Webb: Don't Attack Iraq

Monterey County Herald ^ | Nov. 8, 2002 | Alex Friedrich

[The Irishman]

Posted on Fri, Nov. 08, 2002

WEBB: DON'T ATTACK IRAQ Former Marine urges restraint By ALEX FRIEDRICH afriedrich@montereyherald.com

A former Cabinet member under former President Ronald Reagan told military officers Thursday in Monterey that the United States should not invade Iraq.

Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb said the country should focus instead on eliminating international terrorism. Speaking at the Naval Postgraduate School, Webb said that without a clear understanding of consequences - or a clear exit strategy - U.S. forces face a decades-long occupation that could sap American resolve and resources. .

Rest of the article is at:

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mcherald/news/local/4473702.htm

[Dr. Frank fan]

Whatever you may feel about the need to attack Iraq, is a matter of opinion and will be proven one way or the other by events, but you prove that you know very little of James Webb by the tenor of your your post.

What exactly does How Much Dr. Frank Knows About James Webb have to do with whether we should attack Iraq? Help me out: If I know lotsa stuff about James Webb then, war's on, but if I don't know anything about him, then give peace a chance? Is that it? Or is it the other way around?

Also, why do I have to Know Lotsa Stuff About James Webb to see that his arguments are a composite of tired old cliches ("Arab street"), weird obsessions ("until we give Arafat his own dictatorship, we can't do anything else"), idle speculation ("China will do something!"), and ignorance ("I haven't seen enough evidence.")?

Please.

Look, if you have some rebuttal to my rebuttal to James Webb's statements, then by all means, let's hear it. Resorting to fallacies isn't helping. Did you really think that a good anti-war argument is to point to James Webb and insist that his biography requires that we obey him in all things?

Simply stated, he would not speak out if he did not feel that there was great danger to his country in present policy.

I don't doubt this. But who cares? Of course he is speaking out because he feels what he is feeling. His opinions that he is airing are based on the fact that he holds those opinions. Uh, yeah? And?

My quibble is not with his sincerity, and I never questioned that he Actually Holds The Opinions He Stated. My quibble is with the idea that because James Webb hasn't been shown "evidence", then Saddam is no threat at all. Does James Webb receive the highest classified intelligence briefings, d'ya think?

Again, let me make it clear: I do not doubt that James Webb has a respectable biography. Nor do I doubt that he sincerely has fears over the prospect of this war. What I do doubt is that he is. at this time, in any sort of position of responsibility or authority which would cause him to know what the heck he's talking about.

It is insulting to imply that he would do so on the basis of what he sees on TV. That is a cheap shot.

Then enlighten me: How does James Webb know that there's insufficient "evidence" of Saddam's weapons programs? Are you under the impression that he receives briefings on the most classified and up-to-date intelligence we have? Let me know.

[ThePythonicCow]

I doubt very much that Mr. Webb speaks his mind out of fear but rather out of wisdom and experience.

Personal courage is not the same as policy courage. One can be a bold leader of nations, and timid personally. And vice versa, as perhaps Mr Webb demonstrates.

[wharfrat]

Given what we do know about Saddam Hussein and if we were not to start a war with him; we would still not address the terrorist aspect of him and his friendlies scattered about that he would be more than willing to supply the necessary materials to attact us and our allies. We would then be obligated with having to completely Blockade the entire country which is impossible to do trying to contain him for an undeterminable period of time into the future! This reduces us to the classic syndrome of addressing the symptoms and not the Problem. So his premise of no war with Iraq is null and void and dead on arrival as far as solving our problem with the rogue state of Iraq! You cannot have it both ways & Pacifism solves nothing it just prolongs the misery & leaves you with nothing accomplished. This war on terrorism which Saddam is involved in up to his eyeballs will not be a flash in the pan or a quick in and out process.

Lets get serious here and now. If we are prepared and ready to stick it to him and have the resolve to stay at this we can truly benefit the world, us included. The spoils of war can and should be used to pay off the rising debts of prosecuting it. It takes nerves of steel and a willingness to follow through but the rewards are majestic and worth all the effort! To the Victors go the Spoils Of War!

[The Great Satan]

The so-called "War on Terrorism" is merely a polite smokescreen for the real war with Saddam, a war which has been ongoing for more than ten years. The anthrax letters prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam was the architect of 9/11. I know that's not pleasant to deal with -- everybody would much rather pretend that some religious lunatic living in a cave dreamed this thing up -- that it was almost a random, natural catastrophe, not the brilliantly calculated vengeance of a supposedly vanquished foe. If it makes you happy to believe that, be my guest. George W. Bush doesn't believe it, and that's all that counts.

[The Irishman]

Informntion without wisdom and experience gets you nowhere, and vice-versa.

From what I have heard, Cheney et al. wanted war with Iraq before Sep. 11 and before they had the "information" you believe thay have. No one has "information" about what an occupation of Iraq will be like. We only have opinion based on experience and wisdom.

Regards.

[Senator Pardek]

If we were going to occupy Iraq then it would have been needed.

That's not what he said. Here's another quote from him (notice how he makes no mention of "occupation"):

"When you attack a million-man army," Webb testified before Congress Nov. 29 (1990), "you can't count on a two-day bombing mission and home by February."

Well - he was close - it took four days - Lol...

[Lizard_King]

Aside from the fact that I agree with your analysis of his points, for the most part, I will have to reflect over it carefully. Webb is one big reason for the evolution of the Marine Corps from the post-Vietnam disaster it was to the modern force it is today. I would be very unsurprised to learn that he has the ear of many a high ranking person within the military establishment. Will write more later when I don't have a pressing appointment elsewehere, but Webb is no paleo-conservative or liberal foreign policy ostrich. He is well aware of the capabilities of our military, and says everything with a purpose.

[rdb3]

From what I have heard...

That and a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee.

...Cheney et al. wanted war with Iraq before Sep. 11 and before they had the "information" you believe thay have.

Do you realize how silly this sounds? This all from what you've heard.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[The Irishman]

Well - he was close - it took four days - Lol...

Hey, aren't you forgetting the hundreds of thousands of troops and equipment on the ground and the months of bombing from the air. You are good at sophistry but weak on the facts.

BTW, why not indicate from where you are posting Webb's comments and post the entire article for us to get a better flavor of the man's point of view.

[rdb3]

So his premise of no war with Iraq is null and void and dead on arrival as far as solving our problem with the rogue state of Iraq! You cannot have it both ways & Pacifism solves nothing it just prolongs the misery & leaves you with nothing accomplished. This war on terrorism which Saddam is involved in up to his eyeballs will not be a flash in the pan or a quick in and out process.

You're preaching to the choir here. Pacifists are as dangerous as Fifth Columnists in my book.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[The Irishman]

Cheney et al. wanted war with Iraq before Sep. 11 and before they had the "information" you believe thay have.

This has been widely reported. Do you doubt it?

Regards.

[The Irishman]

Must go. Thanks for the argument.

Regards.

[Senator Pardek]

Hey, aren't you forgetting the hundreds of thousands of troops and equipment on the ground and the months of bombing from the air.

Are you prepared to tell me another campaign would not be won just as easily?

Face the facts - I'm not "pro-war" concerning Iraq by any stretch of the imagination (I'm currently in the "anti" column), but Webb made an ass out of himself with his prognostications in 1990.

The only thing worse than a politician deciding whether or not we go to war is a military man making that decision.

[rdb3]

And just what does that have to do with anything? If there were a war effort against Iraq prior to Sept. 11, it still would have been justified. Why? Because Hussein violated the terms of the compact he signed at the end of Desert Storm.

So even if this was reported, so? What's your point? It's justified.

But this one point is rarely if ever mentioned by the anti-war Right (which is quite an oxymoron). Either way, the anti-war crowd has it wrong on this subject. It never ceases to amaze he how ideologues see only the things that they want to see. Nothing else. If it doesn't fit their ideology, it may as well not exist.

Hussein is wrong and has been wrong and in violation for quite some time. It's past time for him to go. North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt and/or Cuba are not germane to this discussion. There was no agreement signed at the end of a war with these countries. But there was one with Iraq.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Again, I do not question Webb's credentials. Nor do I (when I point out that he probably doesn't get the latest highly-classified intelligence briefings) mean to imply that he's completely out of the loop, has no friends, etc.; indeed my understanding is that retired military and the like do get updated on things.

I'm just saying that these things do not necessarily lead to the decisive conclusion that James Webb knows what he's talking about on this matter. (He's not in the government anymore!) Further, the original poster tries to sneakily use James Webb's fine biography to say that he must be right, regardless of the actual merits of his anti-war argument (which is pretty thin, at least as it's presented here). I mean, sure, he is who he is, but when he says (frankly) dumb-a** things (IMHO) like, "we can't do such-and-such till we hand Arafat a dictatorship", then to point at his credentials and say "He's James Webb!" isn't exactly the most convincing defense. He is who he is, but he also says what he says, and what he's said here is pretty lame.

There's also a certain amount of selective data-sifting going on here which bothers me, and which I've noticed before. There are N retired military folk. Some number of them are going to be anti-war, just based on the law of averages alone. And any one who is, is going to have articles written about him. By contrast, you're not going to see articles like "Retired military man Johnson figures attacking Iraq probably right thing; says 'Bush and Rummy know best'". It's a slick bias because it's hard to explain. But it's there. If one in ten ex-generals is against attacking Iraq, then that one is going to be made famous, and everyone's going to point to his opinion and say "he's ex-military, he should be respected". What about the other nine? Well, they could have articles written about them and be quoted on college campuses too: all they have to do is come out against the war. But if they don't, we'll never hear about them at all. Even if they have even more respectable credentials than does James Webb.

[Yasotay]

The real person to ask if we should attack Iraq is Wayne A Downing .... he had clear and current intelligence on the present situation and he then resigned this summer. If he says go ....

[Momaw Nadon]

Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

[dennisw]

"I don't think we have clean hands" in the Palestinian issue, he said, and have failed "to effect a Palestinian state. Without that happening, anything we do in that region can be misconstrued to our detriment."

The Palestinians have proven the kind of "Palestinian State" they have in mind is a state that continues to make war and Jihad against the Jews. At this point in history a "Palestinian State" does not equate to peace in the region.

[Bombard]

People like you were saying very much the same thing about Afghanistan about this time last year. We have done quite well so far. Iraq is a different matter all together. Allowing Saddam to continue on his merry way will only make the butcher bill higher at some future date. As to Webb, I agree that he has served his country well in the past but on Iraq he is off by a mile. I am just as well informed as he and I believe just the opposite. We are carrying on the war against the terror network (The drone in Yemen is only a small example of the ops that are now taking place.)and we are also gearing up for Iraq at the same time. Mr. Webb was a hero but it takes a leader like George W. Bush to protect this country in todays world. The dice has be thrown and events are leading us to one thing, Saddam will disarm to our satifaction or he will be added to the dust bin of history like so many other tyrants have been. To suggest anything else puts the USA and its people in grave danger.
ON TO BAGHDAD!!!!!!

[the_doc]

Exit strategy? It should be easier in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

And frankly, I doubt that exit strategy issues are what really worries the folks on the Hill.

In case you haven't thought about it a whole lot, the real problem is the potential for FIERCE terrorism attacks on U.S. soil and even potentially massive WMD attacks against our troops in Iraq. (The latter scenario is what seems to worry David Hackworth the most.)

But we still need to do it. Our position of vulnerability will only get worse. So, damn the exit strategy and full speed head. Damn even the postential resistance/reprisals and full speed ahead.

Hey, it's simple risk management stuff, not rocket science. This is a matter of long-term national security, not a matter of arguing about exit strategies and the like. If they somehow manage to nuke us over here as soon as we hit Baghdad, the Iraqis thereby prove that we were right to attack them. And if they can't nuke us, that also confirms that we did the right thing to act now.

Saddam is a MANIAC.