the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.This assertion is sourced to unnamed “military officials”, and may be hard to verify, but if true it would surely constitute grounds for impeachment, as well as a conclusive refutation of the case for the Iraq war.
if true it would surely constitute grounds for impeachment
Can you be impeached for such a thing?
Article II, Section IV says:“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”Don’t think this qualifies.
Instead, he should lose the election.
Still more evidence that the Iraq War had little to do with terrorism and evertything to do with US grand strategy, basing, and oil.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nick, have you heard of Turkey? Are you aware of the delicate situation in dealing with both Turkey and the Kurds?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review