Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

November 22nd, 2005

Tags

Comments

15 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Iraq Debate Explained

This is why I love Stratfor.

With President George W. Bush’s poll ratings still in the doldrums, the debate in Washington has become predictably rancorous. For their part, the Democrats continue to insist that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998 on the basis of similar intelligence. The Bush administration didn’t manufacture evidence on WMD: If evidence was manufactured, it was manufactured during Clinton’s administration—and the Democrats know this. On the other hand, the Bush administration has slammed the Democrats’ criticism of the war, with one congresswoman charging a Democratic congressman—a congressman who served for 37 years in the Marine Corps and was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts while in Vietnam—with cowardice for advocating a withdrawal. Republicans know better.

Comments to this entry

Bill Petti
November 22, 2005
2:04 am
It is still a contentious issue whether Democratic lawmakers had the same intelligence that the Bush administration had--I say this honestly because there seems to be a lot of framing on both sides to get on the right side of this and I am beginning to doubt my own recollection of events (it was three years ago afterall). What I think the major disagreement is that even if Dems had the same intelligence that intelligence may have been produced under "Ëœduress'. Even if there wasn't anything malicious going on there are serious questions about whether the intelligence estimates were conducted in an appropriate manner"”?i.e. problems with the method contributed to bad estimates. All that said, I am still pretty pissed off that so many Dems signed off. Many of us who had access to less information than lawmakers did not feel that a preventive war was strategically wise or necessary. The notion that Iraq was some kind of growing or immediate threat was and remains incorrect IMO. Now, does that mean I think the troops should come home--no (that is a whole other issue--may require a post over at the Duck methinks....). As far as Schmidt my feelings can be found here.
Hunter
November 22, 2005
3:34 am
I remember being astonished when they announced that the operation would be called "Operation Desert Fox" - no one in the DoD thought naming the operation after a German general might cause PR complications?
davesgonechina
November 22, 2005
3:45 am
The Democrats are being pure political opportunists, and either side would love to be selective about what did and didn't happen. The polls are tanking mainly because of the loss of trust due to Katrina combined with difficulties in Iraq. What intelligence the Repubs and/or Dems saw, quite frankly, is most likely something our children/grandchildren will find out.

Bushs poll numbers would pick up if the White House could find some way to increase public trust - the Democrats don't have to be part of that equation at all. One liberal argument that does have merit, though they aren't suggesting it in order to get Bushs polls up, is that the White House finds a way to apologize or show humility about Iraq. I think that part of the lack of trust is that the White House, particularly Cheney, discussed Iraq-Al Qaeda links like they were busom buddies even though the DIA didn't believe al-Libi, who was the strongest bit of evidence they had. Even if it's true (let's say the White House has evidence we won't learn anytime soon), the public needs this cognitive dissonance squared away. Facts won't win it for either side; feelings will. If Bush came out and said "We did our best. Every person on my staff is my hero. But we didn't get everything right, because we're human... therefore I'm making some staff changes", his approval would double and the Dems would have no wind in their sails.

Until all the players are dead or close to it, and Congress has declassified it all in periodic chunks over the next 40 years, we won't really know precisely who to blame for what. In the meantime, get the public to believe in their leaders.
lirelou
November 22, 2005
8:05 am
I generally give Stratfor high marks. To state that the Republicans had the same intelligence as the Democrats, however, is as simplistic as saying tht Bush lied. Whether or not Bush and his team manufactured intelligence depends upon your definition of the term intelligence. What may some day become plain is that the Bush Team did take various intelligence reporting, which in its basic state is merely information, and spun it to fit their case for war. More specifically, they appear to have taken some spurious reporting, and ignored the caveats that came along with it, to present a sexier case. A reasonable case could be made that they truly believed this reporting in their heart of hearts, and therefore chose to dismiss the caveats as merely that, but this in essence is "spinning" the reporting to fit your preconceived ideas. Bush is certainly not the first to do so. (Johnson's 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic comes to mind.) He will not be the last. But in John Q. Public's mind, spinning or "sexing" up the reporting is just another way of saying "lied". The overlooked factor here is that much of the other reporting was based upon reasonable and long standing assessments. That is what the Dems had, much of that is what the Adminstration had, and the widespread acceptance of those assessments can be found in the myriad photos of GIs running around the Iraqi desert in MOPP-3 and 4 gear when no sane human being would have otherwise worn it.
Chirol
November 22, 2005
11:30 am
The bigger question is why the White House had to rely on the "he's got a gun" argument instead of being able to use the fact that Saddam had long been in breach of international law and was a war criminal in the first place. Anyone who justifies other humanitarian interventions like Bosnia or Kosovo doesn't have a case against going to war in Iraq. The real issue is that there isn't any real international framework for dealing with the bad guys. The UN sure isn't up to the task.

Our allies just wanted a warm security blanket with "multilateral" stitched on it, as multilateral only means the US leads and they decide to follow. But, since no good framework exists, the Bush administration took a gamble on the WMD argument which turned out to be false. Now they have to explain what they avoided explaining in the first place.
IJ
November 22, 2005
12:32 pm
Chirol takes the debate on intervention a few light years forward. He ventures that the lack of an effective international framework "for dealing with the bad guys" is a key problem. NATO figures show that this alliance's members have hugely "different ideas of how much to spend":http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?gid=2005-06-28a.395.1&u=2046#c1441 on military insurance.

So much for enforcement. But who should legitimise the intervention in the first place, if not the UN Security Council?
Younghusband
November 22, 2005
1:52 pm
I think Chirol brings up a good point. I can't understand why everyone is so focused on WMD: in the run up to the war and even the examination of pre-war intel. All it talks about is WMD this and WMD that. There were a number of other reasons that were underplayed IMHO. As Chirol says, it was a gamble.
Alexander Karatis
November 22, 2005
2:09 pm
I have been a subscriber to Stratfor from the beginning and have always found their analysis to be accurate, precise, relevant, objective and logically sound. Their style is something that I also really like-Friedman's especially.

However, they tend to have this inherent urge to "predict" rather than forecast, something which forces them to gamble on many issues. The war being continued on Pakistan is one, and China's imminent collapse being another.

In these cases, as well as others, their analysis is always almost 100% spot-on. It is their synthesis and final conclusion that I sometimes disagree with. (e.g. China has such enormous momentum that it can overcome even huge inefficiencies like its credit bubble.)

Their hand is often forced by the expectation they let the public develop, that "Stratfor can always predict the future". It can often come off as arrogant, know-it-all behaviour which is a shame because they have some really bright minds working there and a rather unique business model-setup.
Bill Petti
November 22, 2005
3:35 pm
The reason WMD is such a focus is that it was the central and earliest rationale given for the war by the administration. Additionally, it is and was the only defensible strategic rationale for launching such an ambitious operation. As more and more people began to have doubts about the graveness of the threat posed we began to see more emphasis placed on things like human rights abuses, demoratization, etc. These were the icing on the cake so to speak, but the underlying rationale for the war was always "Iraq is a threat, the leader is irrational and undeterrable, he has WMDs and ties to terrorists, and given what happened on 9/11 we can't wait to be attacked." Now there certainly were good humanitarian reasons for ousting Hussein, but that does not mean the decision was made based upon those reasons. Also, I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that humanitarian interventions are rarely undertaken for purely humanitarian reasons--they rarely drive military policy and they certainly didn't in this case.
phil
November 22, 2005
4:43 pm
If you look at the joint resolution that authorized use of force against Iraq you will find WMD as one among many reasons for the authorization. Citizens who are unwilling to look beyond the nightly newscasts shouldn't complain that they were misled.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"The real issue is that there isn't any real international framework for dealing with the bad guys."

Chirol is right. So how do we build this type of international framework? There are two main components that need to be developed in detail. The first is a larger strategic vision that presents the ideals and standards we are trying to enforce, why it is important to enforce them and how enforcing them will improve conditions around the world. In the second we need to figure out what kinds of institutions are practical and effective in achieving the strategic vision, what roles and responsibilities participating nations will have, and how to contrain the power of these institutions in order to deal with possible abuse of that power.

The UN is not a viable choice since it has been coopted by the very dictatorial bad guys we are trying to deal with. The ICC is also not viable since it seems to have been created with its eye on the US rather than on Mugabe, Castro, the Janjaweed, etc. So we need something else and it doesn't just have to be one institution but can be many working on different aspects of the problem.
Chirol
November 22, 2005
5:51 pm
Bill: We actually agree here. WMD was the element which added urgency to our plans. Without that, the debate could have dragged on forever, which as the UN and Europe have shown, would go nowhere and ultimately give the bad guys time.

And to your second point, of course humanitarian intervention are almost always in the interest of those who interevene. But that's a GOOD thing assuming a real intervention is what we're talking about. Why did the Europeans help intervense in Yugoslavia? Because, among other things, they didn't want a war on their doorstep. Why is nobody helping the Sudan or Congo? We have no interests there. Not yet at least.
IJ
November 22, 2005
5:55 pm
Phil,

John Hopkins University are currently running a "series":http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking/video.cfm - 'Rethinking the Future Nature of Competition & Conflict Seminar Series'. Speakers so far have been Kaplan and Barnett.

The slides on the "pdf file":http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking/SeminarArchive/110205/BarnettBrief.pdf are an excellent summary of Barnett's presentation. Page 24 (of 58) shows he thinks the UN Security Council should grant the legitimacy necessary for intervention.
Younghusband
November 22, 2005
9:51 pm
Mr. Petti said:

bq. Now there certainly were good humanitarian reasons for ousting Hussein, but that does not mean the decision was made based upon those reasons.

I think this could apply to the WMD argument just as well. The split between rhetoric and reality goes both ways. Pre and post hoc analysis has overconcentrated on one direction IMHO.
6th grade teacher
November 23, 2005
3:25 am
Let's try to think of this in as simple terms as possible. 1+1=2. Right?

Iraq is/was a messed up country. They didn't lay a finger on us. They don't have WMD.

Taliban is/was a messed up group. They did mess with us. They probably do have WMD.

We, as Americans, mess with those who mess against us. What in the world are we doing in Iraq for over 3 years~!?

An MIT professor said that...even the most complex of equations can be broken down and explained in words...in English for people to understand in small increments.

Can you explain this to a 6th grader, without the political fluff and get down to the meat of it?

Why did we attack Iraq?

If we made a mistake, are we afraid that if we admit it, we won't be able to stand the humiliation from the entire world based on the already widespread anti-Americanism?

Is our pride both our asset and our liability?

Lastly, imagine if the roles were reversed.
How would we feel?

1+1=2.
Daniel Nexon
November 23, 2005
4:06 am
"If you look at the joint resolution that authorized use of force against Iraq you will find WMD as one among many reasons for the authorization. Citizens who are unwilling to look beyond the nightly newscasts shouldn't complain that they were misled."

I don't think that resolves the debate at all; we've know for some time that the resolution threw everything at the proverbial wall to provide political cover for the war. The counterfactual questions hinge on whether the WMD argument was decisive. I think it is pretty clear that it was.