Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The fact that the insurgents are not in control of all the remote areas and the borders does not make the occupation a success.

Nor does it make it an epic failure, either.

It doesn't? How can we acheive democracy, a stable economy, a functioning government, or any of Bush's other goals unless Iraq is physically secure? How can we acheive that without controlling the insurgents? Ordinary Iraqis are afraid to apply for jobs with the government (virtually the only decent jobs that exist), because they are afraid of being killed. Unemployment is rampant. The economy is dead, because foreign investors see there is no security (as you know, dozens of foreigners and hundreds of their Iraqi employees have been killed). The occupation is an epic failure by any practical measure, and even under Bush's own stated goals.

Forget about practical measures and Bush's goals: What about our MORAL responsibility to the millions of innocent Iraqis who need a secure place to live and work? To them, the lawlessness and terrorist groups we are allowing must seem as bad as Baathist dictatorship!

So close your eyes and refuse to admit how screwed up Bush's occupation of Iraq is. Don't look past the Bush administration's spin of the chaos there. The rest of us will look at the facts and think for ourselves.



Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
As you know, the only "secure" area is the Green Zone, and even that is questionable lately, considering the recent attacks there.

Welcome to the new face of military occupation in the 21st century. Somalia was a harbinger of this (though not technically an occupation), Afghanistan a potent reminder and Iraq a full-fledged lesson in it. We are no longer dealing with societies of cohesive, highly educated and motivated individuals that are self-contained in a geographical area that get the picture when they've been soundly "whipped".

We are dealing with fractured groups (some of which are lead by extremists), all jockeying for positions of political significance and trying to maintain or build power. We are also dealing with a population that has been suppressed for DECADES and that is in the throes of massive economic and political turmoil, that is being stabilized slowly. We are dealing with extremists external to Iraq coming in and exacerbating matters that much worse when they get a chance to.



Yes, JaTo, those are mostly true reasons why the occupation is extraordinarily difficult. But they do not JUSTIFY Bush's decision to invade or his failure in the occupation. Bush was responsible for succeeding IN THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST THERE, not in some imaginary more ideal conditions. Why do you struggle so hard to excuse Bush's failure? Why won't you hold him accountable for his decisions?

Look: if your enemy has developed a new strategy (terror, an international funding base, guerilla tactics) that has rendered your old modus operandi (military occupation) ineffective, then you have three choices: 1) come up with a counter-strategy that gives you back the advantage; or 2) don't do a military occupation there without worldwide (UN) support and overwhelming force; or 3) do a virtually unilateral military occupation, but suffer unnecessary personnel losses, drain your financial resources, and fail to secure the country enough to acheive anything of benefit. Bush has chosen option number 3. That option is a failure.


Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Sure, lots of agencies said they thought Saddam had WMDs. But most agencies also admitted that they had no solid recent intelligence, and that they could only really guess. The CIA was so badly burned by 9/11 (and so pressured by the Bush Adminstration) that they were overstating the threat dramatically. Bush chose to ignore the thinness of the CIA's evidence. That was a huge mistake.

Then EVERY Senator needs to be hit over the head with this, as I cannot recall but a smattering of a few that didn't see Iraq as an acceptable risk in light of their lack of cooperation over a decade and especially in the days past 9/11.



You say that "every Senator" was wrong, so I assume you are conceding that Bush was wrong too. But it's best just to come out and say so. Here, it looks like you hiding it, and that tells us that you are not dealing in truth, but in spin.

And it's wrong to tar the Senate with the same brush as Bush. The Senate customarily defers to the administrative branch on foreign policy (that's not good, it's just a fact), and they had a right to assume that Bush actually had the solid "slam dunk" evidence he and Rumsfeld and Cheney said they had. The Bush administration (and its intelligence agencies) spun like mad to mislead the Senate, and the nation, about the threat in Iraq. Blaming the Senate for believing some of the hype may be justified. But the Senate was not responsible for deciding to invade. The Seante is empowered only to "advise and consent". The Senate clearly understood that it was strategically important not to diminish the president's bargaining power, and to show solidarity with the administration's efforts to back Saddam down. It was a smart strategic move, even if they did not want a war to be started anytime soon. They almost all thought that the resolution was a way to force Saddam into compliance, and that Bush would not actually use force (due to the thinness of the evidence of WMDs at that time). They expected Bush to use his power responsibly.



Originally posted by JaTo:
No, the mistake would have been if Bush had told Tenet to kiss off after he said that the WMD case for invading Iraq was a "slam dunk". One doesn't typically naysay their DCI and I challenge you to find a US President who has wholesale discounted what their intelligence arm has provided them.



You say the chief executive should not weigh the evidence himself and draw his own conclusions, but instead he should defer to the Intelligence Director (DCI)? Ah, finally I see exactly why we disagree so starkly. You think the president should be able to palm off blame for any poor decision he makes. You think he should not be held accountable. You think he should be able to claim that he deferred to the DCI, even though that would mean the president is abdicating his sworn responsibility to make such decisions. It would be effectively turning over crucial national decisions to an unelected bureaucrat. In essence, you don't really agree with the the way our system of representative government was designed to work, at least when blame falls on your candidate.

Originally posted by JaTo:
The FACT stands that there existed NO way of knowing whether Hussein still possessed WMD without invasion. We invaded, and as it turns out, our intelligence seemed to be wrong (apparently driven by the lies that Hussein's lieutenants told him and his rampant fears over Iran).



I hope you are not saying that our ignorance of Saddams capabilites was a legitimate justification for Bush's decision to invade. I hope you would agree that our intel limitations are largely our own responsibility, and we can't invade countries based on a lack of evidence, but only on the presence of sufficient evidence. Even if that is what you intended to say, your post was written to as to mislead the reader to believe otherwise.


2000 Contour LX