In defense of Bush's foreign policy

Remove all ads!

I am the man of La Mancha...

That's right, friends - I'm erecting the biggest, highest, fattest windmill in all the Alley. Tilt at will. As the President says - bring it on!


FOREIGN POLICY


War on Terror

9/11 destroyed the unspoken consensus of the post-WW2 world regarding terrorism: If terrorists keep their mayhem within certain limits, states will refrain from all-out retaliation. It was a kind of mutual deterrence, like the MAD theory that governed nuclear use. 9/11 killed 3,000 (out of a possible 50,000), indicating that al-Qa'eda had broken the consensus and was no longer avoiding high body counts.

This left the US with three options. One, we could raise the "certain limits" threshold, and say that 3,000 isn't enough for all-out retaliation but, say, 100,000 is. This would have warned terrorists against using WMD without necessitating (at this time) a War on Terror. Two, we could admit that we were bluffing the whole time about the unspoken consensus, grant that the Middle East isn't worth the cost, and concede Greater Arabia to al-Qa'eda. This surrender would have kept the US safe from further attack. Three, we could follow the unspoken consensus and engage in all-out retaliation, incurring enormous financial, diplomatic, and military costs to preserve our credibility.

Under Bush, the US chose the third option, and is paying the price. I think Gore (judging from his speeches) would have chosen a variation on the first option - talking tough, pumping diplomatic connections, putting sanctions on Afghanistan, increasing the intelligence focus, and raking in a few major al-Qa'eda types through traditional law-enforcement means - combined with a bit of the second, maybe by backing away from support for Israel and Saudi Arabia and pulling down some of the Iraqi sanctions and no-fly zone.

I believe the third option was the correct choice. But it has an added complication. If the US says that 3,000 deaths is enough to trigger massive retaliation, and al-Qa'eda has a demonstrable desire to raise the body count, then there's no more deterrent against using WMD. To repeat: Engaging in all-out retaliation for 9/11 removes the deterrent against terrorists using WMD. So the third option necessarily entails cracking down on likely sources of WMD to terrorists. The obvious sources are Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Hence the heavy push on Iraq to dismantle its self-proclaimed (and previously-used) WMD architecture. It turned out that, contrary to everything we - and the world, and al-Qa'eda, and possibly even Hussein - thought, Iraq didn't have new WMD to deliver. But Iraq was not somehow separate from the War on Terror. It was the inevitable result of engaging in the third option.

Afghanistan and Iraq have been the two major targets thus far in the War on Terror, both dealt with by mirror-imaged means. We in the Alley have been quick to focus on the (undeniable) weaknesses of each approach, without necessarily appreciating their strengths.


Afghanistan

Afghanistan has been a war on the cheap, fought mainly by local allies and sustained by international troops, aiming to unseat terror supporters without necessarily putting nicer people in their place. The weaknesses of this approach are obvious - our "local allies" are actually not-so-nice warlords ambitious to be druglords. Afghanistan's democratic transition is stumbling and (barring a miracle) could result in a weak dictatorship, a splintered country, or perhaps even a resurgent Taliban.

But there are real strengths to this approach. Most importantly: it works. Britain and Russia were badly scarred trying to keep Afghanistan under control, and Afghanistan itself suffered far worse. The US managed to unseat the government and replace it with a friendly client-state with only minimal intervention. Is this a good recipe for democratization? Of course not - but this is a War on Terror, not a War for Democracy. Would-be state supporters of al-Qa'eda, particularly neighboring states Pakistan and Iran, are put on notice; the US gets carte blanche to rifle through Afghanistan and loot al-Qa'eda information archives; and al-Qa'eda is denied a secure stronghold. (Not ignoring that al-Qa'eda still operates out of parts of Afghanistan, but its power in the region is badly frayed.)

Would Gore have gone this far? Probably not. There are other instruments - sanctions on Afghanistan, demands for extradition of bin Laden et al., dire threats from the Security Council, etc. - that might've worked. But it's a stretch to think that Gore's smooth and silky charm would've convinced the Taliban to backstab the organization that owned it lock, stock, and gun barrel. The more likely scenario is that Afghanistan would've been further isolated, a few more cruise missiles would've obliterated critical camps, and intelligence operatives would've been given more leeway in Kabul.

Would Bush be better off pouring resources into Afghanistan to make it a democratic model for the region? Well, we can answer that by turning to Iraq...


Iraq

Whereas Afghanistan was a war on the cheap, Iraq is the opposite - an expensive, ambitious, regime-changing affair fought mostly with American troops rather than local (or international) allies. The Iraq war was a consequence of picking the third option, all-out retaliation, and Iraq's refusal to verify its complete dismantling of its WMD architecture. The US could have chosen the Afghanistan method - arming the Kurds and Shi'ites and letting them wreak havoc in Baghdad and impose their own flavor of dictatorship. But instead, Bush chose the much more expensive alternative - in terms financial, diplomatic, and military - to institute full regime change.

Why regime change? One reason is that largely-secular and better-educated Iraq has a stronger civil society than Afghanistan and is more capable of supporting democracy. Another is that instituting another American-supported dictator would have further alienated us with the rest of the world (re: Iran). Another is ideological - because of the US' positive experience with Japan and Germany, vicious totalitarian dictatorships even less amenable to democracy than Iraq, there was the naive assumption that Iraq could become democratic as well - and that a democracy would be relatively pro-US (the same way that democratic France is "relatively pro-US"). Yet another is that the world had spent the 1990s yelling at us for strangling Iraq with sanctions, and we didn't want to leave a ruined Iraq to fend for itself. Given that the US isn't willing (yet) to completely withdraw from the Middle East, democratizing Iraq appeared an option that would be short-term expensive but long-term cheap.

The first bit to note is that events did not go as badly as feared. There was no mass hunger; no refugee crisis; no oily devastation; no direct intervention by neighbors; no WMD use; no bloody urban warfare in the taking of Baghdad; no mass reprisal killings; no pull-out from the UN; no uprisings on the "Arab Street"; no Iraqi retaliation against Israel; etc. For all the talk that the US was unready for victory, there's quite a lot that the US did plan for - and prevented.

The second bit is that events are not going as badly as many suppose. The US has lost almost 1,000 lives - a lot, but that's very low compared to the task at hand. (Compare Russian losses to Chechen unrest in that tiny province.) Oil is still flowing - for all the talk of shortages, the (private) reserves in the US are 5% above last year's. Electricity is above pre-war levels - Baghdad suffers shortages, but only because during Hussein's rule, almost all the electricity was shunted to Baghdad at the cost of outlying cities, whereas now it is distributed more equitably. Religious unrest has been focused on the Shi'ite sector, which is not so bad given that al-Qae'da's leadership and recruits are Sunni. The Kurds are restless but have not declared independence. Saudi Arabia is still intact. Iran, Syria, and Turkey are interfering only in limited backdoor ways. There have been no 9/11-style terror attacks in Iraq proper. Etc., etc. The current situation is less than perfect, but it's WAY better than the first dozen worst-case scenarios.

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Heck no. It's even questionable whether he would've sustained sanctions on the place, given the strong pressure from France, Russia, and China to soften them. A plane crash in the no-fly zone would've been incentive enough to pull back the no-fly zone. It's arguable whether democratizing Iraq is really more maddening to the Arab Street than choking off Iraq with sanctions and a no-fly zone.


Conclusion

The War on Terror was just one option among several. Bush, for good or ill, chose the option of all-out retaliation, which necessitated moves against Afghanistan and Iraq when their leadership refused to stand aside from the war machine. Gore would probably not have chosen this option, and Kerry is unlikely to sustain it.

I think the War on Terror has been effective and was the best bad option among the painful choices. Undeniably, it has incurred huge costs and damaged our likability abroad. But it has also pushed back (not forever) the day when WMD is used against the West, without sacrificing our position in the Middle East. Bush and his officials - Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. - understand the seriousness of global terrorism, and are steadily and consistently acting in accordance with the necessities of the situation.

Kerry has not demonstrated a similar commitment or comprehension. For that reason, I will vote for Bush this November.

 

Grey, speaking for myself, it’s not so much what Bush has done as how he went about doing it that bothers me.

I have no problem with Afghanistan – the evidence was there, the international support was there, and the time was right.

Iraq, on the other hand, is different. There are many people (myself included) who believe that Bush was looking for a reason to go after Saddam, and WMD’s were just a convenient excuse. Rather than waiting for the inspectors to finish, he attacked; and the lack of WMD’s supports the idea that he attacked because he knew if he waited, there would be nothing found, and then he’d have no reason to invade.

So the rest of the world feels that it has been lied to, and that the U.S. will do whatever the hell it wants to. Personally, if Bush had just said “we want go after Saddam because he’s a son of a bitch”, I would have been more supportive (although I don’t know that the rest of the world would have felt the same). It’s the lies and deceit and utter disregard for the opinions of the international community that bother me, and if he’s willing to do it here, how can we ever trust him again?

 

The success of an operation is judged by its results. So Grey what are the results of Bush's war?

1. The world is less safer than it was before the war. Al Queda hasn't been destroyed and it seems that it regains its strength and now it looks like hydra. You cut one head and you have two heads appeared in the place of the one you cut.

2. One of the main targets of the war on terror was the capture of Bin Laden. He is still free unless Bush waits until the elections to present him to the world.

3. The american reputation and credability has gone as low as possible. A huge wave of anti-americanism has risen not only to the arab world but to countries, which are considered traditional allies of the US like UK and Germany. Coming from country that it always has been an ally of the US but with anti-american feelings among the population due to the american support towards the colonels' junta I will tell you the words of the american diplomat of your embassy in Athens during the first days of the iraqi war: " We wanted to make Greeks think like the rest of Europe about us, but with our actions we managed to make the rest of Europe think like the Greeks".

4. A terror hysteria has been spread all around the world and the result of this is a direct attack against civil rights everywhere. 1984 is coming closer.

5. USA are spending american lifes and resources in Iraq. You are claiming that the american casualties in Iraq are low. If I'm not mistaken they are higher than the american casualties of the first three years of the Vietnam war.

6. When the iraqi WMD threat has been proved to be a smoke without fire, Bush was claiming that he sent the army to Iraq in order to bring democracy. Do you see any democracy or even stability down there? What I see is that theocracy is coming to this country not to mention what will happened if kurds decide to declare indepedence because the promises given to them have not been fulfilled.

7. Bush's policy and action gave the final blow to the already battered UN. Now even Sudan dares to say to UN a huge "**** off".

8. The pre-emptive strike policy has created a bad example. If China decides that Japan is a threat and launches a pre-emptive strike which do you think that it will be their first argument for the legality of this action?

Do you think that all these are succesfull foreign policy?

 

I very much agree with what BOC said.

I think the crucial criticism on Bush's blundering is simply the question what this "war on terror" is about, and against whom. Will it be over one day? What are victory conditions? Will it be perpetual like the war on drugs - that is on for some 20 years now and not yet won - because it cannot be won?

The terming alone is silly. Terrorism is a tool to achieve a political or criminal agenda, but oit always is a tool, like a pair of scissors is used to cut hair. WW-II wasn't against Blitzkrieg, right?

And who's the enemy? Al Quaeda? Palestinian terrorists? Islamist terrorists? All terrorists? Organised crime? Or the universal evil on the world ( that would bring in Walmart as an enemy as well I suppose ) ? Do we have to fear US intervention in Chechnya? Northern Ireland? Sicily? Or maybe Ceylon - the home of the suicide bombers?

As Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, except for some token support in the 1970s and donation to palestinians that were meant to boosts Saddams PR rather than to do anything else - where is the link? Well, rhetorical question - there was none. As much as there IS no link between Iran and Al Quaeda.
We see here that 911 gave a group in the US administration the opportunity to do what they wanted all along anyway, so they labeled Iraq as a part of the GWOT and attacked. So simple. The GWOT label somewhat helps over the need to explain and legitimise these actions further. Don't we all agree that fighting terrorism is vital? Good, now stop questioning.

What use is it to fight a non-governmental organisation like Al Quaeda based on ideology and is operating underground around the globe (that is - without the sort of state sponsorhip the palestinian or communist terrorists of the old days enjoyed) and not nationality by attacking countries?
It may have made sense in Afghanistan - eventually that was where Bin Laden and his crew were hiding under Taleban protection - but not for Iraq.

Preemption is not so bad by itself, if you find terrorists that are openly hostile to you and murderous to your people, kill them or bring them to justice - no one would say a thing. But in the sense that preemption is a declared doctrine it again becomes traditional deterrence - the message is: "Don't mess with us we are real mad now and strike first."
Bush's big PR problem here in Europe is that he is serious with his madman doctrine, and willing to apply it to countries.

The other part is that Bush has made Israels threat perception in face of terrorism his own. Unlike perhaps Israel, the US are not existentially threatened by terror. They cannot use the same ultima ratio doctrine Israel uses use without risking to loose legitimacy.

When a man beats his wife he's the bad guy, no matter is she's the violent bitch and started the beating herself. America has to take care that she uses her power wisely, with restraint. Bush hasn't shown any indication of understanding even the need for that.

Chasing terrorists is a police and secret ops job, like chasing gangsters is a police and secret ops job. By invading Iraq to fight his global war terror Bush used a hammer in the attempt to crack an egg, and, oops, crushed his neighbours cereal bowl instead.

[ August 29, 2004, 11:15: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Grey - A little bit of perspective would help on this issue. The main root problem is oil - those who use it in mass quantities and those who profit by it (Exxon is said to have passed GE as the world's largest corporation as a result of oil's recent sky-high prices). If it not for oil, the people in the Middle East, including those in Israel, could kill each other with kitchen knives and most of the world would think of it as a "local problem."

Let me ask you this - oil is nearly 48.00 a barrel, but that is not the real price. In money, blood, time and energy the Middle East represents an incredible drain on the average American. Is it worth it? Of course not. But too many are profiting off the current system of fossil fuel usage. And too many don't want the current system to change. So a few thousand Americans die in Iraq, several thousand more come home burned, multilated and scarred. Americans still drive their SUVs and Hummers, and show off such extravagance - in this regards - to the rest of the world that it is embarrassing for some of us. And some of us also understand the real cost to our country.

I am not condemning those who own SUVs or high powered sports cars. Since I am a lover of liberty and freedom I believe that "freedom of choice" in most matters should be honored. Only pointing out that there is a disconnect between the choices we make and the consquences of such choices. There are a lot of Americans who understand this. Unfortunately, they are not the ones who are represented in our image aboard to our friends and neighbors.

I ask some of you to also bear with me a bit, because I am here in the hotbed of Shrub country: big oil resides here, home of Enron, and the "home of the Bushes." I see masses of large pickups, SUVs, Hummers, with flags and such plastered on them every minute I am out on the road - with the BUSH/CHENEY sticker. There is the crux of your foreign policy for the Middle East.

But to add to this there is a cultural contempt for anything that is fuel efficent: there is no mass transit to speak of, we have the dirtiest air in the country, which my children have to breath every day, and massive traffic jams everywhere in the city. This is to some "freedom of choice." This is the Land of Shrub as a microcsm. It is arrogant, self-interested, dirty, polluted and, in a subjective matter of speaking - corrupted - fully absorbed with its own extravagance and desires, at any cost, to anyone else.

Mass transit is thought here to be only for the poor and the have nots, and there is always the added negative race factor of giving ethnic groups greater mobility. There is a belief among some in Houston that certain areas of the city have "gone down" as a result of mass transit (which in Houston is "the bus line").
Some can point to statistics all they want, but some of us see them as self-fulfilling prophecies.

The crux of my point is that some Americans see the world from such a point of self-interest that it is almost surreal. Yet it is coated over with nonsense about how we are doing all this for the "freedom of the Iraqi people." It is an extravagant facade, which sums up the Bush foreign policy. There is a notion that countries act in their own self-interest. There is merit in this notion. But Shrub has certainly taken it to a level that is not only dangerous for America, but for the rest of the world a well.

[ September 01, 2004, 18:48: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Wow! I got four of the savviest and most coherent posters without a single ad hominem. Beautiful!

So, in no particular order:


Splunge -

I didn't think you were one for conspiracy theories! So your theory is that even though all the world's intel agencies, including the usual American suspects, insisted that Iraq had WMD, Bush had some secret parallel source of information which told him that actually Iraq had no WMD. C'est possible, but unlikely.


Ragusa -

As I emphasized in my very first paragraph, this is not a war on generic terror but a war to reassert the unspoken consensus against mass terror. We can't stop all terrorists from picking off our citizens or blowing the occasional oil line, but we CAN stop them from using WMD or incinerating thousands at a single blow. Just as we can't stop any random drug dealer from distributing, but we can target the major cartels and prevent significant public coordination.

Like I wrote, in bold print: Engaging in all-out retaliation for 9/11 removes the deterrent against terrorists using WMD. Iraq's willful, public insistence on pretending a WMD capacity; its past history of WMD use; its stated intent to strike back at the US; its seemingly self-destructive anti-US plots that invited retaliation (e.g., plotting to assassinate the president) -- all these things pointed to Iraq as a major source of WMD for generic terrorists.

Granted that Iraq and al-Qa'eda had different agendas and little contact. But wow, today al-Qa'eda is active in a host of countries with divergent agendas. And al-Qa'eda had previously managed to coexist with places as different as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Sudan. Iraq and al-Qa'eda ideologies didn't need to be in complete concert to prove that cooperation might someday be possible -- especially if Iraq was one of the very few possible providers of WMD.

(I don't have a clever response, but this is too good not to requote.)


Chandos -

Short, shallow answer: Then why didn't we invade Venezuela?!? Its leader is anti-American, we have troops in the country next door, its people speak an American language, the oil would hit American ports first...hmm, that gives me an idea...

Longer, serious answer: Oil is indeed part of the problem, in the sense that it's oil that gives Iraq and Iran the funds to acquire WMD and subsidize terrorists (say, Iran and Hizbollah). If it was JUST about oil, then we'd invade Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. But Venezuela, despite its virulent anti-Americanism, isn't developing WMD or supporting terrorists; Saudi Arabia is cheerfully blowing its oil money on fast cars and faster women; and Kuwait is content to litter the world with gold-plated mosques.

Yes, if the Middle Eastern nations had no oil, we'd let them kill each other. For the precise reason that, as you say, they'd only kill each other. Our concern is with terrorists who want to use pricey WMD to kill lots of OUR people.

Exactly - our thirst for oil is subsidizing our enemies (in Iraq or Halliburton, take your pick!). There's something to be said for hiking oil taxes for the sake of security. But even if the US turned to solar energy overnight and gave up oil, then the Middle Eastern countries could still sell their oil to others. And they could use that money to buy WMD for terrorists.

There's no problem with Middle Eastern countries getting rich off of petroleum. More power to 'em. We're just concerned with what they buy, and what they give away to whom.

The constructivist argument is that political ideas have political consequences. (The simplistic neo-conservative derivation is, "Democracy is good, dictatorship bad.") I think that a comparison of the dangers posed by democratic, WMD-laden France and dictatorial, single-digit-WMD North Korea shows that it can be in the US self-interest to make sure that major countries in bad neighborhoods are democratic. Oh, and incidentally helpful for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Self-interest and benevolence aren't necessarily contradictory!


BOC -

Wow, systematic! I'll try to answer your points blow-by-blow...

1. The world is less safer than it was before the war. Al Queda hasn't been destroyed and it seems that it regains its strength and now it looks like hydra. You cut one head and you have two heads appeared in the place of the one you cut.

The hydra theory is that people are so inspired by the example of al-Qa'eda members getting squished and bankrupted that they scramble to sign up, and the more al-Qa'eda is humiliated, the stronger it becomes. Well...maybe. But I think a likelier example is that a) al-Qa'eda was a lot bigger and more entrenched than we first gave it credit; b) now that al-Qa'eda is so badly damaged, its standards for adding freelancers are in freefall, so nigh-on any aggrieved male or petty terror group can latch onto the al-Qa'eda train; c) the Iraq insurrection is being conflated with al-Qa'eda, such that we confuse the two.

Reminds me of the theory that long prison terms don't reduce crime...because newbie criminals want to keep the average up.

2. One of the main targets of the war on terror was the capture of Bin Laden. He is still free unless Bush waits until the elections to present him to the world.

Granted. If we can catch him, great; and while he's free, we should be watchful. But the goal is to end the ability of terrorists to wreak mass terror. Bin Laden can't do that on his own -- he needs an organization and lots of money. The US has deprived him of much of that, so even if he lives he has been badly weakened.

3. The american reputation and credability has gone as low as possible. A huge wave of anti-americanism has risen not only to the arab world but to countries, which are considered traditional allies of the US like UK and Germany. Coming from country that it always has been an ally of the US but with anti-american feelings among the population due to the american support towards the colonels' junta I will tell you the words of the american diplomat of your embassy in Athens during the first days of the iraqi war: " We wanted to make Greeks think like the rest of Europe about us, but with our actions we managed to make the rest of Europe think like the Greeks".

As low as possible? Just wait until the Kerry term, when Europeans realize that their real problem is with American policy, not personality!

Seriously, America's likability has fallen precipitously. And I said as much in my post. But to make the obvious point: likability is not an end in itself. It's worthless if it can't be converted into the hard currency of action. Monaco is likable, but so what? Machiavelli said that one should never appeal to gratitude, and so I think it was wrong of the US to appeal to the past century of American sacrifice on Europe's behalf. But America has so much to offer Europe today and tomorrow, I find it short-sighted that Europe should prove so reluctant to stand with the US, likability or no.

4. A terror hysteria has been spread all around the world and the result of this is a direct attack against civil rights everywhere. 1984 is coming closer.

Maybe it's just a 1984 hysteria -- looks to me as if the democracies are still far more free than the societies al-Qa'eda promotes. Question: if the US had gallantly bowed to the 9/11 blow and turned the other cheek, surrendering Greater Arabia to al-Qa'eda and sparing the world this "terror hysteria" -- would the world be a more secure place?

5. USA are spending american lifes and resources in Iraq. You are claiming that the american casualties in Iraq are low. If I'm not mistaken they are higher than the american casualties of the first three years of the Vietnam war.

The casualties are low. They're bad, but statistically they're not near so bad as could be, or as I expected. They may indeed be higher than the first three years of the Vietnam war, but that was because our first few years involved military training and a very limited mandate. Today's Iraq mission is to pacify a massive country with a diverse, hostile population that doesn't speak our language while refraining from the usual repressive tools and imparting a working democracy. Compared to the magnitude of that task, our casualties and costs are very low indeed.

I'm not trying to be callous. Look, in the US, we lose about 10,000 people a year to car accidents. That's really bad. Now suppose a new seat belt innovation lowered the losses to 1,000 a year. That would STILL be bad, and doesn't make the loss of any one car passenger any less tragic, but it needs to be kept in perspective. And the Iraq losses should be compared to past American attempts at nation-building (Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc.) and current non-American attempts at territorial pacification (Chechnya, Sudan, etc.).

6. When the iraqi WMD threat has been proved to be a smoke without fire, Bush was claiming that he sent the army to Iraq in order to bring democracy. Do you see any democracy or even stability down there? What I see is that theocracy is coming to this country not to mention what will happened if kurds decide to declare indepedence because the promises given to them have not been fulfilled.

First, Bush claimed to be bringing democracy even before we found out there were no WMD. (Unless you buy the supergenius-Bush-knew-but-everyone-else-didn't argument.) Second, I do see growing democracy and stability. Again, perspective: compared to the task of democratizing Germany and Japan, Iraq is WAY ahead of schedule. To say nothing of Korea!

7. Bush's policy and action gave the final blow to the already battered UN. Now even Sudan dares to say to UN a huge "**** off".

Oh, come on -- do you really think that the Sudan would have kowtowed to the UN if not for the Iraq war? The Sudan was slaughtering its people for DECADES before the US invaded Iraq, and never bothered to heed any UN resolutions that it should play nice with its serfs.

8. The pre-emptive strike policy has created a bad example. If China decides that Japan is a threat and launches a pre-emptive strike which do you think that it will be their first argument for the legality of this action?

Of course it will be their first argument. So? Countries will always adopt the retroactive justification-du-jour to defend themselves. Nations were using pre-emptive strikes long before the US did in Iraq -- for example, Iraq itself against Kuwait. The problem is not pre-emption per se, but...oh, I'm just going to quote an earlier thread:

Pre-emption is still deterrence, just moved back a stage. Mutually Assured Destruction theory (truly MAD in both senses) was intended to deter the use of WMD. The threat of pre-emptive strikes is intended to deter the acquisition of WMD. In the case of Iraq, the pre-emption threat failed, and - as is the case in ANY deterrence scenario - when the deterrence fails, action must be carried out to make future threats credible.

This is an important point: deterrence is a continuum. People think of deterrence as applying only to the outbreak of war (especially in the MAD context), but it doesn't. It applies to every stage before and after. There's a different threat implied, deterrence-wise, between intimidating an opponent from attacking a border post than dropping a nuke on a city. Both are acts of war, but both are deterred on different levels. And it's possible to fail to deter the attacker from taking out the border post, but successfully deter him from nuking the capital.

The word "pre-emptive" suggests that the pre-empter is moving first. But actually no - the "pre-emptive" attack is in reaction to the other side's action (developing nukes, harboring terrorists, etc.). That's not a neo-con position - it's purely realistic. But what seems to happen is that people draw the line at some arbitrary point and decide that everything past that point requires deterrence, and everything before that point is pre-emption.

To close:

Do you think that all these are successful foreign policy?

Would US policy have been more successful if:

- UN sanctions on Iraq had continued to starve tens of thousands of innocents?
- al-Qa'eda had been allowed to survive, with a few leaders picked off by special ops and extradition treaties?
- terrorists thought that the "unspoken consensus" was indeed a bluff, and the worst they had to fear from mass killing was the same fate it always has to fear just by dint of being terrorists - the criminal justice system?
- the Taliban been permitted to continue corroding Afghanistan?
- al'Qa'eda had kept Pakistan as its playground?
- North Korea had been permitted to renege on its no-nuke agreement and still collect energy subsidies?
- Iran had been given carte blanche to develop nukes?

Well, maybe we would've won more sympathy cards. For more than one reason.

[ September 01, 2004, 04:52: Message edited by: Grey Magistrate ]

 

I just have one point really here and it is one I have brought up a few times before without some people noting it. I have lots of opinions on the rest as well but others seems to have it well in hand.

My point is that how can anyone claim that everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's when the main reason, atleast officially, for countries like France, Germany and Russia to not support a US intervention in Iraq was that Iraq did not seem to have anything dangerous and that the inspectors were about to verify that to be on the safe side. Why do you think poor Powell's pathetic performance in the UN was more or less laughed at if everyone thought they knew Iraq had loads and loads of nasty weaponry? I know I was of the opinion that there probably was nothing there and if I am not completely mistaken so thought many others on this forum. So both top-politicians around the world and average Joes on a silly message board were of the opinion that Iraq most probably had no WMD's but it couldnt hurt to completely verify it with inspectors. How then can so many "rightists" claim that everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's?

 

Grey - you're an idiot. (Just kidding of course, but you're right - this thread needs an ad hominem )

Anyhoo, I'll address only your response to me, and let the others take care of themselves (they'll do a better job of it anyway).

Don't worry, I haven't succumbed to the conspiracy theories. But with the statements of people like Paul Wolfowitz and Paul O'Neill, combined with the general consensus of the international community at the time that there was not enough evidence to justify an attack on Iraq, and the ultimate failure to find WMD's - yes, I believe that Bush was looking for a reason to invade, and he felt the could play up the WMD angle enough to justify an attack.

 

[ September 04, 2004, 08:37: Message edited by: Chimera ]

 

I can't understand why someone would think they had them. The root of the problem. Bush succeded only in one country to sell his point and that's the USA. And with that I mean, convince a reasonable share of the population of the existence of WMD's. Everywhere else, he just failed. Even in those countries that joined the war, a huge part of the population remained doubtful of those WMD claims. And why ? Because a large part of goverment officals and knowledgable people, equally relying on intelligence or knowledge of the region, rased doubts. So, I don't see why you would say that there was no more doubt outside of the USA then inside of the USA. That would mean there would have been an agreement on something. There was no agreement. The views where at odds and the countries where at odds.

Interesting seem to me the very different outcomes of those views. If your assertion would be correct, that is, the rest of the world had the very same view about the WMD-story, Bush would look halfway reasonable. But if your assertion wouldn't be true and there was widespread doubt in the rest of the world, Bush would look like a complete jerk to the people there.

How was it put after one of the UN conferences, the US-administration did prove that more inspections would be necessary to explore the possibility of WMD's there. In short, Bush looks like a jerk because he leaned out of the window with a very shaky claim, while acting like he exactly new what he was talking about. No euphemism can change this, to most people I know and certainly me, he looks like liar. Granted, if you don't want to go so far and say he was delibaretely misleading, than you can blame the general incompetence of the US-administration, the US-secret services and the inability of the president. Both options aren't too pleasant. Still, you can conclude, that if I say they probably lied, I don't think of them as complete incompetent and overcharged with their jobs. Always look at the bright sight of things.

 

Even if one were to grant the Bush administration's arguments for going into Iraq, it would still be hard to defend its performance there. From the rosy scenarios of cheering liberated Iraqis, to the attempts to run a war on the cheap, leading to chaos and lawlessness throughout Iraq, this administration has been all politics and no policy. At all levels of the occupation, this administration has overlooked qualified people with knowledge of Iraq and Arabic culture, in favor of ideologues who wanted not just a democracy but a neo-conservative promised land. Installing a flat tax in Iraq? Choosing the president and founder of a fringe conservative "great books" university in New Mexico, with no knowledge whatsoever of the Arabic language and history, to supervise the entire Iraqi university system? Whatever you think about their goals in Iraq. these guys had their heads in the clouds in terms of the followthrough...

 

You see, this is the problem I have. It STARTED as a War on Terror. (Which Bush admitted on Monday may be a war that can never be won.) This is why I supported the invasion of Afganistan. However, I think you make a major leap of logic Grey in stating that because we countered with an attack, that terrorists no longer had any reason to not use WMD.

Is the complete destruction of a country that supports you (granted Afghanistan was in bad shape anyway, but still) not reason enough to not use WMD? If for no other reason to gain some type of asylum somewhere? Let's face it, Al Qaeda had a pretty sweet deal in Afghanistan. They were essentially allowed free reign in that country. While there are other countries in the world that would be willing to harbor terrorists, Afghanistan practically flaunted its willingness to do so. Other countries would not allow terrorists safe harbor in their country so openly. Let me get back on point though - the "so openly" comment is about as lame as saying Kerry wasn't wounded "that badly" when he received his Purple Hearts.

Anyway, I feel it is leap of logic to say that the Iraq War was a necessary result of the War on Terror, even though it appeared that way in the beginning. I admit that I was convinced that Iraq had WMD. If we had come up with some, we could have said, "See, I told you so!" to the world and we could chalk Iraq up as a necessary step in the War on Terror. However, when we didn't find any, suddenly Iraq no longer was a War on Terror. I started to hear Bush say things like this was a "War for Freedom" or "War for Democracy". That's the part I don't like. When Plan A didn't work out quite the way he would have liked, he simply switched to Plan B and expected no one to notice, or at least no one would care. And that's one of many reasons I don't like Bush: He treats everyone as if they are as stupid as everyone thinks he is.

 

Just to make myself clear here (which in retrospect I don't think I've done very well at doing), I just want to clarify something:

I'm not saying that I think Bush didn't believe there was a possibility that WMD's existed. But there's a big difference between believing that they might exist, and having enough evidence to support that belief in order to justify an attack. IMO, Bush saw a possibility, and tried to make it sound like a certainty (how many times did we here the Administration say they knew Saddam had WMD's and even knew where they were?). And then (as Aldeth said) when WMD's weren't found, he tried to gives us some crap about the invasion being not about WMD's, but about liberating the Iraqi people. Bah!

 

Maybe some of the European members of these forums will gain a stronger appreciation for Bush foreign policy when Iranian missiles with nuke tips can reach targets in Europe.

2006 is coming fast.

 

Well, that would require that are able to make them, want to make them and are willing to use them. And to consider this possibility likely, one had to have evidence or clear indication that they want and plan to do so. Indepth market research recently proved that the reliability of daily horoscopes in yellow-papers is astonishingly higher than American Govermental claims that someone somwhere not only talks a completly unintelligible language, but also is close to complete a plan that envisions to nuke the whole world to kingdom come.

But may I guess, that windmills still are dragons and every windmill that has been brought down bestows us with eternal debt.

 

At the time when there was talk about invading Iraq and during Blix's inspections Saddam had more or less bent over and taken it upp the butt cause Bush jingoism rightly scared the bejeezus out of him.

The Iraqi obstructionism was several years old and was due to Saddam being convinced that the inspectors teams were littered with CIA agents who spied on all manners of stuff. Accidentely that is also what they were. So that failure of inspections was due to mutual screw up of both sides in my opinion. An interesting thing though is that that crew too was a verification inspection just like the Blix inspections was. Already in the mid-90's it was declared that Iraq pretty much clean. Any later inspection was there to make sure that nothing new was built and to double check under every stone to be completely sure of the results.

This info is from Scott Ritter's book, Ritter led a weapon inspections team in the 90's.

 

No, that was because the verification crew was pulled out in the late 90's and Blix wanted to check up on everything as he rightly did not trust Saddam at face value. From what I understand Iraq in compliance with the Kuwait cease fire did destroy a lot of stuff before the first batch of inspectors and it was this the later verification crews could neither find nor confirm that it was destroyed.

Also we should not forget that Saddam was/is a shifty snake and even as he dismantled his wmd's which I in the first case dont really think he did voluntarily or to comply with the cease fire but because he was not able to have something up and running for lack of everything but even so he probably wanted to bluster a little bit to the arab world and not appear as a complete wuss. Heck, I have read some stories who almost claim that Saddam thought they had some stuff because his underlings was too afraid of him to tell him otherwise. Osirak was bombed in the 80's and there went Iraq's nuclear program, the biological agents got old pretty darn fast and all he was left with was some out of fashion chemical stuff which also either got old or was cleaned out after Kuwait. Those stories I read was about underlings to Saddam telling him that they had new and wonderful programs up and running.

My main is still though that a large portion of the world didnt think that Saddam had anything but that doesnt say that they ruled it out completely. I too thought that there was a slim chance that he had something bad however unlikely but that it was not urgent in any way and there was plenty of time for inspections.