Posted on 04/26/2006 5:48:20 AM PDT by SJackson
The great mystery of the 2003 war in Iraq - “What about the WMD?” has finally been resolved. The short answer is: Saddam Hussein’s persistent record of lying meant no one believed him when he at the last moment actually removed the weapons of mass destruction.
In a riveting book-length report issued by the Pentagon’s Joint Forces Command, Iraqi Perspectives Project, American researchers have produced the results of a systematic two-year study of the forces and motivations shaping Saddam Hussein and his regime. Well written, historically contexted, and replete with revealing details, it ranks with Kanan Makiya’s Republic of Fear as the masterly description of that regime. (For a condensed version, see the May-June issue of Foreign Affairs.)
It shows how, like Hitlerian Germany or Stalinist Russia, Saddamite Iraq was a place of unpredictably distorted reality. In particular, Saddam underwent a change in the mid-1990s, developing a delusional sense of his own military genius, indeed his infallibility. In this fantasy land, soldiers’ faith and bravura count far more than technology or matériel. Disdaining the U.S. military performance from Vietnam to Desert Storm, and from Somalia to the Balkans, the tyrant deemed Americans a cowardly and unworthy enemy.
Also about this same time, Saddam began insisting on only good news, further isolating himself from often harsh realities. As ever-fewer underlings dared contradict the boss’s perceptions, his determined self-deception wreaked havoc outward from the presidential palace to the entire Iraqi government and beyond. The lead author of Iraqi Perspectives Project, Kevin M. Woods, and his four co-authors note that, “By the mid-1990s, most of those near the regime inner circle recognized that everyone was lying to everyone else.” Deceits were reinforced and elaborated; in the words of an air defense officer, “One [officer] lied to another from the first lieutenant up, until it reached Saddam.”
That no one really knew what was going on was symbolized by the widespread credence in the wartime nonsense spouted by the Iraqi minister of information (mockingly dubbed Baghdad Bob by Western reporters) as he regaled the world with glowing accounts of Iraqi victories; “from the point of view of Iraq’s leaders, Baghdad Bob was largely reporting what they were hearing from the front.” A militia commander confessed to being “absolutely astonished” on encountering an American tank in Baghdad.
The same situation extended to the military-industrial infrastructure. First, the report states, for Saddam, “the mere issuing of a decree was sufficient to make the plan work.” Second, fearful for their lives, everyone involved provided glowing progress bulletins. In particular, “scientists always reported the next wonder weapon was right around the corner.” In such an environment, who knew the actual state of the WMD? Even for Saddam, “when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth.”
Iraq’s strategic dilemma further complicated matters. Realizing that perceptions of Iraqi weakness could invite attack, from Iran in particular, Saddam wanted the world to think he possessed WMD. But eventually he realized that to fend off the coalition, he needed to convince Western states that his regime no longer possessed those very weapons. As coalition forces geared up for war in late 2002, Saddam decided to cooperate with the United Nations to establish that his country was clean of WMD, as he put it, so as “not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war.”
This lucid moment, ironically, fell victim to his long history of deceiving the U.N.; Iraqi steps to comply with the inspections regime had the paradoxical effect of confirming Western doubts that the cooperation was a ruse. For example, intercepted orders “to remove all traces of previous WMD programs” were misinterpreted as yet another ploy, and not the genuine effort they really were.
Saddam's belated attempts at transparency backfired, leading to what the report authors call “a diplomatic and propaganda Catch-22.” Monumental confusion followed. Captured senior Iraqi officials continued for many months after the 2003 war “to believe it possible … that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability hidden away somewhere.” Coalition intelligence agencies, not surprisingly, missed the final and unexpected twist in a long-running drama. Neither those agencies nor Western politicians lied; Saddam was the evil impostor whose deceptions in the end confused and endangered everyone, including himself.
Dude, yer right that I'm new here but actually I'm registered non-partisan. I can tell you this though, I have a number of friends from Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee and Fla. Most of whom are Republicans. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM initially supported the war over two things and two things only, the potential for WMDs in Iraq and the possible involvement of Saddam in 911 and cooperation between him and Al Quada. None of them gave a damn about liberating Iraq. If you take away WMDs and the 911 connection, what are you left with? Answer: Not much. If it's about fighting terrorism "over there" rather than here, then what's wrong with sticking to Afghanistan? Wouldn't one theater of operation be better than two? (You could ask Hitler about the wisdom of the two-theater strategy, if he was still around). Forces can be concentrated in one theater. Most Afghans want us there because they hate the Taliban. But I digress. Your question, as I understood it anyway, is essentially why would Saddam interfere with the UN inspection teams so much if he had nothing to hide? Maybe I got that wrong but either way it's a legit question. If you read Duelfer's report you'll find his answer, which is that Saddam was bluffing and that was part of the bluff. He didn't have WMDs and officially he said just that, however, he wanted Israel and Iran to think he did have them to deter an attack by them. Sounds kind of wac but then this is Saddam we're talkin' 'bout. If so, it backfired on him. Unfortunately, it seems the Pres. and VP and neoconservatives all took that bait. The question now, as the bodies are still piling up (um, including GIs, dude), is if it was really worth it. The jury is still out on that, in my view.
"This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998."
Do you have the superseded indictment where they changed the wording around?
I have friends as well, and we all feel pretty good about killing terrorists over there and the fact that there has been no further attacks on our soil. And there have been attempts. Your ability to think on a higher plain is because our people are out there protecting us. I don't have a problem with that.
I feel we had to go into Iraq and get rid of Saddam no matter what. He made the region unstable. He was funding terrorism and making a mockery of the United Nations.
It wasn't just about WMD in my opinion. The war didn't start in March 2003. It started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. He signed a ceasefire agreement and refused to follow the UN Resolutions for nearly 12 years. He attacked the Kurds, moved his troops towards Kuwait and moved across Jordan border. Why were the No Fly Zones created? Saddam thought the NFZ were illegal and shot at US/UK war planes constantly.
Saddam tried to destablize Kurdish autonomy in Northern Iraq. He resented the Kurds having their own autonomy and tried his best to undermined it. Iraqi Intelligence Service gave aid and comfort to Ansar al-Islam terrorist group who were trying to set up strict Islamic society in the region and to wipe out the secular Kurdish government.
If we just stayed in Afghanistan saying the Mission is Accomplished that would give us a false sense of security. You know al Queda would retreat to Iraq. That was their next hide out or around the world. You want to keep terrorist on the run. Take the battle to them and they won't have the time or the resources to terrorize our shores. It cost them money to wage war too. Bankrupt them. Put them out of business.
Remember Al Queda declared war on the United States. They want a fight....lets give them a fight. They saw the atheist Soviet Union fall down they're waiting to see if the evil United States fall apart too. Then we will go back into the dark ages for sure.
How about President Clinton bombing Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in 1998? The Administration thought Iraqi Intelligence was working with al Queda in Sudan. Richard Clarke was dead certain that VX nerve gas was being made there.
http://www.slate.com/id/2098102/
http://www.slate.com/id/2097901/
How about Salman Pak Training Camp in Iraq. Iraq Intelligence were training terrorist there.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
How about the Duelfer's CIA Report. IIS Undeclared Research on Poisons and Toxins for Assassination
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxA.html
Many assassinations attempts were tried on Bush Sr, Clinton, the Pope, Mubarak President of Egypt...just to name a few.
Why did President Clinton launched Desert Fox in 1998 against Saddam's WMD? Why were the UN inspectors kicked out?
And the corruption of the UN Oil for Food Program. Bribing the international community to get him out of UN sanctions and manipulating the system to his favor. He was profiting from under the table deals and re-establishing his military power. Meanwhile he lived in gaudy palaces while he withheld food and medicine from his people. Many Iraqis lost their lives because Saddam killed them intentionally for propaganda value. He was using them as pawns to tell the world they were suffering from sanctions caused by US.
Do really think containing Saddam in a box would really work and kept the world safe? Or would we postponing the inevitable? He was the WMD! As soon he got out of those sanctions he would restart his WMD program and start causing trouble again. What would happen if his sons took over his Regime? They were nutter than he was.
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2003/mar/030303.watson.html
Yes there have been attempts, but the success or failure of them has nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq. That has to do with heightened awareness and vigilance of our domestic law enforcement agencies (insert tip of the hat to them here). Also the fact that there have been attempts IN SPITE OF our invasion of Iraq, actually can be seen as evidence that invading Iraq didn't do much good. Another way to look at this is that A) there are no WMDs because the sanctions were actually working and the "missing" weapons that the accountants are wondering about got too old to be useful or were destroyed because Saddam didn't want to get caught with the goods. B) If he had them in useable condition at the time of the invasion, why ship them to Syria? Wouldn't using them against American troops make more sense from Saddam's point of view (i.e. use them or lose them)Hey if he did ship them to Syria then they sure didn't do him any good, did they? The fact that they weren't used on our troops during Operation Shock and Awe is an indicator that he probably didn't have them to use. C) Some of Osama Bin Laden's statements in the past suggest that maybe one of the purposes of 911 was to draw America into a war in the middle east, bog us down in a protracted and expensive guerilla war, draining our resources and willpower over a period of years (i.e. Vietnam). If this is true then obviously that didn't pan out too well for Bin Laden because the Afghan warlords didn't play along. They didn't really like him and the Taliban too much. D) Then the Bush Admin. turns around and (maybe) snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by invading Iraq. (granted, if Saddam was running a good bluff, then this wasn't intentional on the part of the Pres., still, it might prove to be a costly mistake because it might just have given Osama exactly the kind of war that he was looking for). E)The new govt. of Iraq STILL hasn't got it together and the country is on the brink of civil war. The insurgency shows signs of growing, not diminishing. If everything falls apart we'll be left holding the bag. We can't just cut and run, right? Eventually the drain on our taxes and resources is going to have a negative affect on our economy. Not to mention the human costs of all those young men and women coming home in boxes and the rising animosity in the Arab world toward us.
So, once again, is it worth all this? Oh and Osama is still at large. Al Queda has been hurt but is definitely still operating. I hope my concerns turn out to be unfounded. I really do. Because if they are not then we're in for a long and bloody war that could to to us what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union. Don't forget, Osama cut his terrorist teeth on Soviet tanks and choppers.
Thew better question is who you will be voting for in 08. Forget about Iraq. Assume that the Republicans can't field a credible candidate, who would you vote for among the democratic field?
A better question might be, had we not invaded how many jihadists would NOT exist today. The fact is that by invading we inadvertantly justified everything these radical clerics have been saying all along. After the US and Northern Alliance kicked Islamic butt in Afghanistan, a future as a fighter for Islam wasn't looking too good. THEN after we invaded Iraq the ranks of the insurgents started growing again and around the world Al Qaeda recruiting started making a comeback. So let me correct that statement. Invading Iraq didn't do our war on terrorism much good but was a goldmine for Al Qaeda. When Operation Shock and Awe began how much do you want to bet that Osama Bin Laden breathed a sigh of relief offered up a prayer of thanks to Allah?
Well I don't know who I'd vote for, baddog. I suppose if the GOP would run McCain I'd seriously consider voting for him. If the Dems ran Kerry I'd consider voting for him (both he and McCain are, after all, men who actually fought in combat, unlike our current leader -- and don't give me the flip/flop argument about Kerry. Anyone who doesn't at least consider a change mind if new evidence points in a different direction is a fool). Hillary Clinton doesn't stand a chance of winning either way so it doesn't really matter what her politics are, enough people just don't like her that it's kind of a moot point. Same goes for Condoleeza Rice in the opposite direction. Jeb Bush is too much of a crook and he'd just be more of the same from the Bush dynasty, so no thanks to that. Dean is also too polarizing and probably wouldn't be a very effective leader because of that fact. Who else is there? Can I still write in Mickey Mouse?
And until the documents are authenticated and the data they contain validated, then this is just so much more government disinformation.
bttt
Would it be terribly rude of me to suggest that maybe Stephen Colbert should run for president. heh-heh, just kidding. P-40, you really should pick up a history book before you make such statements. The fact of the matter is that Democracy starts with ideas first. Our republic is a prime example. The guys who started this country (Franklin, Jefferson etc.) got some of their ideas from guys like Rousseau and Voltaire, just to mention a couple. They wrote pamphletts and essays about the concepts of democracy before anyone picked up a gun. The Boston massacre started as a protest, after all. It was only when then British met their arguments with a gun barrell that the colonists responded in kind. Tyranny, starts with a gun barrel, P-40, and goes nowhere from there. Once again, democracy starts with reason and intelligence, not the gun barrel. Ayn Rand actually put it best, to paraphrase, the choice is simple, you either decide things using reason or you decide things using force. It's one or the other.
but not for 10 years.........From AG to Gov to Pres...in how many years? Ol' BJ Klintoon fooled many for a long time,enuf to get elected by 23 percent of elegible voters back then.( Thanx to ol'Ross!)
If documents proved the Admin's case for war, would the DOD simply toss those docs out to the public for translation and interpretation? Or would they present their own case forcefully and with proven backup?
Many of the figures used as X and Y were estimates and/ or extrapolations. Such math will always be inexact.
You could START by reading more carefully. My tagline says that democracy STARTS with reason and intelligence. That's true, it does. Sometimes, often actually, others force one to pick up arms (i.e. Hitler). But democracy never STARTS with the use of force. That's the province of tyrants. The neocons might have considered that before they invaded a country to try and force democracy on them. Regarding voting for Kerry, I can't imagine anyone from either party screwing things up as badly as the guy that's in the White House now. I used to find comfort in the fact that this guy didn't actually win in 2000 because at least then I could say that most Americans aren't so blind that they would give a silver-spoon raised, failed businessman who was nowhere to be found when a real war was being fought (Vietnam) a residency in the oval office. Well, 2004 proved me wrong. Apparently there are enough gullible people in this country to hire this guy for another four years after he did such a lousy job the first time around. Rewarding incompetence, the NEW American way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.