Thanks for the response. It certainly is hard.
So much jabber and spin that it was and is very hard to sort.
I'm inclined to think that Saddam as threat was on the list but was down around number 12 or even lower. I think Bush was convinced that a message needed to be sent to the ME (not to Islam and not to Afghanistan; different things) and that Iraq was selected as being geographically central, relatively easy militarily, least likely to disrupt world oil supplies, having a despised dictator and thus likely to arouse the least angst in the rest of the world. I think the timing was mostly predicated on the fear that, if he, Bush, did not get a second term, his successor might not do what he thought needed to be done.
Thus, I think deterring Hussein was no more than a passing thought and removing him was not a significantly higher priority; it was merely a synergistic benefit. MBAs always look for synergies... ;)
That and the Saudis probably saying "Look, if you Americans will get out of here, we'll go after our local bad guys and turn some things around." Plus the USAF really wanted to get rid of the Northern and Southern Watches... :D
I do agree with you on this aspect:
Quote:
I haven't been able to find any evidence, though, of a rigorous strategic assessment which weighed the potential risks and costs of military intervention against the expected utility.
I suspect (hope???) an effort was made by the J3 and / or CentCom but that it got short shrift from the Administration who imposed their views on the cost / benefit based on flawed logic hubris and optimism as opposed to a rational assessment. However, it is possible if not probable that a better assessment was made in some measure and Bush decided to go anyway. I guess we'll find out in 2033. :wry:
You know,, I know and talk to a fair amount of
people of all ages and backgrounds and I can count on one hand the number of people who believed this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SteveMetz
...
...So the crux of the administration's argument was that in his 60s, Saddam Hussein was suddenly going to change his behavior and undertake immense risk out of hatred for the United States. Believe what you want, but I find that ridiculous.
was then or is now a real issue or had much to do with attacking Iraq...
What allies? Which allies were and are alienated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
The two main costs are alienated allies and billions of dollars. It could be argued that the administration placed zero value on allies and believed that "Reagan proved deficits didn't matter."
The belief that the US has friends and allies is, in quite large measure, a myth of epic proportions. Dumb myth, at that, IMO.
The billions of dollars are small change -- unfortunately -- to this nation.
That seems to sort of egregious...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
Steve:
Ken's a smart guy. It's not an issue of strategy. It's an issue of values. (If everyone had the same values, there would be no war.)
Wrong again, you're not doing too well tonight on reading my mind.
It is an issue of strategy and values enter into it -- but the values that do are national values and not anyone's personal values; personal values do not translate into national because personal values are essentially morally based and nation don't have morals.
This is probably a good thing because some very moral people aren't very bright. Then, too some very dumb people aren't too moral...
It is highly unlikely everyone will ever approach having the same values, ergo war's going to be around so you need to accept that fact. But then, you knew that...
Correction: Subject line should read "That seems to be sort of egregious..." or maybe "That seems sort of egregious..." Take your pick, either is appropriate.
Well, that's what I thought...
Quote:
...What makes the crackpot and the kid's claims stand out is there's such an abundance of evidence to the contrary that it's absurd to treat them seriously.
but apparently I'm supposed to take the word of various politicians on why something was / is a good idea instead of looking at all the facts I can gather and making an independent judgment.
If one presumed all the blather about Saddam, threat and WMD was accurate -- and it quite obviously was not at the time to anyone who paid attention -- then some of the arguments here would make sense. If, OTOH, one did not believe that blather (and I didn't know very many who did but obviously I lead a sheltered life or have weird relatives, friends and acquaintances...) then one would do a quite different cost-benefit analysis based on quite different parameters compared to the person who believed a politician or political appointee -- or a pundit...
Quote:
We've seen agreement on neither. Ever. From any perspective. In any form. Period.
If there is another way to determine whether or not a threat warrants an adventure, please share.
Just so...