http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:39:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45839 kevin donoghue Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:10:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45839 Jet, I was so surprised by your suggestion that gas was a major killer in WW1 that I went to check the numbers – only to find that they were lower by far than even I had realised: Austria-Hungary: 100,000 casualties in toal; 3,000 deaths. British Empire: 188,706 casualties in total; 8,109 deaths. France: 190,000 casualties in total; 8,000 deaths. Germany: 200,000 casualties in total; 9,000 deaths. Italy: 60,000 casualties in total; 4,627 deaths. Russia: 419,340 casualties in total; 56,000 deaths. USA: 72,807 casualties in total; 1,462 deaths. http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/gas.htm Notice the low proportion of fatalities, except in the case of Russia. Armies with good medical services, even back then, coped pretty well. The emergency services in a modern city would surely do better still. As for terrorists smuggling large gas cylinders into the NYC subway, it would be a hell of a lot worse if they were packed with high explosive. In any case, this discussion is drifting a long way from the IR scholars. I don’t intend to get into a discussion of Niger – Josh Marshall is paid to unravel that web of deceit, I’m not. Recall that the issue you raised was whether Mearsheimer is justified in using the term “lies” to describe statements made by Bush & Co. To my mind it is beyond dispute that many of their statements were misleading. That is not enough, by itself, to justify calling them lies. The question of intent is crucial. Bush may simply be unable to distinguish a hunch from an established fact. Let’s grant him a fool’s pardon. It is too much of a stretch to suppose that the others did not know that some of their statements were not really supported by the evidence they actually had. To say that they “let their biases cloud their judgement” is too indulgent when it comes to statements like: we know he has chemical weapons; we know where they are (Rumsfeld); we know that he has reconstituted his nuclear program (Cheney); or Rice’s “mushroom cloud” comment. Let’s be clear about what is involved here: if I say, for example, that I have credible evidence that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam Hussein then I am telling a lie – even if it subsequently turns out that he actually was. I have no such evidence, I know that I haven’t and everything else is irrelevant. Enough already. When two people have a thread to themselves it is time to quit. Jet, I was so surprised by your suggestion that gas was a major killer in WW1 that I went to check the numbers – only to find that they were lower by far than even I had realised: Austria-Hungary: 100,000 casualties in toal; 3,000 deaths. British Empire: 188,706 casualties in total; 8,109 deaths. France: 190,000 casualties in total; 8,000 deaths. Germany: 200,000 casualties in total; 9,000 deaths. Italy: 60,000 casualties in total; 4,627 deaths. Russia: 419,340 casualties in total; 56,000 deaths. USA: 72,807 casualties in total; 1,462 deaths. http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/gas.htm Notice the low proportion of fatalities, except in the case of Russia. Armies with good medical services, even back then, coped pretty well. The emergency services in a modern city would surely do better still. As for terrorists smuggling large gas cylinders into the NYC subway, it would be a hell of a lot worse if they were packed with high explosive. In any case, this discussion is drifting a long way from the IR scholars. I don’t intend to get into a discussion of Niger – Josh Marshall is paid to unravel that web of deceit, I’m not. Recall that the issue you raised was whether Mearsheimer is justified in using the term “lies” to describe statements made by Bush & Co. To my mind it is beyond dispute that many of their statements were misleading. That is not enough, by itself, to justify calling them lies. The question of intent is crucial. Bush may simply be unable to distinguish a hunch from an established fact. Let’s grant him a fool’s pardon. It is too much of a stretch to suppose that the others did not know that some of their statements were not really supported by the evidence they actually had. To say that they “let their biases cloud their judgement” is too indulgent when it comes to statements like: we know he has chemical weapons; we know where they are (Rumsfeld); we know that he has reconstituted his nuclear program (Cheney); or Rice’s “mushroom cloud” comment. Let’s be clear about what is involved here: if I say, for example, that I have credible evidence that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam Hussein then I am telling a lie – even if it subsequently turns out that he actually was. I have no such evidence, I know that I haven’t and everything else is irrelevant. Enough already. When two people have a thread to themselves it is time to quit.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45838 jet Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:49:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45838 And Kevin I noticed you took a swing at the Niger story but for some reason didn't even mention the French uranium connection. Now some people see that as proof sanctions were working because that French company informed the authorities and refused to make the sell. And while antedotally it is evidence on the sanctions were working side, it is also certainly evidence that Saddam was looking for more nuclear toys. And on an aside, what must Saddam have thought of the French if he was willing to ask a French mining company for uranium? You can poke all the holes you want at the weak points of the case, but when you ignore the strong points you don't change many minds. And Kevin I noticed you took a swing at the Niger story but for some reason didn’t even mention the French uranium connection. Now some people see that as proof sanctions were working because that French company informed the authorities and refused to make the sell. And while antedotally it is evidence on the sanctions were working side, it is also certainly evidence that Saddam was looking for more nuclear toys. And on an aside, what must Saddam have thought of the French if he was willing to ask a French mining company for uranium? You can poke all the holes you want at the weak points of the case, but when you ignore the strong points you don’t change many minds.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45837 jet Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:39:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45837 Kevin, I don't think we'll ever agree on this, but I certainly understand that faith plays a big part in this argument as there are so many things left unknown. The 9/11 commision certainly didn't find that the government had purposely mis-interpreted evidence, although it did show they might have let their biases cloud their judgement (i.e. Occum's Razor told them something different than it would have told you). And if you don't think three large helium tanks wheeled to the top of a NYC subway with party balloon tied to them, then the valve opened and the bottles thrown down the stairs, and mustard gas, not helium comes out wouldn't kill thousands, I don't think you understand how deadly mustard gas is. Look at the casulty figures for WWI and that was mostly open fields. And as for the Niger story, perhaps it might serve to re-visit what the 9/11 commission had to say about it. I mean come on, a high ranking official visits a country whose only real export is uranium on a trade mission and you think he was there for something legitimate? And before you start making wild assumptions about the innate ability of your average BS in Chemistry to mass produce mustard gas, it might be worth taking a further look at the ISG report and why they thought Saddam's ability to produce mustard gas was notable. Kevin, I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this, but I certainly understand that faith plays a big part in this argument as there are so many things left unknown. The 9/11 commision certainly didn’t find that the government had purposely mis-interpreted evidence, although it did show they might have let their biases cloud their judgement (i.e. Occum’s Razor told them something different than it would have told you). And if you don’t think three large helium tanks wheeled to the top of a NYC subway with party balloon tied to them, then the valve opened and the bottles thrown down the stairs, and mustard gas, not helium comes out wouldn’t kill thousands, I don’t think you understand how deadly mustard gas is. Look at the casulty figures for WWI and that was mostly open fields. And as for the Niger story, perhaps it might serve to re-visit what the 9/11 commission had to say about it. I mean come on, a high ranking official visits a country whose only real export is uranium on a trade mission and you think he was there for something legitimate? And before you start making wild assumptions about the innate ability of your average BS in Chemistry to mass produce mustard gas, it might be worth taking a further look at the ISG report and why they thought Saddam’s ability to produce mustard gas was notable.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45836 kevin donoghue Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:51:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45836 Jet, If a man says he has evidence that the earth is flat and he truly believes that evidence is compelling then of course he isn’t lying, he is deluded. You can always acquit someone of lying using that sort of insanity plea. For obvious reasons that is not very reassuring where powerful people are concerned. Many Administration statements regarding Iraq are now known to be false. In some cases the speakers were certainly in a position to know that their claims were more dubious than they let on, for example the claims that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD; was developing UAVs suitable for dispensing chemical and biological weapons; trailers (with canvas sides!) designed as biological weapons laboratories; bunkers had been photographed in which chemical weapons were stored; Saddam had clear ties to al-Qaida; the aluminium tubes were suitable only for nuclear weapons programs; Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons etc. etc. You say (twice) that wishing something to be true does not make it so. That is exactly my point. Much as we might wish to believe that these were sensible and honest statements, it is too much of a stretch to reconcile that belief with the facts now in the public domain. In common parlance these were lies; Mearsheimer was quite justified in using that term. Administration officials should be presumed to know when the statements they are making do not correspond to the facts at their disposal. I do wonder whether that presumption is safe in Bush’s case; he really does appear to live in a world of his own. I have no reason to doubt that Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice were simply lying. Do you think there is something remarkable about the fact that Saddam could make mustard gas if he chose to? Of course he could. Short of locking up every chemist in the country you cannot deny a regime that capability. The technology dates back to WW1 if not earlier. Talk of terrorists killing tens of thousands of people in a developed country using stuff like that is simply scare-mongering. It would be a lot easier to do the job using explosives to demolish buildings. I am amazed that you are still trying to make something of the Niger story – the Administration backed off from that one long ago. Jet, If a man says he has evidence that the earth is flat and he truly believes that evidence is compelling then of course he isn’t lying, he is deluded. You can always acquit someone of lying using that sort of insanity plea. For obvious reasons that is not very reassuring where powerful people are concerned. Many Administration statements regarding Iraq are now known to be false. In some cases the speakers were certainly in a position to know that their claims were more dubious than they let on, for example the claims that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD; was developing UAVs suitable for dispensing chemical and biological weapons; trailers (with canvas sides!) designed as biological weapons laboratories; bunkers had been photographed in which chemical weapons were stored; Saddam had clear ties to al-Qaida; the aluminium tubes were suitable only for nuclear weapons programs; Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons etc. etc. You say (twice) that wishing something to be true does not make it so. That is exactly my point. Much as we might wish to believe that these were sensible and honest statements, it is too much of a stretch to reconcile that belief with the facts now in the public domain. In common parlance these were lies; Mearsheimer was quite justified in using that term. Administration officials should be presumed to know when the statements they are making do not correspond to the facts at their disposal. I do wonder whether that presumption is safe in Bush’s case; he really does appear to live in a world of his own. I have no reason to doubt that Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice were simply lying. Do you think there is something remarkable about the fact that Saddam could make mustard gas if he chose to? Of course he could. Short of locking up every chemist in the country you cannot deny a regime that capability. The technology dates back to WW1 if not earlier. Talk of terrorists killing tens of thousands of people in a developed country using stuff like that is simply scare-mongering. It would be a lot easier to do the job using explosives to demolish buildings. I am amazed that you are still trying to make something of the Niger story – the Administration backed off from that one long ago.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45835 jet Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:01:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45835 Kevin, Here is a sample from that pdf: "Some of the misleading statements by Secretary Rumsfeld include his statement on November 14, 2002, that within “a week, or a month” Saddam Hussein could give his weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, which could use them to attack the United States and kill “30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings”; his statement on January 29, 2003, that Saddam Hussein’s regime “recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa”; and his statement on July 13, 2003, that there “was never any debate” about whether Iraq had a nuclear program." This says Rumsfeld was wrong twice, but in actuality he was correct twice, as per the new ISG report. The ISG report CONFIRMS that Saddam could have produced mustard gas in days, if he was willing to sacrifice the manufactoring equipment, months otherwise. The ISG report COMFIRMS that Saddams nuclear program, while inactive, was not even slightly dismatled. And while the 9/11 report says the Niger uranium claim was woefully under-investigated by the CIA, the 9/11 report makes it quite clear that further investigation should have been done because it was just too fishy. But Niger is really a side issue as France has unargueable confirmed one of its mining companies was approached by Saddam for uranium. Wishing doesn't make things so. Kevin, Here is a sample from that pdf: “Some of the misleading statements by Secretary Rumsfeld include his statement on November 14, 2002, that within “a week, or a month” Saddam Hussein could give his weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, which could use them to attack the United States and kill “30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings”; his statement on January 29, 2003, that Saddam Hussein’s regime “recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa”; and his statement on July 13, 2003, that there “was never any debate” about whether Iraq had a nuclear program.” This says Rumsfeld was wrong twice, but in actuality he was correct twice, as per the new ISG report. The ISG report CONFIRMS that Saddam could have produced mustard gas in days, if he was willing to sacrifice the manufactoring equipment, months otherwise. The ISG report COMFIRMS that Saddams nuclear program, while inactive, was not even slightly dismatled. And while the 9/11 report says the Niger uranium claim was woefully under-investigated by the CIA, the 9/11 report makes it quite clear that further investigation should have been done because it was just too fishy. But Niger is really a side issue as France has unargueable confirmed one of its mining companies was approached by Saddam for uranium. Wishing doesn’t make things so.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45834 jet Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:53:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45834 Kevin, I think you might be mistaken on a bit of logic. When you said "To me, many of them are lies. Please note that whether someone “knew there weren’t any WMD’s” or merely lacked evidence of their existence, any claim to have reliable evidence of their existence is a lie if that claim is false." I don't think you meant what you said. If the person saying they had "credible evidence" thought they did indeed have credible evidence, then they are simply wrong, not lieing. And wishing otherwise doesn't make it so. When most of the US allies in the world agreed with the CIA, then Bush claiming his evidence was "credible" is hardly surprising. I'm going through your tedious link, so put up with my tedios double post. Kevin, I think you might be mistaken on a bit of logic. When you said “To me, many of them are lies. Please note that whether someone “knew there weren’t any WMD’s” or merely lacked evidence of their existence, any claim to have reliable evidence of their existence is a lie if that claim is false.” I don’t think you meant what you said. If the person saying they had “credible evidence” thought they did indeed have credible evidence, then they are simply wrong, not lieing. And wishing otherwise doesn’t make it so. When most of the US allies in the world agreed with the CIA, then Bush claiming his evidence was “credible” is hardly surprising. I’m going through your tedious link, so put up with my tedios double post.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45833 kevin donoghue Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:24:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45833 Mark, Mearsheimer and Walt wrote an article arguing the Realist case against war several months before the invasion was launched. An opinion that the war was illegal was published by a couple of UK lawyers early in 2003. Both these documents are easily found on the internet. Scholars don't generally believe that "plebs are unworthy of a their expert knowledge." They just expect students to do their homework. Mark, Mearsheimer and Walt wrote an article arguing the Realist case against war several months before the invasion was launched. An opinion that the war was illegal was published by a couple of UK lawyers early in 2003. Both these documents are easily found on the internet. Scholars don’t generally believe that “plebs are unworthy of a their expert knowledge.” They just expect students to do their homework.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45832 kevin donoghue Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:13:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45832 Jet, you might like to look (just for openers) at “misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice.” http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/ Whether you classify these statements as barefaced lies or terminological inexactitudes is entirely up to you. To me, many of them are lies. Please note that whether someone “knew there weren’t any WMD’s” or merely lacked evidence of their existence, any claim to have reliable evidence of their existence is a lie if that claim is false. Do you seriously believe the Administration has been honest about this? Jet, you might like to look (just for openers) at “misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice.” http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/ Whether you classify these statements as barefaced lies or terminological inexactitudes is entirely up to you. To me, many of them are lies. Please note that whether someone “knew there weren’t any WMD’s” or merely lacked evidence of their existence, any claim to have reliable evidence of their existence is a lie if that claim is false. Do you seriously believe the Administration has been honest about this?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45831 Uncle Kvetch Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:22:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45831 <i>And, even if they are wrong and do need more troops, the people who were clammering for a lighter more mobile army were certainly proven, beyound a doubt, correct during the actual war.</i> Jet, exactly when did "the actual war" end, in your view? And what term would you use for the present situation, given that, in your view, the "actual war" is over? And, even if they are wrong and do need more troops, the people who were clammering for a lighter more mobile army were certainly proven, beyound a doubt, correct during the actual war. Jet, exactly when did “the actual war” end, in your view? And what term would you use for the present situation, given that, in your view, the “actual war” is over?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45830 Mark Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:32:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45830 I guess it's asking too much for academics to justify their positions with valid arguments. I struggled through the statement, and I don't think they put forward a single substantive argument for any of their assertions. I'd like to know why these scholars consider the moral case for war "dubious" or obviously illegal (citing statutes, precedents, IR and moral theories, etc). I'd like them to outline their understanding of the underlying conditions that give rise to Islamic terrorism, and why the attempt to democratize the Middle East is apparently neither a valid strategic and moral goal. Perhaps these academics don't believe we're intelligent enough to understand their arguments, or perhaps us plebs are unworthy of a their expert knowledge. In any case, until they decide to share their expert understanding of these small matters, the letter remains little more than self-promotion. Adducing this letter as evidence of the alleged moral or strategic failure of Iraq is simply a argument from authority and can be safely ignored. I guess it’s asking too much for academics to justify their positions with valid arguments. I struggled through the statement, and I don’t think they put forward a single substantive argument for any of their assertions. I’d like to know why these scholars consider the moral case for war “dubious” or obviously illegal (citing statutes, precedents, IR and moral theories, etc). I’d like them to outline their understanding of the underlying conditions that give rise to Islamic terrorism, and why the attempt to democratize the Middle East is apparently neither a valid strategic and moral goal. Perhaps these academics don’t believe we’re intelligent enough to understand their arguments, or perhaps us plebs are unworthy of a their expert knowledge. In any case, until they decide to share their expert understanding of these small matters, the letter remains little more than self-promotion. Adducing this letter as evidence of the alleged moral or strategic failure of Iraq is simply a argument from authority and can be safely ignored.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45829 Mark Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:26:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45829 I guess it's asking too much for academics to justify their positions with valid arguments. I struggled through the statement, and I don't think they put forward a single substantive argument for any of their assertions. I'd like to know why these scholars consider the moral case for war "dubious" or obviously illegal (citing statutes, precedents, IR and moral theories, etc). I'd like them to outline their understanding of the underlying conditions that give rise to Islamic terrorism, and why the attempt to democratize the Middle East is apparently neither a valid strategic and moral goal. Until they decide to share their expert understanding of these small matters, the letter remains little more than self-promotion. Adducing this letter as evidence of the alleged moral or strategic failure of Iraq is simply a argument from authority and can be safely ignored. I guess it’s asking too much for academics to justify their positions with valid arguments. I struggled through the statement, and I don’t think they put forward a single substantive argument for any of their assertions. I’d like to know why these scholars consider the moral case for war “dubious” or obviously illegal (citing statutes, precedents, IR and moral theories, etc). I’d like them to outline their understanding of the underlying conditions that give rise to Islamic terrorism, and why the attempt to democratize the Middle East is apparently neither a valid strategic and moral goal. Until they decide to share their expert understanding of these small matters, the letter remains little more than self-promotion. Adducing this letter as evidence of the alleged moral or strategic failure of Iraq is simply a argument from authority and can be safely ignored.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45828 jet Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:32:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45828 But this is all moot in the face of my higher calling. If I could just convert everyone to the Church of Jet, no more American lives would be shed. For instance, on 9/12 I would have announced a 100 billion dollar grant for nuclear development and a 100 billion dollar grant for solar research, per year. Then we could have sat back and watched the Syrian/Saudi/Iraq/Iranian coalition invade Afghanistan and stamp out terrorism accross the globe in an effort to prove to the US that oil is a stable resource and doesn't fund terrorism. If only I were king for a day. But this is all moot in the face of my higher calling. If I could just convert everyone to the Church of Jet, no more American lives would be shed. For instance, on 9/12 I would have announced a 100 billion dollar grant for nuclear development and a 100 billion dollar grant for solar research, per year. Then we could have sat back and watched the Syrian/Saudi/Iraq/Iranian coalition invade Afghanistan and stamp out terrorism accross the globe in an effort to prove to the US that oil is a stable resource and doesn’t fund terrorism. If only I were king for a day.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45827 jet Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:25:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45827 I'm not sure I understand this statement, "I don’t imagine that Mearsheimer would be any more impressed if he were persuaded that the Administration, although presenting false information, had no intention of deceiving." Are you saying that if he was persuaded that Bush hadn't lied about WMD's, he still would have included Bush in his list of liars? Since the US is in a war, and people are dieing, and a lot of the outcome of the hinges upon politics in Iraq and the world, that Mearsheimer going out of his way to harm the credibility of the US by perpetuating a falsehood, is helping the enemy, which is....well....helping the enemy and prolonging the war? Maybe you should read his article as it is dealing with purposeful deception. And if you have any credible evidence that Bush knew there weren't any WMD's, please share, I'm open to honest debate. And as for Generals Shinseki & Zinni, I was under the impression that the "consensus" was that more troops would hurt the effort rather than help. And, even if they are wrong and do need more troops, the people who were clammering for a lighter more mobile army were certainly proven, beyound a doubt, correct during the actual war. Adding more troops during the first days of the war would only have slowed the advance and given the Iraqis more time to regroup. So, if the army made the mistake (and they're on record for making tons), you can hardly blame them as the same philosophy had just proven a beyound their wildest dreams success. And even with no military experience I find the arguement that it isn't more troops that are needed, but more intelligence personnel, much more persuasive. But I guess that is harder to make into a compelling sound bite suitable for tv viewership, and touching on why are intelligence services were so small in 2003 is a bit of a touchy subject for Democrats (unless you believe Bush could wave his magic wand and create thousands of CIA officers in 2 years). I’m not sure I understand this statement, “I don’t imagine that Mearsheimer would be any more impressed if he were persuaded that the Administration, although presenting false information, had no intention of deceiving.” Are you saying that if he was persuaded that Bush hadn’t lied about WMD’s, he still would have included Bush in his list of liars? Since the US is in a war, and people are dieing, and a lot of the outcome of the hinges upon politics in Iraq and the world, that Mearsheimer going out of his way to harm the credibility of the US by perpetuating a falsehood, is helping the enemy, which is….well….helping the enemy and prolonging the war? Maybe you should read his article as it is dealing with purposeful deception. And if you have any credible evidence that Bush knew there weren’t any WMD’s, please share, I’m open to honest debate. And as for Generals Shinseki & Zinni, I was under the impression that the “consensus” was that more troops would hurt the effort rather than help. And, even if they are wrong and do need more troops, the people who were clammering for a lighter more mobile army were certainly proven, beyound a doubt, correct during the actual war. Adding more troops during the first days of the war would only have slowed the advance and given the Iraqis more time to regroup. So, if the army made the mistake (and they’re on record for making tons), you can hardly blame them as the same philosophy had just proven a beyound their wildest dreams success. And even with no military experience I find the arguement that it isn’t more troops that are needed, but more intelligence personnel, much more persuasive. But I guess that is harder to make into a compelling sound bite suitable for tv viewership, and touching on why are intelligence services were so small in 2003 is a bit of a touchy subject for Democrats (unless you believe Bush could wave his magic wand and create thousands of CIA officers in 2 years).

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45826 kevin donoghue Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:08:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45826 Jet, Juan Cole presented a map on his blog on 24th September illustrating the severity of the problem: http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109600879850724698 He later remarked that some of the provinces he thought were peaceful turned out not to be, so the map should actually be redder than it is. Baghdad, with about 5m inhabitants, is one of the troubled areas. I don't imagine that Mearsheimer would be any more impressed if he were persuaded that the Administration, although presenting false information, had no intention of deceiving. Jet, Juan Cole presented a map on his blog on 24th September illustrating the severity of the problem: http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109600879850724698 He later remarked that some of the provinces he thought were peaceful turned out not to be, so the map should actually be redder than it is. Baghdad, with about 5m inhabitants, is one of the troubled areas. I don’t imagine that Mearsheimer would be any more impressed if he were persuaded that the Administration, although presenting false information, had no intention of deceiving.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/10/12/ir-scholars-unite/comment-page-1/#comment-45825 Uncle Kvetch Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:46:14 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2339#comment-45825 <i>Given that it is the Pentagon, arguably the formost expert on military occupation, making this point it is probably impossible to change most people’s minds without some equally prestigious source.</i> "The Pentagon" is not a unitary entity with a single brain. Given that there's ample evidence that the advice of military personnel from the Pentagon, including that of generals with decades of actual battlefield experience, was routinely dismissed by civilian higher-ups like Rumsfeld in the run-up to the war, you might want to rethink your argument. Or do people like Generals Shinseki & Zinni not count as part of "the Pentagon" if they happen to disagree with you? Given that it is the Pentagon, arguably the formost expert on military occupation, making this point it is probably impossible to change most people’s minds without some equally prestigious source. “The Pentagon” is not a unitary entity with a single brain. Given that there’s ample evidence that the advice of military personnel from the Pentagon, including that of generals with decades of actual battlefield experience, was routinely dismissed by civilian higher-ups like Rumsfeld in the run-up to the war, you might want to rethink your argument. Or do people like Generals Shinseki & Zinni not count as part of “the Pentagon” if they happen to disagree with you?

]]>