Iraq education and training (merged thread)

[cmetcalf82]

True, but with the War on Terror as it existed before Iraq, the mission was to remove direct threats against the U.S. (al-Qaeda) and capture the leaders responsible for 9/11. We're further from that goal than ever before right now

The arguement for the original invasion was that Iraq possessed WMD and connections to terror groups. If the administration belived this intelligence than it acted in such a manner as to further the GWOT. There is much debate about their actual beliefs but their perception is what mattered.

I also agree with Bill that the war in Iraq is now central to the WOT. Iraq continues to feed Islamic resentment of the U.S. and limits our ability to pursue other areas of the WOT because of resource constraints but losing now would provide the Islamic insurgency a victory of immense significance. So regardless of the original motivations or wisdom of the War in Iraq it is now central to the U.S. WOT for as long as it continues it breeds more terrorists and limits the U.S. ability to utilize resources on other targets.

[marct]

....So regardless of the original motivations or wisdom of the War in Iraq it is now central to the U.S. WOT for as long as it continues it breeds more terrorists and limits the U.S. ability to utilize resources on other targets.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this. In my darker and somewhat more paranoic moments, I really couldn't think of any US action that would be better suited to al Qaeda's needs except, possibly, a US led assault on Iran .

As far as the GWOT is concerned, at least at the level of grand strategy, Iraq has, unfortunately become central to all sides. The frustrating thing about it is not only the mismanagement and blunders involved in OIF, many of which are being corrected, but also the shifts in international diplomatic perceptions resulting from the flawed reasons for the invasion in the first place.

Bill's phrase "imperial hubris" really captures what I am getting at here - the US has lost a lot of face (and diplomatic credit) in the international scene as a result of starting the war using flawed intel, and is loosing more credit based on poor overall operations. One of the effects this is having is making it harder in the future to put international coalitions together while, at the same time, making it easier to split the existing ones.

Marc

[marct]

Yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released their report on "postwar findings about Iraq's WMD programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with pre-war assessments." http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

In today's CBC story on the report(http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ia-report.html, Senator Kit Bond is quoted as saying

Yet to make a giant leap in logic to claim that the Bush administration intentionally misled the nation or manipulated intelligence is simply not warranted.

My initial reaction to that quote was something along the lines of "never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity". Then I started to get really scared....

Marc

[Merv Benson]

There are still some undeniable facts about what led the US and its allies to war in Iraq. Saddam was required by his cease fire agreement and 17 UN resolutions to account for his WMD. It was his burden and not the CIA or US intelligence's burden to account for his WMD and have the weapons inspectors supervise their destructions.

He wholly failed in this obligation and played a cat and mouse game with the inspectors and thumbed his nose at his obligations under the cease fire agreement and the UN resolutions. He could have avoided the war simply by complying. While the post war analysis could not find most of his WMD what it really means is that much of it is still unaccounted for. This should be a bigger worry than the political second guessing of those who did not want to use force in Iraq to make him comply with his obligations.

He also brutalized his own people in violation of his obligations under the UN resolutions and paid money to the families of terrorist Palestinians. Many of the thugs that he used to brutalize the population of Iraq are still doing it under different management.

A non politicized look at intelligence failures is worthwhile, but this second guessing and name calling is not productive to dealing with our foreign enemies and it should not be used to make bad faith charges against political opponents in this country.

[marct]

Hi Merv,

There are still some undeniable facts about what led the US and its allies to war in Iraq. Saddam was required by his cease fire agreement and 17 UN resolutions to account for his WMD. It was his burden and not the CIA or US intelligence's burden to account for his WMD and have the weapons inspectors supervise their destructions.

True, at least as far as it being his burden to account for his WMD according to both the cease fire agreement and the UN resolutions. I would certainly not argue that he acted in "good faith" in the matter at all .

As to the CIAs analysis or, rather, the one that was used as the justification to the war, I would certainly argue that it was both the CIA and the Bush administration's burden to make sure that they had the most accurate analysis available. The problem I was trying to point out was that using that analysis as a causus belli and, most importantly, having it publicly proven that the analysis was slanted, has

1. reduced the credibility of similar claims in the future;
2. led to a lot of international questioning of the motives of the administration; and
3. has squandered a lot of international, grass roots support for the GWOT.

He wholly failed in this obligation and played a cat and mouse game with the inspectors and thumbed his nose at his obligations under the cease fire agreement and the UN resolutions. He could have avoided the war simply by complying.

Sure he did - and so have North Korea and the Sudan to name just two other countries. In and of itself, that is not an internationally recognized justification for war that has the effect of binding international allies.

While the post war analysis could not find most of his WMD what it really means is that much of it is still unaccounted for. This should be a bigger worry than the political second guessing of those who did not want to use force in Iraq to make him comply with his obligations.

Hmmm, that's the logic of the excluded third . I certainly remember coming across rumours that a fair number of WMD raw materials and components had been smuggled out via Syria to the Sudan. Should it be a major concern? Yup, no question about it.

He also brutalized his own people in violation of his obligations under the UN resolutions and paid money to the families of terrorist Palestinians. Many of the thugs that he used to brutalize the population of Iraq are still doing it under different management.

Again, I really have to respond with a "so what?" So do the North Koreans, the Sudanese and a whole host of other countries including China. Would you argue that that is enough justification for an invasion and occupation in and of itself? I would agree that it is a good secondary claim - more of a secondary justification really - but it certainly isn't enough in and of itself.

A non politicized look at intelligence failures is worthwhile, but this second guessing and name calling is not productive to dealing with our foreign enemies and it should not be used to make bad faith charges against political opponents in this country.

I certainly agree that a non-politicized look at intel failures is quite worthwhile - no question about that . I would argue, however, that one of the effects of this particular intel failure has been a series of political repercussions at the international level and that is also worth looking at. The sheer fact that there are questions being asked both inside the US government and by other governments and media outlets about whether it was an "intelligence failure" or a case of slanting available intel to meet pre-existing administration desires impacts on the international perceptions of both the credibility and effectiveness of US intelligence and any claims that may be made stemming from that intelligence.

Is it a "bad faith charge" when you examine why your allies question the validity of your intelligence and start questioning the motivations behind your requests?

Merv, in order to effectively pursue the GWOT, we have to think about it as a global form of counter-insurgency warfare, and part of what that means is that there has to be a fairly high level of international trust in US intelligence and in the motivations behind suggested opperations. That means that an intelligence "failure" of this type has an importance far beyond the borders of the USA.

I think Bill hit the nail on the head in his first post of this thread when he said

I believe Iraq may have started as a distraction but has grown to the point where it is now central (to the GWOT).

Part of the centrality I see centers around the justifications based on the "intelligence failure" and the public administration responses to the increasingly public, at least internationally, belief that it wasn't a failure but, rather, a purposive slanting of available intelligence. *That* really concerns me and, in truth, I think that the loss of international credibility and trust is much more important than finding the location of any remaining WMD. I'm certainly not advocating that we stop looking for them, but I think claims that since we haven't found them they must be hidden even better than we though are pretty damaging.

Personally, I don't believe what most politicians say anyway (although there are a few exceptions to that). I do, howver, find the idea of a Republican senator implying that it was stupidity on the part of the Bush administration to be very worrysome - certainly that was how I interpreted the remark of his that I quoted.

Marc