The Emerging "Neocon" Alibi on Iraq

[Ken White]

You've illustrated the crux of the administration's flawed argument: that the Hussein regime would or could provide WMD to terrorists. In other words, the argument pivoted on the probability of a regime which had never shown evidence of suicidal tendencies becoming suicidal.

Cogent strategy entails assuming some degree of risk when the anticipated costs of addressing the threat are greater than the probability of the threat coming to pass, or of the damage if the threat did come to pass. The administration skewed this logic by grossly overestimating the likelihood of a threat to the United States from Hussein, and grossly underestimating the expected costs of removing him by force...

I'm aware the Admin said what you cite for public consumption. Do you personally think that any great number of the decision makers really put any stock in that? Do you think that had any significant place at all in the heirarchy of reasons for the attack?

[Rank amateur]

I'm aware the Admin said what you cite for public consumption. Do you personally think that any great number of the decision makers really put any stock in that? Do you think that had any significant place at all in the heirarchy of reasons for the attack?

I'm going to agree with Ken:

ut Rumsfeld wasn't interested in waging that kind of war. He saw the war not so much as a fight about Iraq as a demonstration of a new style of warfare—known as "military transformation" or "the revolution in military affairs"—that signaled how America would project power in the post-Cold War era. He saw, not incorrectly, a turbulent world of emerging threats, some in remote areas inaccessible from U.S. bases. The large, lumbering armies of old were not so suitable for such conflicts. Hence his emphasis on small, lightweight units of ground forces—fast to mobilize, easy to sustain—and superaccurate bombs and missiles to hit targets that only heavy artillery could destroy in decades past. With the Iraq war (and the Afghanistan conflict before it), he wanted to send rogue regimes and other foes a message: Look what we can do with one hand tied behind our back. If we can overthrow Saddam (and the Taliban) so easily, we can overthrow you, too.

It is no surprise, then, that Rumsfeld rejected the argument, made by several Army and Marine generals, that whatever happens on the battlefield, we'll need a few hundred thousand troops to impose order and help form a new Iraq. A large, lengthy occupation would have nullified his whole concept of new-style warfare and its vision of 21st-century geopolitics.

Rummy et al had a solid strategic agreement: take out all state sponsors of terrorism - high benefit - using a "transformed" military: low cost.

When it turned out that the strategic analysis was laughably wrong the spin doctors came up with arguments that were good enough to win the election, which was the spin doctor's job, but which were - as Steve points out - strategically ridiculous.

[Ken White]

[URL="http://www.slate.com/id/2186850"]I'm going to agree with Ken:

If you say so. I don't agree with Fred. Rarley do, he's a hack and you should cross check his stuff...

When it turned out that the strategic analysis was laughably wrong the spin doctors came up with arguments that were good enough to win the election, which was the spin doctor's job, but which were - as Steve points out - strategically ridiculous.

You might want to check your timing on what was said and when the election occurred. You might also contemplate how "laughably wrong" was the strategic analysis. Not Fred's version. He knows not one bit more than you or I do, perhaps less (seems that way sometimes). Rather on all the things that might have been analyzed.

[SteveMetz]

I'm aware the Admin said what you cite for public consumption. Do you personally think that any great number of the decision makers really put any stock in that? Do you think that had any significant place at all in the heirarchy of reasons for the attack?

Hard to tell. Ron Suskind, in The One Percent Doctrine, thinks they did. Personally I suspect that the President probably believed it. Some of his advisers may have been more coldly realistic, assuming that there was a political and psychological window of opportunity to remove a festering problem. 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 was always one of those who considered Hussein deterrable. He was prone to miscalculation, but that can be overcome through clarity of intent. More than anything, he valued his own survival and power. So long as we could hold those things as risk, he could be deterred.

The ONLY way the administration's argument held was if one or both of two things were true: 1) the costs and risks of removing Hussein by force were minimal; or 2) the future Saddam Hussein would be very different than the past Saddam Hussein and thus willing to risk his own survival and power in order to punish the United States.

Even before the intervention, I didn't see any reason to believe either of those.

[Ken White]

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...

I do agree with you on this aspect:

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.