Comments on: Post 9/11, pre 3/03 world

By: Locutor

Locutor — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:09:43 +0000

Silly Timberites, Sebastian doesn’t live in your reality-based world, so his explanations don’t have to make sense. Now go call some lesbian a “lesbian” so we can all be outraged again.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:01:04 +0000

The Bushies screwed up and made worse pretty much everything they tried, that’s obvious. But what’s with this cult of personality? I remember the time when Saddam was supposedly coordinating the resistance and his capture was supposed to bring the end to it. Zarqawi (if he even exists) is not prophet Mohamed or sultan Saladin. When he is gone, someone from his circle will become the leader, that’s all there is to it. Gotta see the phenomenon rather than individual players; forest, not the trees.

By: mona

mona — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:03:37 +0000

Yes, Sebastian, that was exactly what I meant, of course… You know, I don’t recall a “should” or “shouldn’t” in my post – it was “did” or “didn’t”. I’m not giving an opinion on what should have been done. I’m asking you to explain how your theory on why something did not happen squares with real events that did happen. Whatever “engaging the international community” means to you, the mere fact of going at the UN did not stop the US from starting a war with Iraq even without UN approval. Fact. So, why do you think the “international community” who couldn’t stop the US from bombing all of Iraq would have been able to stop them from bombing one single terrorist camp, in an area where the US already had some control, and had already been carrying out military operations since the first Gulf War? Snark away all you like, but it’s you putting forth an argument that escapes the most obvious logic.

By: Luc

Luc — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:13:56 +0000

In fact, looking back, our intelligence was almost 100 percent wrong. No WMD. … No WMD? A dangerous subject! Some funny rhetoric from Blair in a recent debate in parliament, - If my honourable opponent accepts the ISG report’s conclusion about the presence of WMD, he should be honest and accept the rest of the conclusions as well, which clearly states that we were right in starting this war -, or something to that refrain. Just to show that you should never accept any intelligence or report produced by the “coalition” about the Iraq war. But for this minor nuisance about facts, I couldn’t agree more with the explanation of Kevin Donoghue above. A previous post on Crooked Timber on the same subject: Why?

By: roger

roger — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:30:07 +0000

Alas, my reflexes—which are usually 100 percent against anything Sebastian writes—are misfiring tonight. He is right to say: “Also, we never had any firm intelligence about when Zarqawi was there.” In fact, looking back, our intelligence was almost 100 percent wrong. No WMD. No mass surrenders of orderly Iraqi troops, who then proceed to shyly shower their victors with flowers and baklava. And very probably, no certainty about the tracking of Zarqawi. It does seem to me that relying on “intelligence” that tells us exactly where Zarqawi is—the same intelligence that can neither confirm nor disconfirm that he even has two sound legs—the intelligence that still cannot disentangle either the scale of Zarqawi’s power, nor his relation to Al Qaeda—seems like leaning on a very rotten column. Of course, Sebastian’s other idea – that the U.S. would hesitate to smash the limbs of civilians and stain themselves with the brains of babies—in the quest for Middle Eastern loot and lebensraum for that most patriotic of objects, the SUV —doesn’t seem to hold water. After all, the U.S. has very calmly committed terrorist acts in Fallujah for the last two to six months, topping it off with a recent bombing of a popular restaurant there, modeling our strategy on the terrorist car baombing of civilians, except that we have better technology and of course better propaganda mechanisms, aka American Mainstream Media.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:12:52 +0000

Well mona, now that you have perfectly described why the US should never bother with diplomacy, I admit you are correct on everything. Bush was wrong to to engage the international community. He should never have taken diplomatic concerns into consideration because diplomacy is useless. Whew, now I get it.

By: mona

mona — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:26:12 +0000

If we had invaded, there would have been worse complaints about rushing things in Iraq. Sebastian, do you remember all those ‘complaints’ when the US did indeed invade Iraq? UN splitting up? Countries threatening vetoes? Diplomats and ministers calling Bush and Blair idiots? The Pope? And just to give it all a bit of colour, those millions of people protesting in demonstrations? Did it ever stop anything? No. (Repeat same scenario with different key elements/figures/degrees of anti-war dissent for first Gulf War, Kosovo, etc.) Yet, you’re arguing that if the US did not do something else, not even a war but a limited military/intelligence anti-terrorist operation, it’s because those relentless Forces of Complaint would have suddenly been that powerful to stop them? Didn’t it cross your mind that perhaps if the US didn’t do something it’s because they really really didn’t want to? The fact you or I or anyone cannot know for sure why they didn’t want to is no reason to come up with patently contradictory rationalisations after the fact.

By: Henry

Henry — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:21:09 +0000

Shorter Sebastian – even though I’m wrong on collateral damage, and wrong on whether the administration knew that Zarqawi was around, my fuzzy counterfactuals and unique insights into administration thinking have allowed me to determine that the Democrats were still to blame.

By: Detached Observer

Detached Observer — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:14:13 +0000

Sebastian wrote “Bush made a choice to defer a small attack so that it could become part of a larger attack…” Except by the time we got to the training camp after invading Iraq Zarqawi was long gone. It sounds like you’ve basically conceded the point: Bush deferred a “small” attack on an actual terrorist in favor of a “larger” attack on Saddam Hussein – who was not connected to anti-American terrorism. Which is why many of us on the left say that Bush has not fought the war on terror very effectively.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:42:35 +0000

The problem here is that those here who claim to love diplomacy fail to like the choices real diplomacy involves. In early 2002, France, Germany, and Russia were bringing pressure to drop all sanctions—without bringing inspectors back since 1998. In the middle of 2002, Iraq announced it would never allow inspections to resume. In the middle of 2002, there was allegedly a chance to hit Zarqawi. In the middle of 2002, Democrats were complaining about being rushed into a war in Iraq. If at the time, we had bombed in order to target a person (which as we have learned from the ‘decapitation’ attempts is not effective) we would have had more trouble getting inspections. If we had invaded, there would have been worse complaints about rushing things in Iraq. Bush made a choice to defer a small attack so that it could become part of a larger attack. That is normally called, ‘efficiency’. Bush chose to defer a small attack so that he could try to gain diplomatic support. That is exactly what you do in diplomacy. Those who pretend that the UN was interested in pushing through inspections on their own are frankly lying to themselves.

By: John Bragg

John Bragg — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:39:15 +0000

Because Jesus didn’t want Bush to bomb the Zarqawi camp. If Jesus wanted it done, He would have told Bush to do it.

By: Lee Scoresby

Lee Scoresby — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:36:06 +0000

“So we should have just blown that all off for an invasion of northern Iraq? I don’t think so.” Sebastian: just give up! Admit already that the Bush administration cared more about getting a justification for war then dealing with a threat in an efficient and expeditious manner. Then you won’t be stuck equating a bombing operation with a US invasion of northern Iraq. In fact, I seem to recall that Zarqawi’s group was creating trouble for the Kurds before the war—bombings and stuff—but that they were too difficult for the Kurds to take out on their own. Hmmm. Doesnt’ smell like a “massive invasion” either.

By: spencer

spencer — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:27:06 +0000

But what’s with this cult of personality? Is this in reference to Zarqawi or Bush?

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:14:18 +0000

By: kevin donoghue

kevin donoghue — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:06:22 +0000

This post ends with a question: “what possible advantage could have been gained by waiting?” But the obvious answer is in the first paragraph: “Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN leaned heavily on Zarqawi to make the case for war.” So what possible purpose does this post serve? Obvious answer: it tests the ingenuity of the apologists for Bush. Yes, they are looking a little tired, aren’t they?