Debate in D.C.: Invasion or invasion lite?

Boston Globe ^ | 8/25/2002 | By Thomas Oliphant

[vannrox]

WASHINGTONARE WE GOING to conquer Iraq, or are they going to do it with our help?

This question is the latest wrinkle in the Bush administration's sometimes halting participation in what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calls the frenzy over a conflict whose form and timing are now a matter of active consideration at the top levels of the government.

[vannrox]

Opinion from the Liberal Press.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I was feeling this was well balanced and reasoned until:

And just as many on the left have irresponsibly voiced conspiracy theories instead of analyses of the issue, many on the right have sought to demonize The New York Times' vigorous reporting on the cons as well as the pros of war.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[Diogenesis]

"Tom DeLay was wrong .... as well as irresponsible in
singling out Colin Powell's State Department as needing a reminder that it works for the president,
not the European Union - he intentionally forgot the m ilitary. "

The Boston Globe should admit that it is proArab,
owns the Red Sox which it pushes,
and promotes and uses its own lawyers
as they decide what stories are "news".

[Hugin]

Attack lines are no substitute for the thorough discussion on means as well as justification that a strong nation needs and shouldn't fear.

Any debate over the specific strategery should be entirely within the adminstration, and behind closed doors. That's the President's call, nobody elses.

[Always A Marine]

"People who raise concerns in civil discussion are not appeasers, they are contributors to that national conversation, putting a spotlight on matters that are often overlooked or slighted on the inside." -Oliphant

Well said. The neoconservative rush to launch personal attacks on any who dare to ask any questions is amazing -- they would smear the very men whose counsel we should be seeking. Overnight, top military leaders like Thomas Moorer (JCS Chairman), Colin Powell (JCS Chairman), Norman Schwarzkopf (CINCCENT), Brent Scowcroft (LtGen, USAF and NSA to Bush-41), Anthony Zinni (CINCCENT) and James Jones (current CMC, now appointed to be CINCEUR) are derided as traitors to "the cause" for questioning either the rush to war of the lack of adequate forces committed to it.

General Zinni eloquently summed up my frustration in a speech last week: "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way," he said, "and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way."

[weegee]

I am unable to find it online but today there is a comic strip, B.C. by a better cartoonist than Oliphant, Johnny Hart. It was in today's paper (Sunday's 8-25-2002).

He seems to have a better grasp on the situation. A tablet is cast into the sea to ask what other nations will contribute to fight the war on terrorism. The reply is "the terrorists".

[Mr. Mojo]

Invasion or invasion lite?

Invasion lite may be less filling, but it won't get the job done. I'd prefer the invasion to be a good stout.

[section9]

General Zinni eloquently summed up my frustration in a speech last week: "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way," he said, "and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way."

This is a cheap debater's trick, and I will tell you why.

In the summer of 1941, debate was furious in the United States over whether or not to enter the Second World War on the side of the Allies. The previous year, a bill to reactivate conscription had passed the House by one vote. The nation was still divided. The America Firsters under Lindbergh still had a wide audience.

The intellectual case for taking down Nazi Germany had not quite been made. But that did not stop Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR, a man of very limited military experience (indeed, I believe his only post was that of civilian Navy Secretary under Wilson), understood then what Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Wolfowitz understand now: there was a danger to America and it had to be confronted.

Roosevelt did what he had to do at that time. The U.S. Navy entered an undeclared war against the Kriegsmarine. During this pre-war period, the Navy ran destroyer escorts for the Royal Navy's convoys to Great Britain, freeing up the Home Fleet to go down and help out Wavell's beleaguered Army of the Nile (a little known German division commander named Erwin Rommel had been given a corps command in Africa and was beginning make a name for himself).

Now Roosevelt could get away with this because the Navy could legally fire after being fired upon. But in practice, of course, the destroyer escorts were hunting U-Boats right, left, and center with mixed success. Roosevelt, with the understanding of congressional leaders such as Arthur Vandenburg and Sam Rayburn, sent the Navy out because the leadership of the day understood the threat that Hitler posed.

Roosevelt never fired a shot in anger. Never heard the crack of an incoming artillery round. Never smelt the whiff of cordite.

But history has proven him to be in the right.

Generals are paid to be cautious. McClellan had more experience on the battlefield than Lincoln, whose military experience amounted to a six-month excursion during the Black Hawk War (if it was even that long...). It was McClellan who ran on a campaign of peace with the Confederacy in 1864, and would have sued for peace had he won the election. Experience and wisdom are two different things altogether, as history showed us. Lincoln's way was the best way for the country, notwithstanding the valor of some of my ancestors in the Confederate States Army. McClellan was cautious to a fault, and his politics reflected his generalship (I would cite his clumsiness at Antietam Creek, but I don't want to beat that dead horse into the ground).

History has shown us that Generals do not always make the best analysts of the larger political context in which war must be fought. There are exceptions: George C. Marshall and Eisenhower come to mind.

The upcoming war in Iraq cannot be divorced from its larger political contest. Yes, there will be death, killing, and loss. Plato remarked that only the dead have seen the end of war. Lee maintained that it was a good thing that war was so bloody, lest we should grow to like it. But wars are fought to achieve a political end, and the military ambitions of soldiers, as well as their reservations and fears, must always remain firmly subordinated to political aims.

Sure, it was dangerous and risky to assault Normandy in June of 1944. There wasn't an officer in SHAPE that didn't know the peril that Eisenhower's expeditionary force was about to undertake. Thousands of men were mark'd to die or be maimed. But we did not hesitate, because of the larger political threat of German power and science.

The decision to undertake war and peace cannot be restricted to those who have only had the experience of war. That is not our way under the Constitution. This is not Heinlein's society as argued for in Starship Troopers. It might be better if it was, but under our system, everyone has a right to his opinion and say.

I say this. I've never been to battle. Never joined the armed services. My own epilepsy prevented me from joining the Marine Corps some twenty years ago. But my lack of military service does not invalidate my contention that we are faced with a psychotic who has access to weapons of mass destruction. If left alone, within several years he will have a few nuclear weapons. Only one of them, only one, if smuggled into our country by Islamic fascists, would be needed to kill several hundred thousands of Americans if detonated at just the right spot, at just the right time of day. We are protected by two oceans no more.

To say that only those who have seen war have the right to be either pro- or anti- war in a debate is to attempt to shut off argument. That simply will not do, for the contention that experience trumps facts or even thought does not addrss the situation at hand. Indeed, it hides the fact that those who are opposed to this campaign, from Scott Ritter to Robert Novak, refuse to address Saddam's vast WMD program and what he would do with such assets if left undisturbed.

Saddam would do great evil. Shakespeare pointed out that "...the past, 'tis prologue." What Saddam did in the past, he would do in the future, only on a grander scale and with an evil, vicious design. Those who refuse to stop this evil from coming about not only have the present to answer, but also must answer to history.

The judgements of history tend to be among the most severe of all.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Rokke]

That was probably the most eloquent treatise on the subject I've read on FreeRepublic. A definite keeper.

[Always A Marine]

To say that only those who have seen war have the right to be either pro- or anti- war in a debate is to attempt to shut off argument. That simply will not do...

I couldn't agree with you more. However, it is the pro-war Bush-bots who seek to stifle dissent by questioning the political loyalty, patriotism and sanity of any who disagree. On the merits of the issue, I believe there are very serious doubts as to the necessity and even propriety of invading Iraq.

What many can learn from military men is that this is the gravest of all decisions; sadly, I believe most Americans now think war has become bloodless and are focused far more deeply on their 401(k)'s and mortgages. No Citizen should be shut out of the debate -- including generals who understand the costs.

[section9]

I couldn't agree with you more. However, it is the pro-war Bush-bots who seek to stifle dissent by questioning the political loyalty, patriotism and sanity of any who disagree. On the merits of the issue, I believe there are very serious doubts as to the necessity and even propriety of invading Iraq.

That's a straw man.

Last time I checked, there was vigorous debate in the papers and among the chattering classes as to the propriety of the invasion itself. You may say that there is neither a need nor a right for the U.S. to invade Iraq. That can be argued on the merits. What you cannot do is pretend that Saddam's threat does not exist, that he is not building WMD, and that he is nurturing ties with Al Qaeda.

The "Bushbots" aren't questioning the "patriotism" of the appeasement crowd. Rather, they are rightly questioning their judgement in the face of a growing threat. This has happened before in History.

What many can learn from military men is that this is the gravest of all decisions; sadly, I believe most Americans now think war has become bloodless and are focused far more deeply on their 401(k)'s and mortgages. No Citizen should be shut out of the debate -- including generals who understand the costs.

I disagree. Most Americans are apolitical, but do concentrate on the question of war and peace when the issue is at hand. I suspect that if we had a conscript Army, there would be greater civic involvement, but we do not (at least, now, anyway).

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Always A Marine]

The "Bushbots" aren't questioning the "patriotism" of the appeasement crowd.

Oh, so it's "the appeasement crowd" now. The straw man is of your own verbal construction. All counter assertions are "cheap debating tricks" and "straw men" to you, while your own arguments descend from the burning bush. Right. Like you said earlier, you've neither fought nor served, so perhaps you find the threshhold to commit others to battle a little lower than mine. Zinni has a point.

Alarm bells should accompany the fevered rush to invade and occupy Iraq and any other country we dislike. If war is truly necessary, it will come soon enough and the issue will be crystal clear, and the evidence will withstand the full scrutiny of an assembled Congress. Instead, we hear the call to "shut up" and "trust us" and "don't ask questions" and "let's invade now." As with a sales pitch for a great deal that won't last unless you buy today, I have to wonder what we're being sold. War can bring one hell of a case of buyer's remorse.

I really don't care if Saddam or any other foreign dictator misbehaves within his sovereign borders or possesses WMDs -- both are commonplace today. There's no legitimate beef unless he attacks another country or blatantly poises for attack, and neither situation has occurred since 1990. Until such a provocation occurs, we are prejudging Saddam's "hate thought" without evidence of any overt foreign aggression. Now that's a fine precedent...

[Hunble]

Personally, I would prefer that we Nuke the area.

Unfortunatly, your points are valid and I am forced to agree with you.

I really don't care if Saddam or any other foreign dictator misbehaves within his sovereign borders or possesses WMDs -- both are commonplace today. There's no legitimate beef unless he attacks another country or blatantly poises for attack, and neither situation has occurred since 1990.

This is a war that we must fight eventually. I would prefer that it happen now rather than later.

[Always A Marine]

Personally, I would prefer that we Nuke the area.

I know; I would, too. But I have no doubt whatsoever that Israel will end the problem if it truly gets out of hand. I cannot imagine any greater lightning rod for anti-American reprisals than the sight of U.S. troops occupying Muslim Asia. What a fine mess...

[Rokke]

Like you said earlier, you've neither fought nor served, so perhaps you find the threshhold to commit others to battle a little lower than mine.

I've both fought and served, and continue to do so, but my threshold is closer to Section9 than yours. I haven't observed a "fevered rush" to invade or occupy Iraq. To the contrary, I've witnessed years of restraint dealing with a known aggressor whose entire reign of terror has been characterized by war with not only his neighbors, but with all the nations represented by the UN. To suggest that Saddam's misbehavior has been limited to within his own borders is to ignore over 20 years of history. Within 1 year of taking power he attacked Iran. More recently he has provided cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers. Do you believe Abu Nidal was based in Iraq because he liked the scenery? Do you really think Saddam's actions in the last 20 years can be summed up as "hate thought"?
I certainly agree that there is much to be considered before commiting to open warfare with Iraq, but based on your comments here, I'm not sure you've really considered as much as you think.

[Always A Marine]

To suggest that Saddam's misbehavior has been limited to within his own borders is to ignore over 20 years of history. Within 1 year of taking power he attacked Iran.

Saddam lost a war in 1991 which was sparked by his invasion of a neighbor. Since then, his army has remained within its borders. Where is the justification to now invade a country which has not attacked us or a strategic ally in over ten years?

More recently he has provided cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers.

As have the Saudi government and its royal families (our buddies), and much of the Arab world in one form or another. Our government gives billions to brutal dictators all over the world, but does that justify their victims (or a patron) to attack America or attempt to assassinate our President? For some reason I don't think we would so clinically call that a "regime change."

Do you believe Abu Nidal was based in Iraq because he liked the scenery?

At one time or another, Abu Nidal has also found comfort in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Germany and France. Let's invade and occupy those countries, too. Or if that's too much to do at one time, maybe we can enlist Tony Soprano to effect a few more "regime changes" around the world.

Love us or die!

[section9]

The "Bushbots" aren't questioning the "patriotism" of the appeasement crowd.

Oh, so it's "the appeasement crowd" now. The straw man is of your own verbal construction. All counter assertions are "cheap debating tricks" and "straw men" to you, while your own arguments descend from the burning bush. Right. Like you said earlier, you've neither fought nor served, so perhaps you find the threshhold to commit others to battle a little lower than mine. Zinni has a point.

Appeasement is appeasement. Dress it up in fancy clothing, but history still condemns it.

You cite my lack of military experience to buttress your argument. That is where your whole argument falls apart. In short, you did just as I expected you to, which is why I told you that I had no military experience. I wanted to see if you'd go for the bait, and as I expected, you just couldn't help yourself. You imply that I lower the bar to military intervention because I have no experience in this regard. In so doing, you have to assume that I would lower the bar in all cases. I should inform you that I was opposed to the Kosovo war because I saw no direct threat to American national interests.

Your argument rests on the presumption that only those who have served in the uniformed military should have the call on when we get to go and when we do not. Your argument rests on the fallacy that only those who have worn a uniform have validity to their argument. That is the erronious assumption on which your house of cards rests and you cannot back out of it. You have made your own bed, and now you have to lie in it.

Alarm bells should accompany the fevered rush to invade and occupy Iraq and any other country we dislike. If war is truly necessary, it will come soon enough and the issue will be crystal clear, and the evidence will withstand the full scrutiny of an assembled Congress. Instead, we hear the call to "shut up" and "trust us" and "don't ask questions" and "let's invade now." As with a sales pitch for a great deal that won't last unless you buy today, I have to wonder what we're being sold. War can bring one hell of a case of buyer's remorse.

Ah, once again, the bodies of straw men litter the battlefield. Who is telling you to "shut up"? Who is telling you to "just trust us"?

The fact is, no one on the pro-war side is, and both of us know it. No one is asserting that the President need not lay out his case to the people before dispatching troops to war, except a few politically tone-deaf White House lawyers. This President knows that he will have to lay out the case for intervention.

Your argument is no less a straw man than it would be had you not served.

As to the actual merit of your argument, it has none. I assume that you have concluded that we will be immeasurably safer if Saddam develops a tactical nuclear weapon or two. Which he will if he is left to his own devices. That, apparently, does not bother you. It bothers me. Fortune favors the brave, but it does not favor the foolish. If Saddam can sneak one bomb into the United States, he can hold us hostage. Or, better yet, he can use a cutout like Al Qaeda and take some serious revenge. Those possibilities don't appear to have entered your head.

I had a conversation about this with my cousin last night. All things being equal, Saddam could stop this rush to war if he let in unrestricted observers and just got out of their way. If he decided to get out of the business of mass murder, he'd be sitting on cloud nine for the rest of his life.

But he has something to hide. He wants personal glory and sees WMD as his ticket to the history books.

I really don't care if Saddam or any other foreign dictator misbehaves within his sovereign borders or possesses WMDs -- both are commonplace today. There's no legitimate beef unless he attacks another country or blatantly poises for attack, and neither situation has occurred since 1990. Until such a provocation occurs, we are prejudging Saddam's "hate thought" without evidence of any overt foreign aggression. Now that's a fine precedent...

Okay, the same argument was made in 1936 when the Wehrmacht retook the Rheinland. The same argument was made in 1937 when Germany seized Austria by use of the Aunschcluss. They tried to make the same argument in 1938, and it worked for a time: Hitler pulled off the Sudeten Crisis without war. Eventually, we ended up in 1939, and the world went to war.

All because we didn't stop one megalomaniacal dictator when we had the chance.

You don't care, but History does. You want to ignore Saddam, but History will not let you. You want to deligitimize the arguments of others based on your military experience, but History chooses not to smile on you.

Saddam will become immeasurably more powerful should he obtain tactical nuclear weapons and have the means to deliver them. He is not a thoroughly rational man. At least the Israelis are. They have a sense of limits. Saddam does not. And Saddam wants to go down in the Arab History books as the modern Saladin who destroyed the Zionist Crusader State. With nuclear weapons, he can do that.

It is to forestall a larger catastrophe that I argue for war. This has happened before in History. Thankfully, we have a national leadership which understands the choice at hand. One path, that of "containment", is objectively the path of Appeasement, as it would only become a matter of time until Saddam won possession of nuclear weaponry. The ring around him would be broken. The other path is to go in and to smash him in one campaign, thus removing a dangerous man with dangerous means from the world stage.

Dress up the path of appeasement all you want. None of your assertions alter the fact that you have argued that we do nothing in the face of evil. Using the cheap, tawdry argument that those who have not served don't have the intellectual legitimacy to argue their point serves no one's argument, least of all your's, well.

And it neatly sidesteps the argument at hand, which was your intention, of course.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Rokke]

Saddam's army has remained within its borders because it is being kept in place by UN forces in neighboring countries. However, there is substantial evidence that Saddam is using other resources to attack us and other countries. Remember the assassination plot against George Bush Sr.? Not to mention the continuing attempts to shootdown UN aircraft patrolling the UN mandated (and Iraqi approved) Southern and Northern No-Fly Zones. We have made it a precedent to respond to terrorism and aggression against U.S. forces (at least when we've had a real leader in the White House). Remember the Libyan raid. Apparently, some tyrants learn faster than others.

[Always A Marine]

Okay, the same argument was made in 1936 when the Wehrmacht retook the Rheinland. The same argument was made in 1937 when Germany seized Austria by use of the Aunschcluss. They tried to make the same argument in 1938, and it worked for a time: Hitler pulled off the Sudeten Crisis without war. Eventually, we ended up in 1939, and the world went to war... All because we didn't stop one megalomaniacal dictator when we had the chance.

This is not the same argument at all. When Hitler siezed the Rheinland, Austria and the Sudetenland, his Wehrmacht was invading beyond its own borders. At that point, the Allies had just cause to oppose him -- and their failure to act at those points was the appeasement which encouraged Hitler to invade Poland.

For whatever reason, Saddam has not strayed beyond his own borders for eleven years. Until he attempts to do so, there is no just cause to attack him. If he does, I have every confidence that Israel will rectify the situation.

The rest of your post was too pompous and self-righteous to merit a response. It is impossible to argue with a man who is convinced he knows the future...