Why We Invaded Iraq

[slapout9]

Check out this article from Jeffery Record on why we invaded Iraq.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Summer/record.pdf

[Tom Odom]

Well Record is off the AEI XMas mailing list for sure...:wry:

[Ken White]

Still, I'll give him credit for excessive verbosity; he crammed 2.9 paragraphs of fact and speculation into 29 pages, only part of which were expended in promoting his ideological as opposed to scholarly view.

He did a better job than most of listing all the synergistic factors but his end inference is not impartial. Not that it needs to be; just that he had a chance to produce a meaningful paper and it turned into a diatribe IMO... :rolleyes:

Way too early to say this is the debacle of the century, much less ever. Too early yet to fully judge Viet Nam for that matter.

[Schmedlap]

If you can make it through the entire document then you are more patient than I. I made it to page 14 and couldn't take anymore of a professor who lowers himself to this. So the President was settling an old score from 1991 and it was all the fault of the dreaded neocons. Nice. Candid essays are good, but I would prefer that my tax dollars go towards the publication of, and work by individuals who write, candid essays of the scholarly variety. The fantasizing in this essay requires no more thought, education, or research than the garbage that I can read at Salon.com or DailyKos.

[slapout9]

Schmedlap, read the part about Saudi Arabia.

[Ken White]

Schmedlap, read the part about Saudi Arabia.took the left fork...

Got too busy bashing Neocons (who probably deserve it but that's not all that germane to the Saudi connection) and took a wrong turn. :wry:

IOW, he got political and did not address the practical and long term effects possible and / or probable. Seems sorta short sighted for a stragetist. :D

[RTK]

Slap,

You owe me 16 pages of 8.5 x 11in, 20 lbs weight, 92 brightness paper. The only high point of this was that I printed two pages to each sheet, so I didn't waste more paper.

[SteveMetz]

Well Record is off the AEI XMas mailing list for sure...:wry:

Jeff, as you probably know, was a Sam Nunn staffer. I'm a fan of his (and so noted in the acknowledgements of my book) but think it does get a bit too worked up when "neocon" bashing.

[J Wolfsberger]

From Wikipedia: 'The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".'

How much of the vitriol directed at "neocons" is anger over their apostasy?

[slapout9]

Slap,

You owe me 16 pages of 8.5 x 11in, 20 lbs weight, 92 brightness paper. The only high point of this was that I printed two pages to each sheet, so I didn't waste more paper.

Sorry about that RTK. When you come to Montgomery in July when me and Lawvol have a B-B-Que I will pay up. I don't know about the first part but I do believe that Saudi Arabia had more to do with 911 then was ever revealed.

[SteveMetz]

From Wikipedia: 'The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".'

How much of the vitriol directed at "neocons" is anger over their apostasy?


I would say almost none because it happened in the early 1970s. The classic ones like Irving Kristol and Normal Pohoretz were actually leftists at one time. Many of the others were mainline Democrats influenced by Scoop Jackson (people like Perle).

I don't use the word myself because the current generation--Bill Kristol, the Kagans, etc--were never anything other than conservative best I can figure. I use "conservative idealists."

[Ron Humphrey]

In some cases, administration war aims amounted to little more than expectations based on wishful thinking reinforced
by a self-serving embrace of faulty historical analogies.

The sidelines into banter make it invariably more difficult:confused:

[Steve Blair]

Slap,

You owe me 16 pages of 8.5 x 11in, 20 lbs weight, 92 brightness paper. The only high point of this was that I printed two pages to each sheet, so I didn't waste more paper.

I wish could remember the amount of paper I'm owed by various people for things like that....:D

[Tom Odom]

Jeff, as you probably know, was a Sam Nunn staffer. I'm a fan of his (and so noted in the acknowledgements of my book) but think it does get a bit too worked up when "neocon" bashing.

I have read his stuff since grad school. I would say that he tends to get too caught up in the absoluteness of whatever case he is making. In the late 70s and early 80s he was arguing that the USMC was the only quick reaction force on the US military roster. He completely ignored XVIII Abn Corps with the 82d, the 101st, and 24th Mech.

He has written some good stuff with a good friend of mine, Andy Terrill. I would say he likes to take that slightly contrary or openly contrary positions and then defend them. That is a technique and it is useful if you don't get caught up in your own arguments. In this case, he fell into that trap and that is a shame because I believe he offers some clear points that he hides in rhetoric.

Tom

[SteveMetz]

He has written some good stuff with a good friend of mine, Andy Terrill.

BTW, Andy and Doug Lovelace, our director, are heading to Baghdad over the weekend because LTG Dubik wants to help the Iraqis set up a strategic studies institute. I would have gone myself but I was committed to providing BBQ for a retirement party on the 14th. As a South Carolinian, BBQ takes priority over national security.

[Ken White]

...In this case, he fell into that trap and that is a shame because I believe he offers some clear points that he hides in rhetoric.True. IMO He's done a better job of laying down most of the synergies than any other well known commentator / writer I've seen. Think he got his priorities wrong...

...As a South Carolinian, BBQ takes priority over national security.Steve has his right, tho'... :D

[RTK]

I wish could remember the amount of paper I'm owed by various people for things like that....:D

I have a tracking journal.

[Gian P Gentile]

I liked it. I thought he made his case very well based on available evidence. What is it about the piece that is drawing such strident condemnation from SWC members?

[Ken White]

I liked it. I thought he made his case very well based on available evidence. What is it about the piece that is drawing such strident condemnation from SWC members?He outlines most of the process items well, better than any I've seen and I credited him for that but he accords the Neocon positions more force than I think can be justified and lapses into political or ideological based condemnation -- his prerogative, no question but IMO it detracts from what could have been a balanced assessment and dissertation.

I suggest the fact that Bush decided on regime change in Iraq early on is true and that all the factors Record lists and quite a few more like changing the international oil trade to Euros, long term basing to influence events in the ME, response to 20 plus years of provocations emanating from the ME (and NOT the poor and disenfranchised...), catching AQ off balance and more all contributed to the decision. My belief is that Bush did not adopt the neocon agenda, he adapted facets of it that fit his agenda because he (a) believed that a response to probes and attacks from the ME merited a response separate and distinct from the reaction to the attack on the WTC; (b) knew there was no way to secure the borders of this large, diverse nation with porous borders and like any Politician, he had to be seen doing something in response; and (c)wanted to do something concrete in the event he did not get a second term and out of fear that his successor might not have the fortitude to act.

We'll likely never know. If Bush writes a memoir, he may or may not be totally honest and even if he is fairly honest, later events can color the memory. I strongly doubt anyone else really knows what drove his decisions. So all of, us including Record and future historians are or will be speculating to an extent. Mayhap the 2033 declas will provide more...

I'd also point out that it appears neither State or DoD had at 9/11 a plan that dealt with Iraq and the ME on long term basis (or not in the terms that Bush desired). There were people in both places (and others) that had ideas but there was no coherent plan or program -- the neocons OTOH had some ideas that were the bare bones of a program and it seems to me those were grasped and fleshed out -- poorly -- to provide the effort the Prez wanted.

[selil]

... In the late 70s and early 80s he was arguing that the USMC was the only quick reaction force on the US military roster.....

Well of course that is true. My goodness everybody knows that the only high performance capable force is the by god United States Marine Corps. Everybody else is ... well... they just aren't Marines. Not everybody can be the best...


Semper Fi drive by....

[bourbon]

We'll likely never know. If Bush writes a memoir, he may or may not be totally honest and even if he is fairly honest, later events can color the memory. I strongly doubt anyone else really knows what drove his decisions. So all of, us including Record and future historians are or will be speculating to an extent. Mayhap the 2033 declas will provide more...
NBC News correspondent Richard Engel interviewed President Bush last year, reportedly he had some pretty candid comments (http://www.muckraked.com/wordpress/2008/06/03/bush-well-be-in-iraq-for-40-years-hamas-election-was-good-thing/).


Among the excerpts of the interview captured in Engel’s new book, “War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq”:

- “‘This is the great war of our times. It is going to take forty years,’” [Bush told Engel]. “Bush said in forty years the world would know if the war on terrorism, and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, had reduced extremism, helped moderates, and promoted democracy.”

- Bush admits to Engel that going to war was a decision based on his personal instinct and not on any long-range strategy for the Mideast:

“I know people are saying we should have left things the way they were, but I changed after 9/11. I had to act. I don’t care if it created more enemies. I had to act.”

In the tidal wave of memoirs soon to be unleashed, there is only one potential book that I would really be interested in reading: Cheney’s. As Brent Scowcoft’s comment illustrates best: "The real anomaly in the administration is Cheney…..I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." What’s the story there?

[Ken White]

...In the tidal wave of memoirs soon to be unleashed, there is only one potential book that I would really be interested in reading: Cheney’s. As Brent Scowcoft’s comment illustrates best: "The real anomaly in the administration is Cheney…..I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." What’s the story there?I'd trust Cheney's version about as far as I could throw the Capitol. Devious dude -- and a very poor VP and SecDef IMO. I worked under every SecDef except the very first and the last three. Rumsfeld was a piece of work but he, much as I despise micromanagers, across the board did a better job than Cheney. Louis Johnson was hands down the worst, followed closely by McNamara, Charley Wilson, Lovett, Gates and Clifford. Rumsfeld is in the middle of the pack but he's ahead of Cheney...

I think Cheney was the big Republican donors price for supporting Bush and the baggage he brought with him in the form of Wolfotwits and Feith among others has not been beneficial.