Heh. We can disagree on most of that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Just in case someone searches for proven, farsighted academics...They were quite spot-on in my opinion, about 80% right (just too 'right' and not enough 'left' in point 4).
I'm sure they were pretty well spot on in their opinion as well but we all have opinions and many will differ with them and with you.
I do for one. Not least because they missed the entire -- not the stated -- reason for the attack. They say that military force should only be used when it advances US national interest. I agree. They say that attacking Iraq does not meet that test. Given the reasons they cite, I again agree. Given the actual reason -- to send a message to the Middle East that we would no longer accept their probes and minor attacks as we had since 1979 with no effective response; they're simply wrong. Our interests were advanced.
They also say that the first Bush administration did not attack Iraq proper in 1991 to avoid destabilizing the Middle East. True (A bad decision on their part -- it would have been easier then); they apparently do not understand that the attack in 2003 was intended to destabilize the Middle East. Just enough. Without interrupting the world's oil supply -- we really want China and India to have all the oil they need. All that seems to have worked out rather well thus far.
So their judgment was badly flawed and I'd further suggest it is even today entirely too early to determine the final validity of their position or mine... ;)
Quote:
Maybe next time they get more attention (or maybe the society advances and learns to listen to such voices and to identify them without trial & error).
Probably not. Many Academics sometimes miss practical and real world things...
Quote:
I mobilize all my self-discipline to not add an acid comment from an European's point of view.
Don't restrain yourself, we're aware of your attitude and still respect your judgment on other things. We have long understood that Europe would approve of little we do. Even as they have asked us to help sort out their internal problems over the years. What Europe too frequently forgets is that if our forebears had wanted to be Europeans and do things as they do, we wouldn't be here...
Henhouse is into the fox???
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Their reasoning was MUCH better than that of the government (WHICH GOT RE-ELECTED after their blunder). They disagreed on several government claims that proved to be outright wrong.
Being smarter and having better conclusions than the government is a good trait for experts.
Really? Let's take a look. They said:
* Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.
* Even if Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, he could not use them without suffering massive U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
* The first Bush administration did not try to conquer Iraq in 1991 because it understood that doing so could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests. This remains a valid concern today.
* The United States would win a war against Iraq, but Iraq has military options—chemical and biological weapons, urban combat—that might impose significant costs on the invading forces and neighboring states.
* Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.
* Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-Americanism around the globe.
Their first point is not relevant. I realize some in the Administration claimed there was or might be a connection but as AQ was only an ancillary concern in the decision to attack, the point is moot.
The second point is also irrelevant. No one with any sense believe that Saddam could damage the US with nuclear weapons. I realize some politicians said that, the news media repeated it and that some believed it -- but, as I said, no one with any sense believed it.
The third point I addressed above.
Their fourth point is obviously erroneous as, I'm sure you recall, no such weapons were found in Iraq (so much for their great knowledge and prescience...). I know some politicians also believed that -- as did a number of Intel agencies (and not just US agencies as I'm sure you're aware) and many in the public as well as the academy. No matter, that had little to do with the 'why' and as for their concerns on the topic; (a) cost of war and (b) they were wrong.
Their fifth point is valid
Their final point is true but immaterial. Iraq was known by the policy makers to not be a threat (regardless of what was said publicly); in fact it was chosen because it wasn't much of a threat -- but mostly because of its geographic centrality in the Middle East, it's pariah status and the fact that an attack there would not disrupt ME oil supplies to China and India. The object was to follow the attack in Afghanistan (Message: Do not attack the US on its own soil) with an attack somewhere in the ME (Message: Stop screwing with US interests world wide and we will no longer accept your probes and fail to respond more forcefully than said probe). A lot of Europeans didn't understand that logic, so did not a lot of Americans who are Europhiles or something. Most in the ME understood it -- didn't like it but they understood it. You may have noticed little noise from Asia over that attack -- that's because most Asians understood it. Thus it looks like the Europeans were the ones lacking in understanding...
So, the Academics you linked got one right out of six. That's not very good thinking in my estimation.
Quote:
The majority of Europeans was smarter than the Bush team, but since the U.S.Americans don't listen to Europeans they could at least choose their experts wisely.
Presidents aren't supposed to be experts, they're supposed to make decisions based on the advice of experts. Bush got advice, made a decision and then some of the experts in uniform didn't do their job very well because they had not trained for it due to the failings of other experts in uniform over a 20 year period.
The majority of Europeans were not 'smarter' -- they were going to object to anything Bush did after his comments about Kyoto and the ICC -- plus, they were looking at a potential multibillion Euro trade with the ME being disrupted and their own Muslim communities getting restive added to a fear of oil supply disruption (that didn't happen. Come to think of it, none of those fears materialized...). They very quickly forgot "We are all Americans." National interest will do that... ;)
Quote:
They showed character when the vast majority of think tank talking heads swam with the current into the wrong direction.
If you think so. My opinion is that they showed appalling ignorance and stuck their noses into a milieu they did not really understand. Lot of that going around...
Quote:
THAT is why they proved their value and deserve to be listened to next time they advise the public.
If you believe five wrong calls out of six made are of value, we'll have to disagree on that. No one listened to them before and should a similar situation arise, due to their abject failure in the predictions to which you linked, no one is likely to pay any attention to them ever.
Quote:
Who wants to bet against me when I assert that Michael O'Hanlon* still gets more time on TV than 80% of the people (if not all) who signed the NYT ad in 2002 together?
Not me, idiots abound in government and without. I personally plan to pay no attention to either a crowd of academics or to any Think Tank talking heads --which are effectively the same thing -- I can make my own decisions based on paying attention to what goes on in the world instead of following the crowd in lock step. I recommend that approach.