The Emerging "Neocon" Alibi on Iraq

[Rank amateur]

Here's a new one. The "Iraq war" actually started in 1968.

when I wrote the essays that go to make up A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, I was expressing an impatience with those who thought that hostilities had not really "begun" until George W. Bush gave a certain order in the spring of 2003.

Anyone with even a glancing acquaintance with Iraq would have to know that a heavy U.S. involvement in the affairs of that country began no later than 1968, with the role played by the CIA in the coup that ultimately brought Saddam Hussein's wing of the Baath Party to power.

[J Wolfsberger]

... has never been noted for sloppy thinking.

One of the problems with the anti-war crowd is that they don't seem to have had a problem with the numerous bombing raids carried out under the previous administration, or the economic sanctions. (With the exception that some seemed to think we should have lifted them once Saddam turned "Oil for Food" into "Oil for Politicians and Weapons.") On the other hand, the fact that Bush wasn't 100% correct in everything, and the occupation was bungled, makes him and the US totally evil.

A second problem, that Hitchens has spoken to before, is that they refuse to recognize the world is a better place with Saddam out of power. That, too, is always ignored.

It would be nice to lock leftist, anti war types and "Neocons" in a room. The next day we could shoot the survivors.

[Ken White]

...
It would be nice to lock leftist, anti war types and "Neocons" in a room. The next day we could shoot the survivors.

I'll even donate a few. Voila, no survivors....

[marct]

I'll even donate a few. Voila, no survivors....

have an ideal way of dealing with Post Modernists and others suffering from PMS (Post Modernist Syndrome) which was similar. Lock them in a spherical room and tell them to deconstruct a continuous loop of Celine Dion .

There would be no survivors .

[Ski]

I find it quite ironic that the neo-cons are taking a page out of German history with the "dolchstoss" defense...these people are out to lunch.

Ken, sometimes lack of policy and action is good enough.

[Ken White]

Whether it's advisable or not when you're being stalked by a Pride of Lions is another question.

Turning the other cheek is, to steal a phrase from Marc, a Post Modernists preferred methodology. Works generally okay with most westerners. Not so much with folks from the ME who are definitely not into post modernism...

Response should be tailored to sources not dreams.

[J Wolfsberger]

have an ideal way of dealing with Post Modernists and others suffering from PMS (Post Modernist Syndrome) which was similar. Lock them in a spherical room and tell them to deconstruct a continuous loop of Celine Dion .

That's odd. I'd have thought you would be opposed to torture.

[Ski]

A pride of lions? Please. You give the Islamic radicals too much credit sir.

Iraq had no lions, they had a broken country that had the illusion of stability and strength.

The surveillance program under Desert Spring and other Iraq tailored operations worked quite fine. It was undoubedtly cheaper, both in blood and treasure, and kept a modicum of stability in the region.

Now there is a power vacuum that we are temporarily filling. I am of the opinion this cannot be sustained indefinatly.

[Ken White]

A pride of lions? Please. You give the Islamic radicals too much credit sir.

Not really, but I'm incredibly easy. Not lions then. How about a pack of Jackals -- or even wild dogs? Still propose to do nothing? If so, we have a different approach to life.

Iraq had no lions, they had a broken country that had the illusion of stability and strength.

If you were under that illusion, as were many, not my problem. IMO, they were neither stable nor strong but they did have the misfortune to have an unloved dictator and be smack dab in the geographic center of the ME, they thus became an easy target.

The surveillance program under Desert Spring and other Iraq tailored operations worked quite fine. It was undoubedtly cheaper, both in blood and treasure, and kept a modicum of stability in the region.

Stability in the region was not the issue -- export of nominally Islamic fundamentalist terrorism to the rest of the world was the issue and, in particular, attacks on the US (read: Afghanistan, here we come) and more importantly, US interests worldwide (as in Khobar towers, the embassies, Beirut and all that -- read Iraq and the greater ME, here we come...) were the triggers to do more than passively accept them -- which Desert Fox and such did absolutely nothing to deter. One could argue that such halfhearted foolishness merely encouraged the Jackals...

The object in attacking Iraq was not to produce a stable ME, it was to get bases in the area in order to facilitate the local development of greater stability and to deter local adventurers in the field of global terrorism by cutting the time to accomplish that from four or five generations to only two or so. May not have been the best plan in the world but it'll probably work and it is certainly vastly preferable to continuing to encourage the attacks by NOT responding significantly.

Now there is a power vacuum that we are temporarily filling. I am of the opinion this cannot be sustained indefinatly.

Shouldn't need to be sustained indefinitely, just another 15-30 years or so. Hang in there, it'll get worse before it gets better.

[Ken White]

date isn't that far off the mark for our involvement specifically in Iraq. Hitchens engages in his usual hyperbole and provocative style but he's not totally out to lunch in that article

One can argue that Iraq was not well planned or even a good plan -- but one should have an alternative proposal for what was to be done about the steadily increasing probes from the Middle East from 1979 through 2001 other than continue to accept them with almost no reaction. Thus far, I've seen no one offer such an alternative other than 'diplomacy' and some feel-good efforts which, given the long memories and propensity for feuds in the ME would have been highly unlikely to confer even minimal success..

One can go back to the FDR and Ibn Saud conference on the return trip from Yalta and wish the US had done many things in the ME differently over the next 30 years. Not much point in that, we did what we did and the seizure of the Tehran Embassy resulted and our totally ineffectual response to that started the ball rolling. I submit diplomacy would not have stopped it. Nor will Iraq -- but Iraq did short circuit their efforts and it will have a deterrent effect provided we don't get stuck on stupid. That's far better than doing what we did from 1979 until 2001.

While no fan of Wolfotwits, Feith et.al. and while agreeing with most above on the stupidity of the Neocon ideas (and their current CYA effort -- which is pathetic but was to be expected), I've never been totally convinced that Bush adopted the Neocon mantras -- I think he realized on a gut level that it was impossible to seal the borders of the US and that something more than diplomacy was required. He simply followed some (not all) of the Neocon ideas because they made more sense than most of the alternatives. IOW, no one had a better plan.

And, five years later, I still haven't read or heard of one...