base, he said, "parts are untouched, and parts are 100 percent gone."

Before the invasion, the United Nations was monitoring those kinds of sites. Two senior officials of the monitoring commission said in an interview that their agency's analysis of satellite reconnaissance photos of Iraq showed visible looting and destruction at five of the seven sites that had been cited by Dr. Araji.

The officials cautioned that the agency zeroed in on certain buildings of special interest in its monitoring work on unconventional weapons and that other structures or warehouses at a particular identified site might still be intact.

"You might have a place with 100 buildings but we'd have an interest in only 3 of them," an official said.

Officials at the United Nations monitoring agency said some areas of the sprawling Qaqaa installation involved in chemical processing had been wrecked by fire and possible extensive looting. Unknown is the fate of such equipment there like separators, heat exchangers, mixers and chemical reactors, all of which can be used in making chemical weapons.

The Badr General Establishment, they said, had been systematically razed. "It's fairly significant," one official said of the looting and disappearance of important buildings.

The Radwan site has been dismantled, they said, with the destruction quite extensive. And the Qadisiya small arms plant has been razed, they said, as have the buildings the agency monitored at the sprawling Hatteen installation. The two officials said the agency had no information on the condition of the Nida Factory or the Ameer site.

No Saudi or Iranian Replies

The recent monitoring agency report said Unmovic had asked Iraq's neighbors if they were aware of whether any equipment under agency monitoring had moved in or through their countries. Syrian officials, it said, replied that "no relevant scrap from Iraq had passed through Syria." The agency, the report added, had yet to receive a response from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Hasani, the Iraqi industry minister, said the sites of greatest concern had been part of the Military Industrialization Commission, a department within the ministry until it became a separate entity in the 1990's. The commission, widely known as the M.I.C., was dissolved after the fall of Baghdad, and responsibility for its roughly 40 sites was divided between the ministries of industry and finance, Dr. Hasani said. "We got 11 of them," he said.

Dr. Araji, whose tenure with the ministry goes back to the 1980's, is now involved in plans to use the sites as manufacturing centers in what the ministry hopes will be a new free-market economy in Iraq. He said that disappointment at losing such valuable equipment was a prime reason that the ministry was determined to speak frankly about what had happened.

"We talk straight about these matters, because it's a sad thing that this took place in Iraq," Dr. Araji said. "We need anything that could support us here."

"When you have good factories that could support that move and that transformation," he said, "it would be good for the economy of the country."

In an interview, a senior atomic energy agency official said the agency had used the reconnaissance photos to study roughly 100 sites in Iraq but that the imagery's high cost meant that the inspectors could afford to get updates of individual sites only about once a year.

In its most recent report to the United Nations Security Council, in October, the agency said it "continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program."

Alarms to Security Council

Agency inspectors, in visiting other countries, have discovered tons of industrial scrap, some radioactively contaminated, from Iraq, the report noted. It added, however, that the agency had been unable to track down any of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials.

"The disappearance of such equipment," the report emphasized, "may be of proliferation significance."

The monitoring commission has filed regular reports to the Security Council since raising alarms last May about looting in Iraq, the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states.

Officials of the commission and the atomic energy agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials.

Last fall, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under the agency's supervision. Iraq is obliged, he wrote to the president of the Security Council on Oct. 1, to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen.

In interviews, officials of the monitoring commission and the atomic energy agency said the two agencies had heard nothing from Baghdad - with one notable exception. On Oct. 10, the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote to the atomic agency to say a stockpile of high explosives at Al Qaqaa had been lost because of "theft and looting."

During the American presidential election last fall, news of that letter ignited a political firestorm. Privately, officials of the monitoring commission and the atomic energy agency have speculated on whether the political uproar made Baghdad reluctant to disclose more details of looting.

[Arles]

Probably because the US simply didn't care about securing it and wanted to make sure there was no trace found that Saddam may have dealt with WMD so the administration would look silly. :rolleyes:

Or, perhaps the military hadn't found all of them yet and was more concerned about winning the military battles with as few lives lost as possible. My guess is Saddam sympathizers in Iraq prior to the US military action probably had a bit of a leg up on the US from a logistics standpoint when it comes to the numerous hiding spots of WMD.

That certainly would have been nice information for the UN inspectors to provide the US with prior to the invasion. After all, they had been monitoring the country for a decade and you would think they would have been able to tell us that. Alas, the UN was silent on this issue prior to the invasion.

[flere-imsaho]

Give me a break, Arles. Now you're accusing the U.N. of deliberately witholding information from the U.S. so that they'd look bad after this?

Bush & Co. gave us the impression that they knew where these weapons were and that securing them was a priority:

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. Source. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Source. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

There are plenty of other quotes, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Again, if the Bush Administration was so worried about WMD, why not go in with a clear plan, and a properly-staffed and equipped force to accomplish the tasks of:


Oust Saddam
Provide Security
Find and secure weapons


I think there are two possible answers: 1. The Bush Admin's plan was very poor. 2. The Bush Admin didn't really care about securing these weapons all that much.

[flere-imsaho]

Or, perhaps the military hadn't found all of them yet and was more concerned about winning the military battles with as few lives lost as possible.

I'm at a loss, really.

Did Bush & Co. assume machinery, raw materials, et. al. would just sit around, untouched, while the military completed securing the country (2 years and counting, btw)?

Is the loss of these materials to the black market considered acceptable?

[gstelmack]

Wait a second, I though Iraq didn't have a WMD program? So where did all this stuff come from for them to carry away? Or are you now saying we were justified in going in there, but should have gone in stronger?

[Arles]

Give me a break, Arles. Now you're accusing the U.N. of deliberately witholding information from the U.S. so that they'd look bad after this?
No, I'm accussing them of being so incompetant that they had no clue where these sites were even after monitoring the country for a decade.

Did Bush & Co. assume machinery, raw materials, et. al. would just sit around, untouched, while the military completed securing the country (2 years and counting, btw)?
I think it's a fair assumption that had the US military known certain sites had WMD material, they would have secured them. But, when they don't know which sites did and did not, it becomes harder to decide which ones to devote significant manpower. Again, if an organization had been monitoring and inspecting Iraq for a decade and these inspections were "working" (as many have claimed), you would think they could have had the ability to point us to some general directions for securing this type of information. But, that was not the case as the UN was just as clueless to their locations. Certainly gives a lot of credence to that great job the inspectors were doing, doesn't it?

UN in 2003 - "We can't see any evidence of WMD in Iraq or materials that make them. So, the US should not invade".

UN in 2005 - "I can't believe the US didn't secure all these WMD material sites when they invaded in 2003."

:rolleyes:

The Bush Admin didn't really care about securing these weapons all that much.
Yeah, that's pretty likely. They knew where they were, but didn't care about finding them and proving their case.

[flere-imsaho]

Wait a second, I though Iraq didn't have a WMD program? So where did all this stuff come from for them to carry away? Or are you now saying we were justified in going in there, but should have gone in stronger?

Iraq had a WMD program, but it had been seriously derailed by U.N. sanctions and inspections, to the point of not representing a threat. However, this is not to say that useful machinery and conventional weapons did not exist. These should have been secured.

As for "going in", my viewpoint remains the same: When we decided to go in (which was not my first choice) we should have followed the advice of seasoned professionals, such as Colin Powell, and gone in with a sufficiently large calvalry and infantry force to give our best effort at securing the country. I believe a figure of 400,000 troops was bandied about.

Of course, it's not surprising to me that this Administration didn't learn the lessons from Vietnam about pussy-footing around.

Anyway, my question remains: If this threat, the threat of WMD let loose upon the world through Saddam selling technology, intelligence and weapons to terrorists and rogue states, to say nothing of using it himself, was the threat talked up by this Administration who led us to war, why did they fail so completely to secure this machinery and these components?

[flere-imsaho]

No, I'm accussing them of being so incompetant that they had no clue where these sites were even after monitoring the country for a decade.

If that's the case, then you should be willing to tar the Bush Admin with the same brush. Remember Rumsfeld's "We know where they are, they're to the North, the South, the East and the West somewhat of Baghdad." Rumsfeld & the Admin gave the impression they knew where the sites were, and that they would secure them.

Later, we learned that the sites they thought existed didn't exist. Now we learn that sites (of lesser importance, but still) did exist, and weren't secured.

What is this, then? In my book, it's incompetence.

I think it's a fair assumption that had the US military known certain sites had WMD material, they would have secured them. But, when they don't know which sites did and did not, it becomes harder to decide which ones to devote significant manpower.

So what is this, another failure of intelligence?

Again, if an organization had been monitoring and inspecting Iraq for a decade and these inspections were "working" (as many have claimed), you would think they could have had the ability to point us to some general directions for securing this type of information. But, that was not the case as the UN was just as clueless to their locations. Certainly gives a lot of credence to that great job the inspectors were doing, doesn't it?

The sanctions and inspections worked. Iraq had no WMD and had only the barest beginnings of a WMD program. I'm not going to defend those in the U.N. who felt there was still more stuff there, but let's not forget that it wasn't the U.N. who invaded on the basis of what now appears to be faulty intelligence.

The point here is that not only did the Bush Admin (using the U.S. military and U.S. Intelligence) fail to find WMD, they failed to find and secure even the most basic of supplies that Iraq had left after those years of sanctions. One would feel that after making such a big deal of the WMD and the "terrorists getting their hands on the materials" threat, the Bush Admin would leverage everything it had to find and secure anything on this basis.

Yeah, that's pretty likely. They knew where they were, but didn't care about finding them and proving their case.

Of course. So the reason, then, is pretty obvious: arrogance. Rumsfeld, Cheney et. al., took the intelligence they liked and made the case for war. Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al., ignored the advice of seasoned military commanders and invaded with too few troops to do the job correctly. Now, thanks to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al., what Iraq did have in the way of weapons programs (which, admittedly, wasn't much) is now probably in the hands of terrorists. Good job, guys.

[Arles]

Anyway, my question remains: If this threat, the threat of WMD let loose upon the world through Saddam selling technology, intelligence and weapons to terrorists and rogue states, to say nothing of using it himself, was the threat talked up by this Administration who led us to war, why did they fail so completely to secure this machinery and these components?
If we knew where all these items were going into the war, we simply would have had to do targeted air and ground strikes to secure/destroy them. The problem (and the reason Saddam needed to be removed) was we did not know the extent of his WMD weapons and machinery from a logistics standpoint. So, we were left with options of having Saddam continue to trick inspectors and trust that he won't ever create WMD (like he did in the past) or take a proactive action. But, nowhere in this process did we know the location and/or type of every weapon component that Saddam had.

Again, the UN could not find this information in over a decade of inspections and it is not practical to expect the US to identify every hiding place within a month of entering battle in Iraq. So, it is not surprising that some looting and movement of material occurred. But, I don't know of anyway short of carpet-bombing Iraq to have prevented that from happening. Given the UN had no valuable information on locations or these items, we were left in the undesirable position of having to root out each spot and find them on our own.

[flere-imsaho]

The problem (and the reason Saddam needed to be removed) was we did not know the extent of his WMD weapons and machinery from a logistics standpoint.

Of course it turns out that we did know this - he basically had squat.

So, we were left with options of having Saddam continue to trick inspectors and trust that he won't ever create WMD (like he did in the past) or take a proactive action.

You mean "having Saddam try to continue to trick inspectors", of course. One could argue, of course, that an inspection and sanctions regime was a proactive action.

But, nowhere in this process did we know the location and/or type of every weapon component that Saddam had.

That's a meaningless comment. The Bush Admin made it really clear that they knew where at least some of them were. When it turned out that they were wrong, that's either bad intelligence or incompetence or both. Then, to make matters worse, they put themselves into a position where they don't have sufficient resources on the ground to find and secure what was there that they didn't know about.

I mean really, what did Rumsfeld, et. al. expect?

1. Invade, find everything right where they thought it would be, and nothing anywhere else, and be done.

2. Invade, not have to provide security because the country won't be discombobulated by this, and spend time looking for the stuff.

3. Invade, confident that Baath party members will show them where everything is.

Again, from the start this Administration viewed the whole operation from a best-case scenario viewpoint, and planned accordingly. As a result of their lack of due diligence, we'll continue to pay a price.

Again, the UN could not find this information in over a decade of inspections and it is not practical to expect the US to identify every hiding place within a month of entering battle in Iraq.

Doesn't that bother you, then? What if some of the material they couldn't find immediately was fissle material? Or VX gas? Face it, the Bush Admin's plan completely failed to prepare the U.S. military for the realities of the tasks it had to accomplish. For a plan that was supposed to depose a madman leader and secure his dangerous WMD, lest it fall into terrorist plans, it seems to me it was pretty ill conceived.

So, it is not surprising that some looting and movement of material occurred. But, I don't know of anyway short of carpet-bombing Iraq to have prevented that from happening.

Why do you think Colin Powell et. al., suggested a much larger initial force on the ground, then?

Given the UN had no valuable information on locations or these items, we were left in the undesirable position of having to root out each spot and find them on our own.