Coming up to the ten-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, more information on the false premise for going to war--Saddam Hussein's WMDs, has become public. And it confirms what many of us have been saying for the past ten years: There were no WMDs.
The fake-threat of WMDs was sexed up by Bush and Blair to get the USA and the United Kingdom frightened enough to send their blood and treasure to fight their war. Ten years later and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, Iraqis, and other nationals, and trillions of dollars that plunged us into debt, what have we to show for it?
"Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles.
Prior to the attack, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could not yet verify the accuracy of Iraq's declarations regarding what weapons it possessed. After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.‑led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.
Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion. Some U.S. officials also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, but no evidence of a meaningful connection was ever found." --Wikipedia
By Tom Whitehead, and Duncan Gardham
11:42PM GMT
17 Mar 2013
"The US and UK are accused of relying on questionable information that suggested Saddam Hussein was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), despite warnings over its authenticity. At the same time, other foreign intelligence that suggested no such programme existed was dismissed, according to a BBC Panorama investigation. One Iraqi spy – codenamed "Curveball" – whose claims to have witnessed the manufacture of WMD were seized upon by the Americans told the programme the invasion had been based on his 'lie'.
Lord Butler, who, a year after the invasion, carried out a British review of the intelligence used, admitted that he was unaware that two senior members of Saddam's regime had secretly told the CIA and MI6 that WMD did not exist. The documentary will reignite questions over the legality and justification of the Iraq war. One source told the programme the conflict was borne out of "choice" rather than 'necessity'."
New evidence: CIA and MI6 were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD
"BBC’s Panorama reveals fresh evidence that agencies dismissed intelligence from Iraq foreign minister and spy chief Fresh evidence is revealed today about how MI6 and the CIA were told through secret channels by Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister and his head of intelligence that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair told parliament before the war that intelligence showed Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programme was 'active', 'growing' and 'up and running'."
More here:
CIA and MI6 knew Iraq had no WMDs BBC Panorama to claim
All lies; all hubris
The Bush Administration dragged the US and other countries into an illegal war based on lies.
Here are the costs in human life and debt we must live with for years and years to come:
190,000 lives lost, $2.2 trillion cost - Looking back at decade since start of Iraq War
"In the decade since its beginning, the Iraq War has claimed more than 190,000 lives, including 7,888 American military personnel and contractors, according to a new comprehensive study of the war.
In recognition of the 10 year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on March 19, Brown University has released The Cost of War project, an analysis of the direct and indirect human, economic and social cost of the war. Here's a by-the-numbers look at some of the major findings:
$2.2 trillion – The cost of the Iraq War, including cost related to caring for veterans.
Initial estimates were $50-60 billion. $500 billion –
The cost of caring for Iraq War veterans through 2053. 134,000 –
The number of Iraqi civilians who died of direct war violence.
That number is about 70 percent of total war deaths.
4,488 – The number of U.S. service members killed in Iraq."
$2.2 trillion – The cost of the Iraq War, including cost related to caring for veterans.
Initial estimates were $50-60 billion. $500 billion –
The cost of caring for Iraq War veterans through 2053. 134,000 –
The number of Iraqi civilians who died of direct war violence.
That number is about 70 percent of total war deaths.
4,488 – The number of U.S. service members killed in Iraq."
And last but not at all the least, the spittle-combed neocon who helped deceive Americans into supporting his war of choice, Paul Wolfowitz:
10 Years On, Paul Wolfowitz Admits U.S. Bungled in Iraq
"In an interview with The Sunday Times to mark the 10th anniversary of the Iraq invasion, he said there 'should have been Iraqi leadership from the beginning', rather than a 14-month occupation led by an American viceroy and based on 'this idea that we’re going to come in like [General Douglas] MacArthur in Japan and write the constitution for them'.
He accepted that too many Iraqis were excluded by a programme to purge members of the ruling Ba’ath party, that the dissolution of the Iraqi army was botched and that the 'biggest hole' in post-war planning was not to anticipate the possibility of an insurgency. 'The most consequential failure was to understand the tenacity of Saddam’s regime,' he said."
Hubris.
We can thank President George W. Bush for the horror that was, and still is, Iraq, the thousands of lives lost, and the pillaging of the US treasury to pay for his Miserable Failure.
49 comments:
Let's give the Bush Admin the benefit of the doubt.
Many will claim, perhaps rightly so that everyone really believed that Iraq had WMD, including the Dems.
But that belief, no matter how well founded, cannot excuse the reality that it was wrong.
So.... at the very least, the Bush Administration was horribly wrong on one of single most important decisions of our time.
The cost of this adventure will be with us for generations because of this.
And yet we are told it is the Obama Admin that is incompetent...
Hubris is indeed an apt description...
Yep, all that evidence and wacko's like Dmarks and millions of others still believe there were WMD's in Iraq.
Bush finally said there were no WMD's in Iraq. So did Cheney and the rest of Bush's Cabinet. A multi year search by our Army had the same result.
What they did to the Ambassador and his wife (yellow cake sale issue) was typical of Republican tactics.
Fear tactics and lies by Bush (mushroom clouds) was the only reason for the invasion.
It will go down as one of the biggest blunders of American History.
Some believe Bush and his cronies should be in jail. I agree, especially since they knew they were lying.
Add the financial irresponsibility and you have the financial ruin of our economy.
Great job Republicans, you topped that criminal Nixon, and I didn't think that was possible.
I was one called a traitor for coming out against the war. Saying I told you so, doesn't bring back our economy, or our thousands of dead soldiers.
Lets not forget the deaths caused by Cheney's Halliburton, with their electrocuting showers and poisoned food and water. And by the way, that company still has Army contracts under a different name.
Dave,
Perhaps everyone believed Saddam had WMDs because the intel was "arranged" in such a way as to fit the narrative.
IOW, there was deception going on at the highest levels so that the neocons and Bush could get their war on. (And I placed them in that order on purpose, since I believe the neocons were running the show.)
Plus HUBRIS.
Ex-Senator Feingold nailed it prior to the 'preemptive invasion':
"In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given."
I also expressed concerns as an ex Army Chemical officer about the
flimsy evidence to my (GOP) Senator and was given the same
phoney excuses.
Is it possible for some progressives to stop living the past mistakes and focus on current issues. I realize how important it is to blame GWB for everything possible but he's been out of office over five years. Is it yet time to begin to hold the "New" president responsible for the things he is responsible for? Just wondering...
Marking 10 years is the best time to reevaluate our mistakes, so not to repeat them.
RN was one that called me a traitor.
Just the facts, face them.
Again BB... let's for a moment accept the premise that, like everyone else on the planet, the US, was just wrong on WMD's...
And we were wrong on whether or not to disband the Baath Party...
And we were wrong on whether or not to send more troops as urged by Gen Shinsheki...
And we were wrong to not have a plan for the insurgency as Wolfiwitz admitted yesterday...
And we were wrong to assume we would be greeted as liberators...
And we were wrong to send out troops without sufficient body armor...
And we were wrong... well you get the point.
At every significant decision point up to and including the Iraq War, at best, the Bush Admin was not negligent, rather, they were wrong.
Now some will mistakenly call this placing blame on President Bush. For you malcontents out there who cannot understand English, I am not placing blame at all.
I am simply stating facts and giving our prior Administration the benefit of the doubt as to whether they purposely led our country into this debacle, or whether they were just plain wrong.
Far too many lives, families and communities were destroyed by this folly.
But hey, let's talk about President Obama birth certificate or his desire to turn our great nation into a Socialist state.
Yeah, that's the ticket...
RN: "Is it possible for some progressives to stop living the past mistakes and focus on current issues."
Right.
How silly of me to want to review the process, on this 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, behind sending thousands of Americans, Iraqis [and others] to their deaths, plunging the country into debt because the Bush administration paid for the war with the American credit card. But according to you, what's the point of talking about all that, since it happened in the past. Let's forget about it and focus on the Democratic president.
RN: "I realize how important it is to blame GWB for everything possible but he's been out of office over five years."
Yes, of course, RN. Five years is plenty of time to forget the catastrophe he created. Let's just agree to say none of this happened or mattered in the interest of nonpartisanship, which you are so dedicated to, especially when the conservatives bring disaster to this country.
RN: "Is it yet time to begin to hold the "New" president responsible for the things he is responsible for? Just wondering..."
This blog post is about the Iraq War.
The "New" president is not responsible for it. He was against it.
Your attempt to change the subject and bring in Mr. Obama shows that you are disturbed by my criticism of the Bush administration.
Further, you've been the first to point out that I am blinded by my partisan views.
Take a good look, RN, at your outrageously callous comment on this subject.
RN,
I can well understand your mortification in having the misdeeds of the Bush/Cheney administration constantly thrown in your face.
However, that is not my objective. There is an old cliche about those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
I should think you - having seen your party hijacked by lunatic ideologues far, far to the right of yourself - would want to have an open and honest discussion about what went wrong.
Please understand: We cannot have a democracy without at least a two party system, and the stakes are simply this: Not just Republicans but Democrats too gain when there are two parties offering viable alternatives to voters. Democracy connotes choice, and right now there is little choice in the political marketplace.
You stand as much to gain from this discussion as we do. There is no need to get defensive about it.
At the time of the Iraq invasion, I strongly supported it.
I've acknowledged that I was mistaken (am drafting a blog post partly about that subject for later this week, as it happens).
How many conservatives can simply and plainly acknowledge that, yes, however justified it seemed at the time, they were wrong? Acknowledge it without dodging and weaving and trying to change the subject?
Sorry aNon, traitor is a figment of your rabid imagination. Not surprising.
Octo, I am not mortified over Bush/Cheney being thrown in my face. The past is the past, time to move on. For everyone IMNHO. Seems to me to be the adult thing to do.
I'll continue to favor a representative democracy, republic such as we have over a democracy hands down and for what seems for obvious reaons to me.
I'm not defensive really, just stating what I consider reasonable thoughts. I am open minded, but I am not going to agree with things I don't agree with. You are correct, I am not nearly as far right as many who call themselves conservative. Been hammered by some of them as well. To which I say, Oh well.
Anyone who had visited my site certainly must see I've done my share of critizing rEPublicsns. But to some that is overlooked for the purpose of, nevermind, it's not all that important.
Well I simply must sign off, I have am exam on PT 102 tomorrow and I have more preparation to do. And that is more important, fulfilling, and rewarding that this bullshit anyway.
Take care...
Well Dave, it's worth pointing out that intelligence failures very, very rarely credit an enemy with capabilities they do not have.
More likely they miss capabilities like the Pakistani nukes.
It's accepted that Colin Powell knew he was blowing smoke when he testified to the U.N. about Saddam's mobile labs of death.
The aluminum tubes that Auntie Condo warned were a portent of the mushroom cloud could not have enriched enough uranium without an uninterrupted power supply more than Iraq's capability.
Then there was "Jailhouse" Judy Miller and the NYT pimping for Chalabi ... it was all a disgrace.
Maybe years from now we'll understand what this collection of poltroons hoped to accomplish.
Why?
Further, I've consistently said I supported the Afghanistan war following 911. While I initially supported Iraq I ultimately realized it was a mistake, it cost dearly in loss of life, it ultimately destabilized the region, and it started our national debt on the road to out of control. ANYONE who has taken the time and read my position on these issues should know I support military action, armed conflict, in response to an act of aggression against our nation and our people. Basically the same position Ayn Rand jeld
held. In retrospect, and hindsight is always 20/20, Iraq did not rise to the aforementioned criteria that would have justified our action.
RN, after reading your comments about how you evolved in your thinking about the Iraq War, I'm puzzled by your criticism of my wanting to use this subject as a blog post on the 10th anniversary of the start of that disastrous war.
You stated to OCTOPUS that it was the "adult thing to do" to move on and not talk about it.
I, OTOH, believe it is exactly what we adults need to do: Talk about how this country was dragged into war so that we are not so eager to repeat that horrible mistake in the future.
Pretending the past did not happen does not make it go away.
this is what...libertarians and conservatives don't want...to face:
The debt from Iraq War:
At the start of the war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost around $50-60 billion in total. They were wrong by more than a factor of ten, sending the U.S.’ debt soaring, a condition that has yet to be rectified. According to a recent study, the war is set to have cost the U.S $2.2 trillion, though that number may reach up to $4 trillion thanks to interest payments on the loans taken out to finance the conflict. Of that staggering amount, at least $10 billion of it was completely wasted in rebuilding efforts.
would it...really be more adult...to ignore this...and pretend it...didn't happen?
The Iraq War has often been compared to the Vietnam War in terms of arrogant self-delusion, waste, and carnage. A generation ago, there were voices that said: "Never again."
Yet, we did it again and need to ask ourselves: "Why!"
That is why I repeat what I said earlier: "There is an old cliche about those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. "
How close are we to repeating the same mistake for the third time? Think Syria and Iran.
Ooops!
"Bush himself asked me to try to pin the blame for 9-11 on Iraq."
-- Richard Clarke
RN's response is just like today's Republicans. "In hindsight" meaning he didn't have the brains to see it at the time. Sure he would like to forget about it. Who wouldn't want to forget a mistake that cost us the economy and soldiers lives. He's embarrassed to be show so incompetent. Back in the day RN wrote posts praising the action, praising Palin, and praising the commie counting representative. Yes, read his blog. Oh yes, he was one of those calling traitor. The point is (we seemed to have not learned) is these idiots are to be not listened to. Like today's Republicans he is trying to remake himself, to not look so bad. Accept that if you will, and neglect the lessons of the facts of the (his) past alliances. RN's comment here exposes his true beliefs. RN does expose his true beliefs once in a while, like his comments about Jews.
That is precisely what I am NOT doing Shaw. I recognize you have your methods and I have mine. I also perceive you choose not to underdand what or how I write my positions, that's okay as well.
You attempt to convince people why the mistakes of the past were mistakes based on objective reasoning and discuss how best to avoid a repeat.
Seems we have yet to learn, given the history of failing to learn from history so many times.
Keep at it your way and I'll keep at my way.
Cheerio...
ITYS,
There were many leading Democratic politicians who supported the war, and with great conviction: John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, just to name a few.
They apparently believed the intel that was passed along to Congress.
That doesn't excuse them, of course, but we have to remember it wasn't only the Republicans who supported the war.
I never did. I remember joining protests and being called a "traitor" for it.
I don't feel smug about it, I feel vindicated for sticking to my values.
It is very easy to got to war and very, very difficult to extract yourself from it.
When will this country learn that lesson?
Sure, and those Democrats are most to blame. No resistance to the always war mongering Republicans. The only resistance left at the time, no excuses. BB's Feingold quote, at least he had convictions and even left the Congress.
Who would have resisted invading Iran if McCain won? Give Bush the right to attack and then accept he would not, how dumb can you get. I have no doubt Bush told them he would not attack.
Iraq was no threat to us. FEAR made those decisions, not contemplative thought. I'm sure Clinton voting for the war was one reason Obama stepped in and won.
As far as RN goes, read his blog. Read how he supports the enemies of Democracy, posing them as the true path to freedom, what garbage. A commie counting Rep., a bimbo from Alaska, a tea Party favorite (Rand) now the poster boy of CPAC.Then he has the gall to claim he's neutral and rejects both parties, even though he has supported Republicans since Reagan. We (I) need to expose these liars for what they are, enemies of America whose decisions have hurt America.
ITYS,
I hope that last sentence about "liars" refers to the pols you were talking about.
I give you the benefit of the doubt.
I will stick to my rule about not calling other commenters names on this blog.
Other blogs tolerate that. I do not.
I'm not sure those Republican/Libertarians are "enemies" of the US, but I'm fairly sure they do not live in the 21st century.
Remember when the Bush administration and other GOP pols called people who disagreed with them "traitors?"
I do agree, however, that the extremists in the GOP are the greatest threat to this country's social and financial well-being.
I call them enemies because of the results of their decisions in power. No enemy could have done to America what Republicans have done. The terrorists have won. Bin Laden's objective was to destroy our economy, done. Attack us, done. We took away our own liberties because of fear.
What do you call someone who says one thing, then says the opposite? You have read his blog. His insistence of being neutral is ???
Have to call these people out and brand them for what they are. I won't mince words with those who cannot live by convictions and instead pretend to be something they are not, while hurting America. Your posts seem to suggest you agree, so why put up with the likes of RN?
Many conservatives do now admit that the Iraq war was a mistake, including me, and I served there.
We also admit Afghanistan nation building was a mistake. (a democrat idea. Remember the liberal calls to "bomb them with food and aid packages?" Remember the liberals referring to Afghanistan as the good war?") And I served in Afghanistan, too.
Good on Dave Miller for at least being honest about where everybody (including democrats) stood back in 2004.
The big question is, what have we learned?
Do we still knee-jerk believe whatever the president tell us, so long as he's "our guy?"
So just how different is Obama from Bush?
His Libya misadventure has produces some pretty powerful blowback, with jihadis heading south with arms we provided, and with Kadaffy's arms we failed to secure.
Why are we still in Afghanistan?
Do any of you hand-wringing liberals care that we are in Yemen? or Africa? or bombing the crap out of brown people in Pakistan?
Do you care that we are wasting lives and money in Afghanistan?
We can continue to bash Bush, like the favorite piñata he is, or we can draw some lessons and send the current president a message that we don't like him going down the same warpath Bush went down.
Beware those beating war drums who have never been to war.
So c'mon my liberal friends, stop talking about it and take action!
Here's a reasoned, non-hysterical recap
So, getting back to something that matters, like the present...
Where do all you doves stand on Syria?
ITYS,
I welcome differing points of view and opinions on this blog so long as no one calls people names, or comes here as a troll to disrupt and change the subject.
I "put up" with RN because he respects my conditions of participation.
We don't agree on many things, but that's no reason for me to not have him participate here.
ITYS, You are part of the problem every bit as much as those you blame, including the democratic pols you criticize. Judgements are made every day based on current data at the time. If the decision was based on faulty data it does not make the person at fault. Failing to recognize the error after new data pointing to the error of the oringinal simply indicates the persons inability to think critically, or their inability to accept their initial error based on faulty data.
The inability to recognize that intelligent individuals of all political persuasions occasionally make errors in judgment and thus ill advised decisions does NOT make them enemies. It makes them human.
Only those who wallow in a sense of their own superiority fail to understand this.
Shaw, for what it is worth I know you understand.
"Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear."
Sounds like Obamacare
The biggest intel mistake was not if there are WMD's but we invaded a country when we didn't understand their culture. The invasion was fairly easy, understanding their culture has proven to be our downfall.
I didn't support the invasion not because I didn't think there were WMD's but because I don't believe the US should try to govern the world. And unlike Kerry, I was never for it.
On Syria? It's a regional issue. Let the Syrians and the region handle THEIR problem.
Simply put, it is not our problem and US involvement will not end well for anyone.
RN and Skud... of course that puts you out of the mainstream of thought for our second major party in the US.
skudrunner: "The biggest intel mistake was not if there are WMD's but we invaded a country when we didn't understand their culture. The invasion was fairly easy, understanding their culture has proven to be our downfall."
No. Intel doesn't advise presidents on the feasibility on invading countries based on their culture, intel tells the president what the imminent threat to the security of the United States is and how invading and attacking said country will save the US from imminent attack.
The intel was wrong on this very basic rule for attacking a sovereign nation.
Even if we did understand its culture, the facts are that Rumsfeld did not plan properly for the invasion--there weren't enough troops to secure the country, nor did the Bush administration have a clue about how long the war would last or what it would cost in blood and treasure.
skudrunner: "I didn't support the invasion not because I didn't think there were WMD's but because I don't believe the US should try to govern the world. And unlike Kerry, I was never for it."
Nor was I. But a majority of the neocons and conservatives were. And George W. Bush will bear the responsibility for its failure through the rest of his life and into history.
Dave, I do not subscribe to "major parties." Second or otherwise.
..and the epitaph of a dying
vet.
RN,
Did you have to wait until it was proven there were not 81 Communists in the Democratic party (as said by the Rep. you wrote a glowing post about) or didn't that statement by itself (with the McCarthy history) sound false to you?
If you were working for me, blaming faulty data on a huge mistake by you, would not save your job.
1) No
2) An individual can be wrong on one issue AMD correct others.
3) I don't work for you.
4) Nor does your obsession obsession(s) concern me.
5) Have a fabulous evening.
I Told You So?: I have no doubt Bush told them he would not attack.
That is exactly what he did. bush said the resolution needed to be passed so the UN would be convinced we were serious. They had to act or we would. But bush lied and went to war immediately. And bush knew Iraq had no WMD because Han Blix told him they didn't. "Faulty data" wasn't the reason bush invaded.
Silverfiddle: Remember the liberal calls to "bomb them with food and aid packages?
Yes, that is what we should have done, INSTEAD of going to war with them. Ever seen the movie "Charlie Wilson's War"? We armed the Afgans and helped them drive out the Soviets... then we abandoned them, which allowed the Taliban to take over. Republicans are very willing to pay for war but not aid which could prevent war (which is considerably less expensive).
"RN and Skud... of course that puts you out of the mainstream of thought for our second major party in the US."
David, I am not part of the second major party, I am now a minority.
Ms Shaw, your statement "intel tells the president what the imminent threat to the security of the United States" is not a complete understanding of what intel consists of.
I for one harbor some sense that we need to move on. i am not going to just dismiss the mishandling of this war, even admitted to by Mr. Wolfiwitz over the weekend.
But it will serve no point, after the marking of the anniversary to carry on.
It does pain liberals however to see people still claiming that in fact there were WMD's, when even Bush has admitted there were not. in some strange world, those bloggers know more than the President they seemingly exalt.
Skud and RN, you guys both skew right as i skew left. But I bet if we were all in a room, we could find a lot of common ground.
The problem is that, IMHO, there is a vested interest in the status quo of political animosity.
Why would either party work towards a solution if it meant a diminishment of power and the ability to raise $$$, the Holy Grail of politics?
Sadly, this is where we are at.
Whose fault is it? Currently, as in today, I lay that blame at the feet of the GOP. But, and this is a big one, in the past, the Dems have been just as defiant and lame.
Maybe we need convention of sane people looking for solutions rather than ways to score political points and advance their brands... CPAC is a good example of this brand type of event we should avoid.
The final, crowning disservice of our blighted Iraq aggression was leaving behind a society so violently divided, so full of blood-feud grudges, that anything resembling a well-functioning democracy is nothing but a macabre joke in bad taste.
In hindsight, rather than wasting more money on doomed-from-the-start infrastructure projects, the U.S. should have worked with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to draw up plan for voluntary segregation into territories within Iraq. The resulting plan should've been presented to the Iraqi people and a national debate/conversation period started. After six or nine months to consider the plan and to give others a chance to come up with alternative plans and discuss those, a plebiscite, or series of them, should've been held. If Iraqis at the end opted for dis-integration into territories where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would govern themselves, in an Iraqi confederation with a weak central government, the U.S. should've provided aid to help with all the moving and resettling.
Sure, as a nation Iraq would be comparatively weak that way. But it would be far less weak and wracked by crippling dissension, suspicion and outright violence than it is today.
We now know what some of us thought at the time. The story
belongs to the ages
and will be a minor chaptor in
future history books.
Here is the lesson that should be permanently engraved on the White House wall and on the Capitol:
"The major lesson of the Iraq war is this: The United States cannot foresee the consequences of our actions with sufficient accuracy to be attempting to micromanage the geopolitics of the Middle East."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/20/the_real_iraq_war_lesson_117541.html#ixzz2OCVGbRLg
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
I pray to God our "leaders" can learn it.
Well none in my life time have. Why should we expect anything different in the future?
We are an empire, afterall.
Empire is not at all what we are. We are however global meddlers of the highest order. I'm.still trying to understand what it is about our founder's view that the nation should stay clear of foreign entanglements that succeeding generations didn't understand.
The only justification for the use of forceis in response to an act of agreesion. Ayn Rand
Iraq was not justified. Afghanistan was.
RN, why do we have military bases in Japan, Germany, Italy?
We do not control their politics nor their govetnment. We are there as a carry over from WW II and the host countries are not asking us to leave. Likely because the host nations see it in their interests at this point in time for us to remain.
Whether or not we should be their from the viewpoint of our best interests is certainly open to debate. My personal view parallels those of Ron Paul, and those of many of our founders.Maintaining Embassy should be sufficient and it would save a few bucks.
If it was not for France helping the American colonists, there would be no United States. If it was not for the United States helping France (in WW II) there would be no France.
It's to simplistic to say no foreign entanglements. An old oriental saying, "Save a life and you are responsible for that life."
America came late to WW I and WW II. We were not seeking to be a nation of empire, but a nation that protects freedom for others, in order to protect or own freedoms.
The empire of Great Briton was seeking to enlarge its own territories by claiming the land it occupied. America's goal of foreign involvement has never been, to be rulers of the people of the lands we invaded, but to free those people of their oppressors. What other military power in history that defeated its enemies, then paid to rebuild the destruction it caused to its enemies land, and then leave allowing those defeated nations to rule over themselves? Mistakes, sure, but those come from the mistaken idea that we can force freedom and democracy on others instead of simply freeing people from oppression and letting them rule over themselves.
@ Shaw: "RN, why do we have military bases in Japan, Germany, Italy?"
That is a good question Americans should be asking.
This is where Ron Paul lost me. I am against more invasions, but I am for us cooperating with nations of free people and forming alliances with them.
Japan pays the freight on our bases over there, the Europeans do not.
I think it is past time we abandon Europe. There is no strategic interest there, other than securing some landing rights for our aircraft.
It is also past time for us to be gone from Afghanistan and leave Ali Baba Karzai and his 40,000 Taliban thieves to their own devices.
We should only be assisting African countries if it is with their blood and their treasure, as we have been doing in the Philippines for the past decade.
So, I see a place for military cooperation, but it should be limited and only when in our national interests.
On that same note, I am not against drones, per se. I just want to be damned sure the programs are legal and subject to full congressional oversight, including targeting.
Post a Comment