Comments on: Grounds for impeachment

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:22:53 +0000

Nick, have you heard of Turkey? Are you aware of the delicate situation in dealing with both Turkey and the Kurds?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:36:36 +0000

Nick—Is your concession that there was “no explicit mandate” for the no-fly zones an acknowledgement that the no-fly zones had the same legal status as the invasion of Iraq? That is, if the invasion of Iraq was illegal because it wasn’t approved by the UN, then the no-fly zones were also illegal? What an odd argument—we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq to remove Saddam because that would be contrary to international law; instead we should have illegally invaded and/or bombed only a portion of Iraq.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:22:20 +0000

Yes, the plan was to just bomb it because invading just one little part of Iraq would have been ridiculous. But bombing a medium sized town into rubble, with families living in it would have caused predictable screaming all over the world. Not to mention being pretty much useless. And unless we were willing to continually bomb it, a lack of occupation would also be useless. What the hell are you talking about? The Kurds couldn’t get to the Ansar camp because of some well-defended fortifications. They’d been wanting to get Ansar out of that particular valley for ages. Frankly, the camp could have been targetted for bombing as part of the ongoing no-fly zone patrols—yes, there was no explicit mandate for the no-fly zones, but their presence was a fait accompli—and the Kurds would have eagerly swept up the pieces. You’re just talking out of your ear, Sebastian, in order to be contrary. It’s really not becoming of you. As iain says, the plan was nixed not because it might fail, but because it might succeed, taking with it the chance to make the deceptive claim that Al-Qaeda-related elements were encamped in Iraq.* *The part of Iraq that Saddam hadn’t controlled for ten years.

By: Iain J Coleman

Iain J Coleman — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:35:55 +0000

The point which the Bush apologists keep evading is that, if the sources are correct, the administration vetoed this plan not because it might fail, but because it might succeed.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 08:29:00 +0000

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:34:28 +0000

NB: The link said that the plan was merely to bomb the camp, not to invade it. OTOH that came out of the Pentagon so it may have been typical Rumsfeldian underestimation of force requirements. As for the invasion of Iraq, long-term consequences etc.—attacking this camp would have had the beneficial consequence of damaging the terrorists who had (or were likely to), you know, attack the U.S. and our allies. Conquering Iraq didn’t do that, and has bogged the U.S. military down but good. Let me repeat what Brian said: al-Qaeda is the main enemy here, and if they get it the way of the Iraq sideshow, we just have to deal with it.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:29:39 +0000

Whatever. How much deeper before the bottom of the barrel is reached by Bush’s kneejerk critics? No wonder he keeps on winning – the opposition is less than pathetic…

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:29:15 +0000

Whatever. How much deeper before the bottom of the barrel is reached by Bush’s kneejerk critics? No wonder he keeps on winning – the opposition is less that pathetic…

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:38:46 +0000

It would have caused just as much outrage and would have few of the beneficial long-term strategic consequences that will come out of the liberation of Iraq.

By: Ian Whitchurch

Ian Whitchurch — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:16:44 +0000

The naivety of people like Sebastian Holsclaw is stunning. Carrying out a punitive expidition is very different to an invasion … in an invasion, you’re planning on staying around and, like, nation building afterwards to make sure you get a government friendly to your interests. A punitive expidition on the other hand just cripples some tribe or leader you dont like, and then you allow local politics to continue as normal (if you planned it right, everyone then takes revenge on the power you just crippled for their own old and/or imagined slights). It’s Imperialism 101, really. Here’s the deal … US : Hey, Kurds. We’re thinking about cutting a deal with Turkey to invade Iraq, but if you help us with the Ansar al-Islam camp, then we’ll have a good reason to go with you instead. We’ll need, say, a couple of thousand peshmerga, and we’ll be using them as an anvil, as B52 strikes guided in by our special forces provide the hammer. Not a lot of a fighting, few casualties, and we’ll owe you a favour. Then you clean up the bombed remains of the camp, and make sure they dont come back. It’s straight carrot and stick. And it would have worked.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:59:33 +0000

it was rational that it ensured that the invasion was done in the best conditions possible (i.e. avoiding an international uproar at the wrong moment) Yup, didn’t notice any international uproar about the invasion of Iraq as it was.

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:06:03 +0000

If the point is the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq, ok. But given the U.S. Administration had already decided on invading Iraq, it was rational that it ensured that the invasion was done in the best conditions possible (i.e. avoiding an international uproar at the wrong moment). Hardly grounds for impeachment. More like another example that in the real world tough choices need to be made.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:33:49 +0000

Brian, I take it by your comment that you were in favor of illegally invading and occupying Iraq if and only if illegally invading and occupying Iraq lead to the end of Saddam’s regime. What makes you think the rest of the UN Security Council would have supported that? Is there some evidence that they all agreed that the no-fly zones were permissible? authorized? legal? Are you joking about the UN approval for the invasion of Afghanistan?

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:03:36 +0000

Sebastian, there’s a very large difference between attacking a part of Kurdistan that wasn’t even under Kurdish control and is being controlled by forces allied with al-Qaeda, and marching to Baghdad. Lumping both of them in as falling under the description ‘invading Iraq’ obscures much much more than it enlightens. I think you’ll find that if we went to the UN and said “We want to get rid of al-Qaeda bases in the northen no-fly zone that no one seems to be policing, and we think this is a natural extension of the Afghan War we all supported” it would have got a pretty positive response. Getting UN approval didn’t seem to slow down the Afghan War, as I recall. As for the larger diplomacy issue, maybe if we had gotten rid of the al-Qaeda base that Saddam couldn’t have gotten rid of if he wanted to it would have made the diplomacy harder. Maybe it would have made the speechwriter’s job harder too. But that’s just too bad, because al-Qaeda is the main enemy here, and if they get it the way of the Iraq sideshow, we just have to deal with it.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:12:23 +0000

Please. If anything this is evidence that the diplomatic push required by the UN interfered with everything. In June of 2002, the time in question according to the report, Democrats were complaining that they were being pushed into a war in Iraq without ‘sufficient debate’ and the UN was complaining about ‘insufficient consultation’. So at that very time, BEFORE we knew that France would blockade the US at the UN, and while Democrats were complaining about being forced into a decision, you want Bush to invade a portion of Iraq and occupy it? Or does the description ‘camp’ obscure the fact that this was a small city that we couldn’t have just bombed? I discuss it further here . Frankly if Bush had invaded Iraq at the moment you are complaining about, he really would have been the diplomatic dunce you think he is.