This is how digital Battlespace Magazine characterizes Mike McConnell, America's current Director of National Intelligence. Some of his takes:
- "...despite recent successes in Iraq, Al Quaida remains the greatest threat to the United States and that the potential for wider conflict over the next 10 to 15 years is going up, not down."
- Why? Short answer is competition for resources that will involve nations, non-governmental organisations, corporations and terrorist groups.
- Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq is cited as an an extremely effective combination of 24/7 surveillance in a limited area, signals intelligence, human intelligence and special operations forces, all working together.
- Many al-Qaeda representatives in Iraq are headed out and going to North Africa, East Africa and Afghanistan/Pakistan.
- Largest current worries outside of the spotlight: Yemen, Algeria, Lebanon and Somalia
- Largest unheralded achievement: Persuading the US intelligence services to cooperate with one another. To some extent.
What he would never say: That the turnaround with Iraqi tribes that had been working with al-Qaeda creates really interesting intelligence opportunities, both via passive collection and via false "refugees". These are worth an awful lot in an intelligence war. It's a tough situation for the enemy. If al-qaeda is terminally suspicious of Iraqis and treats them all badly, they may enhance short term security, but they also create aggrieved members who could become future recruits of various Western and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies.
Once the US in particular establishes a competent intelligence agency, we may be on to something.
The US has rarely had a competent intelligence agency. The CIA has been dysfunctional for most of its checkered history. What is perhaps more important is to have leaders that clearly recognize the limitations of the agency/s and the quality and reliability of the information they collect, and are honest about how they convey intelligence to the public. Unfortunately, we have not had that in the past 8 years, and now we are all paying the price in Iraq for electing him twice.
Heh, oh I see. Whats important is having leaders that recognize the information their intelligence agencies are swearing to him is 'a slam dunk' is in fact worthless. 8 years? It goes a ways back farther than that. If only Clinton would have been smart enough to know the CIA was full of crap when he launched Desert Fox. Or when his Serbian attacks bombed the Chinese embassy.
Or, more precisely, we need a leader that 'knows' which intelligence he is being given is accurate and which isn't. If we had that, of course, we wouldn't need intelligence agencies at all.
That, of course, is unhelpful to the point of being silly. What we actually need are leaders that recognize the CIA has been less than worthless, and in fact has catalyzed many of the largest American foreign policy problems of the last 50 years. Putting them under the umbrella of a bigger agency doesnt address that. Tearing the organization down and starting from scratch with a mandate to gather intelligence instead of conducting 'operations' would be a true test of leadership. Leave operations to the military under its Congressional (and presidential... you cant underestimate the arrogance of the CIA in playing its own games) oversight.
The CIA also told JFK that there were no Soviet Missiles in Cuba, just before the Cuban Missile Crisis. On the grounds that it isn't what they would have done if they were the Politburo (seriously). Then a U-2 snapped some pictures, and the rest is history.
No, this goes a loooong way back. And if you would read the CIA's recent foolish assessments of Pakistan (which rang like their Cuba assessment, and are starting to change only once the reality became impossible to rationalize or ignore), you'd know that we still have a quality problem.
I don't think the new DNI and associated bureaucratic layer has added anything, and has probably made American intelligence worse.
What did the most to spark greater cooperation was the rule that to be promoted beyond a certain point, you should have service time in more than one intelligence agency. Suddenly, you want contacts and friends elsewhere within America's intel community, and a trickle of people begin to emerge who can see things from more than just one bureaucracy's point of view.
Interesting proposal to move the 'operations' (i.e. covert action) activities under the military. If you're engaging in full guerrilla warfare or similar kinds of support, one requirement for success is the willingness of national leadership to stand up and say "yes, that's exactly what we're doing" if it's made public. And to escalate if and as required. Military is a better fit for that than the CIA.
Covert action also includes operations like disinformation et. al., however. The military uses PsyOps, and has done so to some effect. Whether they're the people who should do that on a strategic level rather than a tactical level is an interesting - and very open - question.
Everyone in America should read Legacy of Ashes. It just speaks for itself. I could sit here and put down a laundry list of the CIA fiascoes since its inception after WW2 but it just wouldnt be believable. Nobody even knows how many bodies on our side are in unmarked graves because the CIA was so badly infiltrated or just sloppy. The whole first quarter of the book details the hundreds of CIA recruits dropped behind the iron curtain and met at their landing zones by the KGB, interrogated, and forced to call for reinforcements before being executed. This cycle went on for years before they wised up. Meanwhile it turned out the best intelligence source we had in Moscow during the early stages of the Cold War sold newspapers across from the Kremlin.
Honestly, nearly everything the CIA touched it screwed up. If they have been good at one thing its becoming to big to fail, and failing upwards. They managed to make situations so much more dangerous and our intelligence so faulty that it really always seems we have no choice but to increase their budget and power to address the dangers they helped precipitate.
They're failures in Cuba are legendary, but the rest of Latin America is perhaps just as bad and haunts us to this day (if there is a neo-marxist government in the Western Hemisphere, somewhere there is a dead fascist the CIA helped to gain or retain power).
Air-America was one of the few shining examples of good CIA ideas that didn't get twisted into a disaster. I think its reasonable that psy-ops not involving the use of force should remain with the intelligence apparatus.
Nope, that's not what I said. Maybe you should try reading more carefully next time before launching counterattacks against perceived threats to those whose world view and governance philosophies you have supported in the past.
"Nope, that's not what I said. Maybe you should try reading more carefully next time before launching counterattacks against perceived threats to those whose world view and governance philosophies you have supported in the past."
Then I advise you to drop the pointless driveby's that take a perfectly valid post and in the last line drop a hyper-partisan bomb you know is going to invoke the same arguments that have been made a thousand times.
Hyper-partisan my ass. Learning from the mistakes of the past is a necessary beginning to trying to formulate solutions. I'm sorry that the mere mention of Bush causes his past supporters to become reflexively hyper-sensitive, but we can't simply erase him or his actions from history, no matter how much I (or maybe you) would like to.
And don't think that those of us who were right all along about this idiot are going to tiptoe around confronting the monumental failure that people like yourself helped bring to America and the world because we fear being perceived as "hyper-partisan". If you aren't willing to participate in discussions that address these issues, too damn bad....perhaps your input is not really needed anyway.
You should be thanking me and lots of others for our restraint, in fact. Just take a look in the mirror and ask yourself how "your side" reacts to the merest piffle compared to what the rest of us have had to endure before lashing out again.
Because surely you recognize the relevance of raising the issue of the Iraq invasion in a thread devoted to the problems with the US intelligence agencies? You're thin skin keeps you blind to what I think is an important flaw in intelligence and it's uses by presidents (not just Bush) that is worth considering...but perhaps not here in among Bush holdouts when the wounds are still so fresh. So...see ya...(etc.)...
Pretending Bush was the only one buying into the intelligence fiasco is what is hyperpartisan to the point of being either lazy or dishonest.
I seem to recall a few other people who were quite sure of the same intel. I could go down the list with names like Clinton and Blair, but what the point? In your little fantasy land you (and those you support I suppose) amazing knew all along that the intelligence was completely and utterly wrong and Bush willfully disregarded all the reams of colleagues in the Congress and around the world beating their breasts Cassandra like on the steps of the White House begging Bush to hear them out. In other words, an utter and complete fantasy 180 degrees out of sink with the actual history.
Bull. Bush was/is POTUS. He made the call. "Commander in Chief", remember? The Codpiece Carrier Landing ring a bell? Everyone else's opinion was irrelevant (except maybe Cheney's) and you know it. Stop trying to squirm out of another argument by erecting the battered and bruised BDS strawman. It's pathetic.
And once again you are mischaracterizing and ignoring my point. So my suggestion that you read before you go on the attack was clearly ignored....no surprise there I guess.
"Everyone else's opinion was irrelevant (except maybe Cheney's) and you know it."
What country do you think this is? Ever hear of the Constitution? The Authorization for the use of force in Iraq? Grow up. Your self-righteous outrage is misplaced and useless. The VAST majority of our government, of our allies, of our population agreed with the bad intel. Including previous president who ALSO attacked Iraq based on the same intelligence.
So THATS why your driveby was so pointless and inane. Yes, Bush bears the responsibility for his actions. You can argue he made a bad decision to attack Iraq based on the intelligence everyone believed. That's a fine argument. But if you argue he should have somehow known better and did it anyway you are in tinfoil hat land. To argue Bush started this war without the approval of most of the nation is just flat out revisionist.
"And once again you are mischaracterizing and ignoring my point. So my suggestion that you read before you go on the attack was clearly ignored....no surprise there I guess"
I read it, i reread it. But like i said that last sentence demands a response. I dont intend to fall for the 'but how'd you like the rest of the play' ploy.
Yes, Mark, but I'm not sure our current leaders have...
This is bull. There was plenty of intel, as well as the UN inspectors, that said otherwise. The problem I'm driving at with intelligence in general is that presidents can cherry pick it to support whatever the hell they want to do. That Bush et al. were determined to invade Iraq even as they took office in 2000 is well documented. So this is just the most egregious and contemporaneous example of this problem.
My further criticism of Bush in particular is that his father ran the CIA and so everyone in charge should have been well aware of the limitations of intel. But they either didn't (i.e., are gullible and naive idiots) or did and decided to exploit it to justify their ouster of Saddam and invasion of Iraq...and I go with the latter. This interpretation is supported by the fact that little if any uncertainty about the intel was conveyed to the public when Bush addressed the nation on his plans to invade Iraq. I for one do not appreciate being hoodwinked by my elected leaders, and regard it as a serious dereliction of duty and ethical crime to be as dishonest as they were and still are.
The more relevant question, if you can see beyond your reflexive Bush defensiveness, is how to construct an intel capability that cannot be so easily perverted by leaders in the future but still maintain its usefullness? One major step in that direction is making sure we elect leaders who do not view intel like Bush did. Not to say that Obama is that person (heck, JFK was among the worst) but any solution has to have multiple components, and a leader's integrity is just one of those, and an important one to boot.
So, sorry you supported someone that didn't have any and who has done more harm to our national security than we can currently fathom, but like I said above, too damn bad. Swallow the damn pill and get it over with.
"This is bull. There was plenty of intel, as well as the UN inspectors, that said otherwise."
Sure. There is ALWAYS plenty of intel that says otherwise. ALWAYS. Nothing is ever black and white, 100%, particularly with enemies actively working to fool you. That's a fiction, a fantasy. That's why there are analysts, and even they won't always agree with each other. But I have never seen so many intelligence agencies and their analysts from around the world be so united in being wrong before.
Of course when the head of the CIA appointed by Clinton (who already attacked Iraq once based on the that man's target list) tells you its a slam dunk, you can ignore him or not.
Please point me to some of these alleged voices in the wilderness that were screaming Hussein didnt have WMDs? I can think of precisely one, Scott Ritter. Certainly nobody on the Armed Services or Intel committees in congress with access to all the raw data, the analysts, and not to mention subpoena power.
Everything else you blather about applies just as equally to everyone in Congress who voted for the thing. Not to mention all the other nations with their own intel services. You'll notice none of them were saying Iraq didnt have WMDs, they disagreed on what to do about it.
You may not want to acknowledge Congress's role in this war, but closing your eyes and wishing to away wont work.
Your also ignoring the prime villain in this tragedy- Saddam Hussein who admitted to encouraging foreign intelligence agencies to believe he had WMDs in order to frighten his neighbors. Its like telling a cop you have a gun in your pocket and then blaming the cop for shooting him.
Swallow the pill, Mark.
Hard to argue with that logic.
I believe G_Tarhune is wrong in the essence of his criticism. I think the Bush people were well aware of the limitations of the intelligence, which led them to be more comfortable with their conclusions than say someone operating with the assumption that intelligence-gathering gives rise to conclusive outcomes, i.e. we have the ability to know for certain Iraq's WMD situation.
I recommend yesterday's link from Bernard Finel, who I believe neither supported the Iraq War or George Bush:
Link
I would argue that someone operating with limited expectation of intelligence is more likely to conclude that these factors are conclusive.
Shaw don't confuse the issue with facts. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier. Case closed.
The intelligence that everyone saw was the intelligence that came out of the Bush White House under the Bush administration. Bush Kept Tenet on so he was Bush's intelligence chief. Bush fell for the Neo Con New American Empire delusion, showed incredible hubris and never seemed to want to do anything other than invade Iraq.
His administration outed a CIA agent in retaliation for her husband questioning the yellowcake from Niger story.
Let's take the fact that aside from Britain, no other major nation believed what was the administration was trying to sell, vis-a-vis Iraq.
Now let's take the everyone had the same intellignece as we did and they were all fooled excuse as being true.
Well, not only is that not a good enough excuse, it is no excuse at all. It is a cop out. Bush was President. He went to war, based on the intelligence provided him by his administration. He has no place to hide. There is no mystery here and it not partisan.
And if the Republican Party continues to walk around with its head up its rectum like it does on this matter, it will be in the opposition for a long time.
Bush, Cheney, the Neo Cons and every other one of these delude characters that believed their own fantasies should just own up to it and have it be done with.
I don't like losing elections and this stance of shirking basic responsibilities is not only bad policy it is against core beliefs.
"The intelligence that everyone saw was the intelligence that came out of the Bush White House under the Bush administration."
Odd, then, that former President Clinton didn't come screaming out that everything Bush was saying was fabricated. Perhaps it would have looked odd considering he also attacked Iraq based on the same reports by the same CIA chief?
Particularly odd with his wife on the Intelligence Committee.
"His administration outed a CIA agent in retaliation for her husband questioning the yellowcake from Niger story. "
Her husband was a politically appointed hack sent at the behest of his wife to debunk a story that ended up being true. To this day he has been disingenuous about the fact that he indeed confirmed Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake, and instead spun the story that into Saddam failed to buy yellowcake. And Bush's "administration" didn't out her anyway, an individual from of the State Department did.
"Let's take the fact that aside from Britain, no other major nation believed what was the administration was trying to sell, vis-a-vis Iraq."
Oh thats crap. Site me a single major intelligence agency that was claiming Iraq had NO WMDs. Other nations disagreed with the remedy, nobody doubted the illness.
Yeah, of course you can nitpick every particular piece of intelligence and who believed what. That isn't unique to Iraq. That isn't unique to ANY kind of intel.
Look, make the argument all you want that Bush was going into Iraq no matter what etc. Make the argument his rationales for this were wrong. Make the argument that WMDs werent a good enough reason to go to war. Thats all fine.
But why do you guys insist on taking it a bridge to far and insisting on reconstructing history to make Bush look like an out of control maniac that everyone knew was wrong, or a prevaricator that KNEW he was wrong but staked his presidency on invading a country on a pretext sure to not pan out? That's just not how it went down.
Simple question- if Bush is evvvvil enough to fabricate a case against Iraq, why wasnt he evvvvvil enough to plant some simple evidence? Toss a few cans of mustard gas in a basement somewhere and we arent having this conversation.
Why not just take the simplest solution and say that Bush believed intelligence that virtually everyone else also believed, but that his solution was wrongheaded and not worth the risk? Why does this have to be a conspiracy instead of a wrong decision? I think there is a hell of a lot more to learn out of a wrong decision than some cockamamie conspiracy theory.
Mark B:
I would strongly suggest that you offer a half-hearted appology for how your views on Saddam might have been construed in a less than favorable light by others. You might find yourself the next Secretary of State in a Democratic administration.
"The intelligence that everyone saw was the intelligence that came out of the Bush White House under the Bush administration."
Odd, then, that former President Clinton didn't come screaming out that everything Bush was saying was fabricated. Perhaps it would have looked odd considering he also attacked Iraq based on the same reports by the same CIA chief?
Particularly odd with his wife on the Intelligence Committee.
Odd? Maybe. But bush was the Commander in Chief. It was his responsibility and his alone. What galls me is that you and this administration engage in nothing more than blame shifting when called to task. By the way I do not give a rat's ass about Clinton or his wife. I hold the both of them beneath contempt. Their behaviour does not absolve Bush of his personal failure in this matter as Commander in Chief.
"His administration outed a CIA agent in retaliation for her husband questioning the yellowcake from Niger story. "
Her husband was a politically appointed hack sent at the behest of his wife to debunk a story that ended up being true. To this day he has been disingenuous about the fact that he indeed confirmed Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake, and instead spun the story that into Saddam failed to buy yellowcake. And Bush's "administration" didn't out her anyway, an individual from of the State Department did.
"Let's take the fact that aside from Britain, no other major nation believed what was the administration was trying to sell, vis-a-vis Iraq."
Oh thats crap. Site me a single major intelligence agency that was claiming Iraq had NO WMDs. Other nations disagreed with the remedy, nobody doubted the illness.
Cite me one ,besides Britain that thought the evidence was enough to go to War. \there lies the Proof of the pudding as to what they thought of the intelligence and the Secretary of Defence's diatribe at the U.N.
Yeah, of course you can nitpick every particular piece of intelligence and who believed what. That isn't unique to Iraq. That isn't unique to ANY kind of intel.
I an not nitpicking anything. the guy sold the war on the basis of an imminent threat from WMD's. He made a terrible blunder. what is the problem with owning up to it.
Look, make the argument all you want that Bush was going into Iraq no matter what etc. Make the argument his rationales for this were wrong. Make the argument that WMDs werent a good enough reason to go to war. Thats all fine.
But why do you guys insist on taking it a bridge to far and insisting on reconstructing history to make Bush look like an out of control maniac that everyone knew was wrong, or a prevaricator that KNEW he was wrong but staked his presidency on invading a country on a pretext sure to not pan out? That's just not how it went down.
I have never done anything of this kind, nor will I. I have been consistent on the point that this NeoCon led madness was wrong from the beginning. I believe you once ridiculed me as a Paleocon. Now take a look where these genius have led us. Lost the executive and the Legislature and soon the Judiciary Branch. My whole wing of the party has been telling you this was going to happen for years. You are the one who is changeing history
Simple question- if Bush is evvvvil enough to fabricate a case against Iraq, why wasnt he evvvvvil enough to plant some simple evidence? Toss a few cans of mustard gas in a basement somewhere and we arent having this conversation.
I never said Bush was evil. Only that he fell hook, line and sinker for a bunch of nonsense that was sold to him by his guys. You have not yet said anything to refute that*
Why not just take the simplest solution and say that Bush believed intelligence that virtually everyone else also believed, but that his solution was wrongheaded and not worth the risk? Why does this have to be a conspiracy instead of a wrong decision? I think there is a hell of a lot more to learn out of a wrong decision than some cockamamie conspiracy theory.
Virtually everyone else didn't believe it or do you call the coalition of the Willing Virtually everyone. Compare the coalition put together by the first Bush with the CW under Bush 2.
Then tell me why you cling to the absolutely idiotic premise that everyone else believed it.
#20 from PD Shaw at 12:13 am on Dec 04, 2008
Mark B:
I would strongly suggest that you offer a half-hearted apology for how your views on Saddam might have been construed in a less than favorable light by others. You might find yourself the next Secretary of State in a Democratic administration.
Gee, PD, I can see you're a real tough guy.
Thousands of young Americans are dead because this administration couldn't find a way to handle a tin horn dictator other than engaging in what was always a blunder based on faulty intelligence provided by his team.
I guess that stuff doesn't matter to tough guys.
If there was no case to invade Iraq (or only a fraudulent case), how could so many prominent Democrats in Congress sign on? Are they all dumber than the BDS folks or should we perhaps consider the opposite?
Mark B.,
My 2 cents on this old debate.
(Let the term "Bush" stand for those in the Bush administration who promoted the plan to invade Iraq.)
Bush genuinely believed Iraq had WMD--for the reasons PD outlined above in #16--but it was only one among a set of factors that made invading Iraq desirable. Other reasons depended upon acceptance of untested theories about remaking the ME, democracy being an anti-dote for terrorism, getting over Vietnam War jitters, general strategic interests, etc. Also, of course, the desire for Iraqi oil without having to fork over billions to Hussein and his pan-Arab nationalist agenda. Basically, to Bush, the invasion of Iraq was over-determined, a slam-dunk, if you will.
The problem was that of all those factors only one was sellable to the American people, the UN, Congress, etc. Bush then set about presenting the intelligence regarding WMD in a misleading way in order to make it seem more conclusive than it fairly was, and, perhaps more nefariously -- at least to my mind, he greatly exaggerated the dangers and imminence of any threat. (E.g., conflation of a decades-old nerve gas and nuclear weapons.)
I think that people feel they were sold a bill of goods as a result. I think that "Bush lied" is just a kind of anger-driven short-hand to describe a more complicated situation in which people came out of feeling used and misled. To say that Bush didn't technically lie is probably true. But on that score, I'll quote Fielding: "He had the satisfaction of conveying a lie without the guilt of telling one."
Doing this to sell tax cuts is one thing. But doing this to involve us in a bloody, 8-to-ten year war and occupation is quite another.
"Cite me one ,besides Britain that thought the evidence was enough to go to War. \there lies the Proof of the pudding as to what they thought of the intelligence and the Secretary of Defence's diatribe at the U.N."
Sure: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan Bulgaria, Colombia,Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras
, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan
Here was France's position immediately before the war:
“Since we can disarm Iraq through peaceful means, we should not take the risk to endanger the lives of innocent civilians or soldiers, to jeopardize the stability of the region,” De Villepin said at the United Nations. “We should not take the risk to fuel terrorism.”
More
"These are not issues which we can deal with publicly. This calls for serenity and seriousness, and we should therefore beware of any leaks and any saber-rattling proposals," Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told France Info radio.
...
_"The foreign minister said that France and Britain had shared information on the proof of such a weapons program. and it "is out of the question to divulge these exchanges."
Now explain to me how you disarm a nation you don't think is armed?
Here is the crux of the distinction I am making. 'Enough evidence to go to war' is a subjective term, right?
The historical record clearly shows that opponents of the war weren't questioning the likelihood of the existence of the weapons. They were questioning whether war was the correct remedy on the assumption that the weapon DID exist.
And that question can only be answered in the context of whether an Iraq armed with WMDs was a clear and present danger to the world community. Again- another subjective question.
Either one of these debates you can bash Bush's judgment until the cows come home. You can't bash him for over-hyping the threat posed by the WMDs. What you can't legitimately do is pretend all these other entities KNEW or even suspected Iraq had NO WMDs. It just doesn't jive with the record.
mark- i think you put that perfectly. I don't disagree with a word of it. You make the exact distinction, and its important. We can debate the relative merits that you discuss for the next thousands years (and people will). There are many subjective decisions a leader needs to make with the fate of the world on his shoulders. We can learn a lot about WHY Bush did what he did, believed what he believed, and what could or should have been done differently, if we take things in that light.
But if you go the other way and start talking about ginned up intelligence to intentionally fool people into believing something you don't, what's the lesson there? Don't let a megalomaniac villain liar become president? Thats easy, thats (as you say) shorthand. We learn nothing from it, mainly because it isn't really true. A lot of people dont want to believe anyone outside of Bush was responsible for Iraq. Thats a very shortsighted way of looking at things, and probably guarantees we see this type of thing happen again.
Mark B.
Agreed.
Wow, Mark and mark, beautiful tandem diving...high marks for all the twists you were both able to fit in on one go!
You cannot know this for certain, therefore the premise that you are constructing your elaborate rationalization is unstable. He may certainly have strongly doubted that they actually had WMDs. There was plenty of counter-evidence available at the time, the UN inspectors most prominent among them.
That everyone else fell over themselves to agree with his conclusions only reflects their spinelessness, nothing more. This was a black time in our history where the fear of terrorist attacks, fanned by Bush and his administration, caused many otherwise rational people to capitulate for fear of political reprisal.
Agreement by others is not proof Bush knew otherwise.
I believe he knew the intel was shaky or worse, knew he could cherry pick it like all President's do to justify his desire to invade Iraq. Saddam tried to kill his daddy, don't forget.
Here's the punchline from Mark B:
You can see the clever way in which Mark tries to cast the proper placement of responsibility for this deception as a counterproductive and potentially dangerous effort. LMAO, really, Mark, that's precious. I'd argue the exact opposite, actually, that pretending that he did not get away with lying and doing nothing at all to attempt to put into place measures for elevating POTUS accountability, perhaps by restoring the balance of power to Congress and making it easier for them to challenge presidents especially in times of national crisis and emergency, is even more dangerous, IMO.
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan Bulgaria, Colombia,Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan
Please compare to his father's coalition. For the most part it is an extremely pathetic list and I would think you wuld feel that it is an embarassment to bring it up. Where did the majority oc these countries get this "intelligence. Brom the Bush administration.
Most countries with their own services with enough juice to collect their own information, answered with their feet by staying home.
Again compare the coalitions of 41 and 43, and save yourself the embarassment of bringing this up to defend Dubya's by saying his responsibility by this list and that everyone else thought it was true.
It is simple. A man owns up to his mistakes. the buck stops with him.
_"The foreign minister said that France and Britain had shared information on the proof of such a weapons program. and it "is out of the question to divulge these exchanges."
Did France go to War in Iraq. Did I miss something? They obviously didn't think their infomation was strong enough to join the second coalition. In what possible way does this absolve Bush?
Either one of these debates you can bash Bush's judgment until the cows come home. You can't bash him for over-hyping the threat posed by the WMDs. What you can't legitimately do is pretend all these other entities KNEW or even suspected Iraq had NO WMDs. It just doesn't jive with the record.
Bullspit!!! First of all, I never even pretended to "pretend all these other entities KNEW or even suspected Iraq had NO WMDs." So, please don't put words into my mouth
You know there is a difference between "to think" and "to know" can you actually believe that the intelligence that Bush had passed that threshold? If you think yes, then your standards must be very low.
They found NONE. ZERO. ZIP Go ahead, give him and his administration a pass on this one, but don't try selling that as an excuse to anyone over the age of seven. This excuse ranks right up there with "The cat peed on my homework.".
TOC, not to belabor the obvious, but in Gulf War 1 there were Iraqi troops raping and pillaging through Kuwait. If that is your threshold for going to war, great. Run for office.
By that logic we wouldn't have fought WW2 until there were Japanese in Los Angeles and Germans in Baltimore.
If you wait 'to know' before ever deciding it might be time to defend yourself i expect you'll find yourself in the emergency room if not the morgue. Of course with a nation depending on you matters are even worse. Can you please enlighten me on what 'certainty' means in the realm of intelligence? Were we 'certain' of Japanese intentions before The Arizona went skyhigh? Heck, maybe it was the Australians, did we even know then for sure?
Its real easy from our comfy couches to bloviat about waiting for 'certainty' when lives and nations are on the line. But in the real world there is simply no such thing.
Furthermore, Bush has treated all of the information that he has received over his 8 years in office, from whatever source, in exactly the same way: ignore it if it contradicts his pre-existing. He's done it for science on global warming. He's ignored financial market warning signs. He's basically destroyed the justice department by making sure it was filled with "loyal Bushies".
I don't see why there should be such a heated argument over whether he "believed" the Iraq WMD intel or not. IT DIDN'T MATTER. He wanted war with Iraq from 2000.
And anyway, all of your assertions that he was only fed "bad" intel that said Saddam had WMD's is simply not true.
Link to the Downing Street memo.
Another link
Vista, when you find me some clandestine intelligence of this magnitude that doesn't have contradictory intelligence behind it, let me know. The preponderance of the evidence was the Hussein had WMDs, because Hussein actively and intentionally made it seem that way.
Clinton believed the same intelligence, also went to war based on the same intelligence. Was he a 'denier' like you accuse Bush of being? Why did he spend so much time dealing with Iraq if it was so obvious there was no threat?
I want a refund on those hundreds of tomahawk missiles Clinton intentionally launched at locations he KNEW didnt have WMDs. Or hell, have it your way, KNEW he didnt have 100% metaphysical certainty of their existence. Either way, Clinton and Bush were a difference in degree, not in kind. Hell, Clinton backed Bush in the runup to the war. If anyone was in position to KNOW Bush was full of crap it was Clinton. Why didnt he say anything?
This is a perfect example of the kind of thread I'm not interested in. Tarhune, you make no new arguments, just the kind of boring "it's all Bush's fault, bla bla" nonsense that has polluted the airwaves for much of the last decade.
Here's a clue: Bush won't be president in two months. What would you suggest his successor do about the conflicting data he will inevitably get from the CIA? Discuss interesting issues or go home.
A.L.
Agreed with A.L., on all counts.
[snip]
If you want to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain and a conscience in the future when discussing government, I would suggest you start with a major readjustment of your viewpoint and beg us all for forgiveness for foisting this idiot on the world.
So why am I here? To rub your noses in it.
[JK: I'm sorry your parents didn't raise you properly, and that a competent psychologist is beyond your budget. But I do thank you for the honesty. I'm not interested in having someone here in my bar who openly declares that he won't contribute anything except hate and bot-class vitriol. And I won't. All future comments from you will be deleted. Capice?]
Discuss interesting issues or go home.
Kind of subjective criteria for inclusion, isn't it?
Well that sure contributes to the discourse. Glad you put it on record, though. Troll.
#35: The intel (reported in the open literature, yet) for going into Iraq includes Saddam being in repeated noncompliance with the terms of the cease fire, and repeatedly playing
c'mere-go'way with Hans Blix and Co. on the ground.
You're telling us he did remain in compliance, and did not play those games? Or are you telling us neither of those is justification, contra UN Resolution 1441? Terrific. I guess we're done here, then.
You're perfectly welcome to have a nice day somewhere else.
#36: Mark, I suggest you check the Changing Winds post -- you might have missed it.
Sorry if that isn't objective enough to suit you. It's a big ol' Internet, though, isn't it? I'm sure in all that wide world you might find someplace with criteria you can convince yourself are objective.
Good luck with that.
AL
_What would you suggest his successor do about the conflicting data he will inevitably get from the CIA? _
Let's start with what he shouldn't do. When the data is conflicting, don't invade a foreign country, especially when you have an international agency on the ground, in the country, attempting to get better data.
Mark B.
By that logic we wouldn't have fought WW2 until there were Japanese in Los Angeles and Germans in Baltimore.
I think by TOC's logic we wouldn't have fought WW2 until the Germans invaded Poland...or the Japanese Manchuria. As it is, we waited until they attacked us.
The intelligence regarding Iraq was about whether or not and/or to what extent they had WMD. It had nothing to do with whether or not they were about to invade a foreign country. To me, that is a ridiculously low threshold for deciding to go to war.
I would argue that firing missiles at suspected missile sights is a different response in kind not in degree from invading and occupying a country. The manner in which Clinton dealt with the suspicion of WMD and how Bush dealt with it are entirely different to my mind.
It seems we need to practice our tandem diving more than Vista suspects. I think he was watching one of our rarer performances. We're lucky if we get anything higher than 5.5s.
[OT; deleted. --NM]
Mark: If you want to actually address these sorts of issues, my email address is published in the right-hand margin, as are those of the blog principals. If you're just snarking, understand that the value of that is even lower. If you can't be bothered to use email channels, there is a simple remedy.
"Let's start with what he shouldn't do. When the data is conflicting, don't invade a foreign country"
Intelligence is always conflicting. By its nature. All you are suggesting is that we shouldn't go to war until we've been struck with the first blow. This abrogates the preemptive strike. Thats a legitimate position to take, but the danger inherent in it are huge.
Consider Israel and the 6 Days War. Intelligence suggested a coalition of enemies was masses on Israel's borders. Undoubtedly this intelligence was not 100% certain, and there were certainly other indicators that war was not necessarily imminent. After all, when launching a surprise attack its in the aggressors interest to manufacture that kind of intelligence. Israel's preemptive strike was hugely successful and led to a speedy and successful conclusion.
Contrast that to the Yom Kippur. There was certainly ample intelligence that the same enemies were massing on the borders again, but this time Israel listened to the other voices and ignored the intelligence as inconclusive. The result was Israel was nearly conquered before an effective force could be raised to counterattack. A nuclear weapon was nearly used.
Now obviously you shouldn't go to war every time intelligence hints at a threat. But equally obviously you can't wait until the threat is guaranteed in a world where counterintelligence, deception, and fieldcraft are employed by everyone, all the time.
My point isn't whether or not the intel in Iraq was compelling enough to go to war. That is subjective, and goes toward judgement, not philosophy. My point is you can't suppose that intelligence will ever be entirely conclusive. If you rely on incontravertable intelligence as your threshold for preemptive war, you are precluding preemptive war, pretty much by definition. The only incontrovertible proof of bombs falling is bombs falling.
Mark B.,
Well, yes, I am pretty much excluding preemptive war, of the sort we are discussing, as a moral precept. And while I agree that intelligence will never be 100% conclusive or certain, I do think there is a huge range between understanding (or believing) an attack is imminent and bombs falling, during which a fair & moral decision can be made. (E.g., I think the Iraqi's were pretty sure the US was going to invade, long before we dropped the first bombs on them, and they would have been within their rights to preemptively attack us, however useless such an attack would have been.) But preemption of an anticipated attack is one thing. Preemption of an imagined possible future attack (rather unlikely in the case of Iraq vs. USA) is another thing. By invading Iraq, we weren't preempting an attack. We were preempting a situation in which at some future point an attack might become theoretically possible. But as you know, I believe that to have been a mere pretext anyway and that the true rationales for the invasion had little to do with intel or WMD.
But to the main point. You are arguing that intelligence of an impending attack can never be conclusive and therefore certainty shouldn't be the threshold for preemption. I agree. But this has nothing to do with the Iraq situation, where the evidence in question was regarding the existence of WMD, not an impending attack.
[JK: Deleted. Will continue to delete posts as well. It takes lots less time to delete them than to write them. Have a nice life.]
"I agree. But this has nothing to do with the Iraq situation, where the evidence in question was regarding the existence of WMD, not an impending attack."
Well... that again goes to how Iraq was perceived at the time and how vulnerable the US felt post 9/11 to WMD/terrorist attacks, particularly attacks without a return address. The reasoning was that WMDs could be smuggled to 3rd parties and used in a 911 style attack with little fear of reprisal. That was considered such a devastating possibility to hold over the Wests head indefinitely as to be intolerable.
Akin to the Israeli strike on the Osirak reactor. Israel wasn't subject to an imminent strike, but once a strike became imminent it would be too late to derail, because of the nature of the weapons in question.
If Iraq had been dispersing VX gas to third parties the US wouldn't know about it until it was too late to preempt in all probability. That was the nature of the threat in question.
You can agree with that logic or not, but that WAS the logic of the day and Bush was hardly the only one subscribing to it.
I lost confidence in Bush when he made no adjustments to his beliefs when the UN Inspectors came up short. We were sending them Chalabi-supplied coordinates for WMD caches, which (of course) turned up nothing. Given that there was pre-existing skepticism, even within the US Government, about the reliability of the Chalabi operation, you would think this would be have been seen as good news and a chance for major re-evaluation. What actually happened?
Dick Cheney tried to intimidate the UN team, stating he would discredit them.
It was at this point I realized that (as the Marks say upthread), we were going to war with Iraq for a host of reasons, and the WMD was not one of them.
Mark B.,
I agree that was the logic used to justify the invasion. It was hardly the logic of the day, however. It was the logic of a minority, that included Bush and his team. It was the logic of fear, and it was as roundly criticized then as it is, rightly, now.
If that logic were applied universally, all hell would break lose. Both India and Pakistan could use it to justify an attack on the other.
But of course, we do not allow other countries to live by the same standards we invent for ourselves.
In the end, we invaded Iraq because we wanted to, because we could, and because we could get away with it. Might made right. Everything else, to my mind, were weak rationalizations.
WMD was a pretext. Trying to find a supporting logic now for what was merely a pretext at the time seems like an exercise that only John Yoo would enjoy.
"I agree that was the logic used to justify the invasion. It was hardly the logic of the day, however. It was the logic of a minority, that included Bush and his team."
That's where we disagree. The majority of Congress and the American people seemed to have ascribed to that logic.
"It was the logic of fear, and it was as roundly criticized then as it is, rightly, now."
Being the logic of fear doesn't make it irrational, however. Now, having some separation from 911 our context has changed as has our perception of the threat. If we were overly fearful then, we are surely under fearful now. I submit that if and when a WMD attack does strike a major US target, this logic will reappear with a vengence making the current sentiment look positively pollyanaish. Ideally the logic Bush employed would derail that day, netting LESS bloodshed in the long term. Again, thats the theory.
"Both India and Pakistan could use it to justify an attack on the other."
Which may happen yet. As I argued elsewhere alloying Pakistan to play the sovereignty card when they like and the broken state card when they like is leading the region to a much larger war.
"But of course, we do not allow other countries to live by the same standards we invent for ourselves."
Of course not. When they are called upon to keep the peace across the globe they can have that privilege. Recent experience with NATO et al would indicate nobody is eager for the responsibility. Do you prefer the US to play policeman or a world without cops?
"WMD was a pretext. Trying to find a supporting logic now for what was merely a pretext at the time seems like an exercise that only John Yoo would enjoy."
I don't understand your argument. We invaded Iraq 'because we could'? What does that mean? Bush did it for fun? I assume he had some rationale aside from pure bloodymindedness.
WMDs were a rationale, one of several. That isnt the same as a pretext. You are suggesting Bush wasn't deeply concerned with WMDs and Iraq's place in teh world in general. If so, what was he concerned with?
Mark B.
The majority of Congress and the American people seemed to have ascribed to that logic.
They did. Outside the US, however, the sentiments seemed to run about 9 to 1 against. This is what I was referring to.
Being the logic of fear doesn't make it irrational, however
I'm not arguing it is irrational. I am arguing it is impractical and immoral.
Which may happen yet
Yes, if either national decides to behave as we behaved, it will happen. The result will be a greater loss of life on all sides, just like Iraq.
When they are called upon to keep the peace across the globe they can have that privilege.
Where is it written that taking on such a responsibility includes such a privilege. I know here in NYC the cops get away with parking perpindicular to the street, but they don't get away with murder. They cannot live outside the laws they uphold. If we want to be the world's cops we should, in my view, behave according the standards we seek to enforce.
I don't understand your argument. We invaded Iraq 'because we could'? What does that mean? Bush did it for fun?
Not for fun, no. My point was that we had certain ends which we wanted to achieve and the means to achieve them with little or no consequence. We made up thin justifications that really had no bearing on the matter. Our will and our desire dictated our course of action -- like a bully -- not law, not right, not justice....simply our interests. Whether or not you agree with those interests is immaterial in judging the rightness of the course of action.
I do believe that WMD were a pretext for using US military power to create a situation that was perceived to be in the best interest of the country. The ends justified the means. It's rather like a cop swearing he found drugs in order to arrest the guy he "knows" is a murderer. You might like the results, but do you really like the method?
I guess we are getting into the American Exceptionalism debate. I'm still waiting for AL's promised post. Obviously, I reject those arguments as bogus.
"They did. Outside the US, however, the sentiments seemed to run about 9 to 1 against. This is what I was referring to."
Immaterial. Not their necks on the line (or so they thought), not their troops going in (aside from those the coalition), and they werent the ones fighting tooth and nail to keep Saddam contained. Free riders don't get a vote.
"Yes, if either national decides to behave as we behaved, it will happen. The result will be a greater loss of life on all sides, just like Iraq."
I disagree. I'd say precisely because we haven't treated Pakistan as a rogue nation a much greater confligration than Iraq is in the offing. Much worse. Lets apply a little historical perspective here, Iraq was a VERY minor war and occupation by historical standards. A war between Pakistan and India could well demonstrate why avoiding the small sting nets you the big one. I understand the complication invovled in Pakistans nukes. That reinforces the point- rogue nations must not be allowed to get that far.
"If we want to be the world's cops we should, in my view, behave according the standards we seek to enforce."
True. I don't know that we haven't done that. Exactly how far were you willing to allow Hussein to go before that tripwire is crossed? Did we need a judge and jury and try his nation in absentia? I don't know how you apply 'our system' to international affairs except on a case by case basis, attemptign to weigh the long term consequences of non-action as well. How long would our attention and resources be focused on Iraq, and how many other regions would go to hell in the interim?
"My point was that we had certain ends which we wanted to achieve and the means to achieve them with little or no consequence. "
What were the ends we sought?
Mark B.
I'll start with the last one first. We sought regime change in Iraq -- for a variety of reasons -- and we used WMD as a pretext for the invasion to get rid of a regime we didn't want to fund, but whose oil we wished to buy. Iraq was complicating our ME strategy. (I'm not saying we went to war for oil. I'm saying we wanted Iraqi oil on the world market, but we didn't want those billions going to Saddam's regime.)
This leads me to one of your other questions. What standards do we enforce but that we don't ourselves embrace? That absent imminent attack, one country should not invade another. We allowed ourselves an exception to that, & called it a "doctrine." I don't buy this doctrine that the US--because it is right--can use military force in a way that other countries are forbidden to.
We wouldn't sanction an invasion of India by Pakistan, even if Pakistan feared that India might provide aid or WMD to a terrorist group that would use it for an attack on Pakistani soil. Remember your logic requires not that Iraq was actually going to give terrorist WMD, only that we believed they might. Under those conditions, an invasion is justified.
As far as Pakistani nukes is concerned: I'm not so sure it was a rogue nation when they first acquired nukes. Is China -- or Russia -- not a rogue nation?
I know international opinion is immaterial to you, but it isn't immaterial to the argument I was making when I referenced it, that the logic of Bushian preemption was not the logic of the day. It was--and remains--the logic of a very narrowly confined group. I believe, too, that group has been greatly reduced due to the events of the past six years.
(I'm probably out of here for the weekend so if I don't respond to your response, well, I'm sure we'll pick this up some other time. Have a good weekend, Mark.)
This thread went off beam in the last line of comment #2. It turned, not to use too delicate an expression, into one more dog's breakfast regarding the origins of the current situation.
G_Tarhune, in particular, is has been trying to impress on people how necessary it is to do that here in this thread.
Marc D and Joe K (and I, for that matter) don't see yet another thread of that sort as interesting. No matter how willing certain participants have been to become engaged in it.
I (and by implication, Marc) have been told that "interesting" is just code for "agrees with me".
I acknowledge that one more meal of dog vomit lacks appeal, and in that specific sense, it disagrees with me; and I would suspect it disagrees with Marc in the same manner.
So, in that limited sense, the criticism claim regarding the meaning of "interesting" is valid.
Thanks for the feedback. So to speak.
[Minor edits]