Why I was wrong about Iraq

Times Online ^ | January 14, 2005 | John Maples

[Prost1]

Chaos will flourish in the Middle East if President Bush’s policy continues unchanged

EVEN DONALD RUMSFELD, in his more private moments, must wonder if the invasion of Iraq was really such a good idea. It has become obvious to almost everyone else, including many such as myself who originally supported the war, that it has been a huge mistake. My support was based solely on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), on which the intelligence was exaggerated and which Washington has just admitted it is no longer looking for. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda. I believe that the real reason for the war, at least in the US, was to create a reasonably democratic, free-market Iraq to act as both a beacon and a rebuke to other countries in the region. That possibility looks more and more remote. The forthcoming elections look unlikely to produce a government with real authority and legitimacy, or to stop the violence, but they must go ahead; let us hope that they prove a step on the road to normality. Despite the bombing of the UN headquarters in August 2003, the current appalling level of violence did not begin until March 2004, a year after the invasion. It might have been more easily contained if the postwar administration had not made so many early mistakes.

[jimbergin]

your definition of "true conservative" is up to debate. I certainly feel I am a "ture consevative" and I felt and still feel that the Iraq mission was mandatory.

[Southack]

Southack On Iraq: The Great Poker Surprise

For Iraq, we have a beautiful thing going; the press thinks that we're losing, the armchair ankle-biters think that we're losing, and the terrorists think that we're losing.  All that you have to do is to ask them about the impending Iraqi elections and they all exclaim that there will be too much violence to hold them.  They're wrong.

What we're losing in Iraq are 1 to 2 Americans per day.

What we've gotten in exchange are the deaths of more than 100,000 jihadis, the vast waste of pro-jihadis funds, the cut-off of Saudi jihadist funds, Hussein in jail, Hussein's money cut off from the Palestinians, control of Pakistani nukes, the end of Egypt's, Lybia's, and Iraq's WMD programs, a strategic base from which to next strike any of Lebanon, Syria, or more likely: Iran...as well as a perfect roach motel in which jihadis come from all over to check in, but they don't check out alive.

Attacks in Iraq are down from 98 per day to 46 per day. Elections are coming up, and more than 120,000 Iraqi soldiers have now graduated from U.S. training.

We're flowing more oil out of Iraq right now than what Hussein managed to do pre-war. We've got more electricity over there, more teachers, more doctors, and better staffed local hospitals for the natives.

It's a thing of beauty.

In poker, the object is to convince your opponents to bet big when they have lousy hands. That's Iraq. The news media, the French, and the Jihadis all have lousy hands in Iraq, yet they believe their own hype and naively think that they are winning.

You couldn't script a war, an occupation, a Reconstruction, and the implementation of democracy into a previously authoritarian land any better than what has been done. Certainly not more craftily. Bush and Rumsfeld have been *brilliant* in sitting there taking the abuse from the critics; that's essential to the poker side of this fight.

The #1 Shi'ite cleric, Sistani, is the *biggest* backer of Iraqi elections. The #2 backer would be the entire Kurdish population, and the #3 backer is the Sunni President Alawhi.

That leaves the Jihadis with recruiting Iraqi Ba'athists and foreign fighters...hardly the stuff of a successful (or even threatening) rebellion.

We'll have the elections, and I predict the "Violence" during the elections to be less than the 110 adults shot dead on the average day in Rio, Brazil. Iraq will come out more like Afghanistan than Lebanon, and this will serve as a major morale-buster for the local "support" of the foreign fighter jihadis.

Likewise, the liberal news media will have to eat crow if the violence turns out to be anti-climatic.

One would have to ask the liberal reporters (and Stratfor) just *why* they were surprised by the subdued violence against the elections. They are all betting that the violence exceeds the hype...that's a bad hand to be playing.

It won't.

[LauraJean]

I have to agree with you. Hussain was the wmd. I also think that money may have been Saddam's wmd. We know he was funding the homicide bombers in Isreal. Why should he have the actual wmd in his possession when he can outsource the terrorism and fund the work of his allies. It would explain why he did not want the inspectors to find out there where no weapons in his possession. He would not have the oil for food funds. I believe if we ever find the true story behind oil for foods we will see it has been funding terrorist all through the world.

[pacpam]

The Iraqi people do not have a Constitution. The elections of othe 30th will elect a body to write a Constitution. THEN elections will be held to put people in place to govern, based on the ratified Constitution.

[FreeReign]

We could incinerate a city from 50,000 feet, but we choose to fight the battles in such a way as to give the enemy a more fair chance.

Iraq is a country of 25 million. At most, the insurgency was made up of about 5K Baathists and another 5K foreign fighters.

Your solution -- that we should incinerate their cities -- is not my solution.

[silent_jonny]

I believe if we ever find the true story behind oil for foods we will see it has been funding terrorist all through the world.

No doubt (and thanks :)

[FreeReign]

The Iraqi people do not have a Constitution. The elections of othe 30th will elect a body to write a Constitution. THEN elections will be held to put people in place to govern, based on the ratified Constitution.

The Iraqi people do have a constitution. There is an interim constitution.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"Your solution -- that we should incinerate their cities -- is not my solution."

And your solution is...?

[jimbergin]

One would have to ask the liberal reporters (and Stratfor) just *why* they were surprised by the subdued violence against the elections. They are all betting that the violence exceeds the hype...that's a bad hand to be playing.


Great post. Exactly how I feel.

[Joe Hadenuf]

What exactly is the America winning here? What are Mom and Pa, working Joe and Jane American winning?

[True Republican Patriot]

Perfectly stated, the Libs don't want to know that saddam was a WMD, and Convoys were taking the WMD's to Syria in the days before the Invasion. As well, Investors are now starting to invest in this "Liberal Failure." GOD BLESS OUR WONDERFUL PRESIDENT and his Leadership!The World is better off. The Libs want us to fail and WE WILL NOT FAIL!

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

What exactly is the America winning here? What are Mom and Pa, working Joe and Jane American winning?

Typical of the myopic thinking of the surviving remnants of pre-Reagan paleoconservatism.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Typical of the myopic thinking of the surviving remnants of pre-Reagan paleoconservatism

Quite quip, but it clearly failed to answer the question. That was predictable Neorepublican response.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Er, cute quip....

[TomB]

What exactly is the America winning here?

Stability and a modicum of control in a region that has bred islamofascist terrorists since Jimmy Carter abandoned him in the '70s.

[Red6]

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Iraqi-interim-constitution/2004/03/10/1078594411843.html?oneclick=true

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3543237.stm

http://scoop.agonist.org/archives/014123.html

They already have an INTERIM Constitution. Or am I missing something?

I know what you’re saying, you’re right. They will write their own Constitution soon.

But, the doom and gloom seers/seekers like to focus in on all the negative while neglecting the positive. They shift the bench mark or redefine success in order to make it appear as a “quagmire”. They FORCE the “Vietnam” shoe on even if it don’t fit. They intentionally use unrealistic criteria or expectations to see their “failure”. “What, why is there no power 24-7 in a 5.6 million people city in the summer 6 months after wars end? FAILURE! I SAY IT’S FAILURE!”

Red6

[chuckwalla]

Plus think a little about Iran.
Say that in a year or so Iran gets nukes and allies with Saddam.
Does anyone think we would be able to do anything against both at once?
We now have bases for operations and intel gathering right next door to a huge problem.
That alone would be worth the war.

[Red6]

When has a nation ever won a war defensively (There may be, but I don’t know of one off the top of my head)?

Do you prefer to fight a war in NY, San Francisco or in Iraq?

Could it be that everything in this region is interrelated? That Iraq is a piece, a battle in a much bigger campaign globally?

Red6

[chuckwalla]

How many UN resoloutions condemning terrorism and countries that harbor terrorists?
Any against bin Laden?
Hussein?
What about resoloutions against hacking people to death in Africa?
Any against killing innocent Israeli's?
Get the idea?

[bilhosty]

I remember sometime ago I read an article on a man who was waving a gun in a threatening manner around people. They called the police and the police came. The man then pointed the gun at the police. The police then shot the man dead(anyone have a problem with this)? When the gun was examined it was found that it was empty.

Does anyone think the shooting by the police was unjustified? Does anyone think that it was a big mistake, because the gun was not loaded? Does anyone think they should have waited to see if it was loaded? Does anyone fault the police? I think not.