The United States is mulling further intervention in Iraq as government forces flee Al Qaeda-linked insurgents and the country appears teetering on chaos. While the Administration is not ready to commit boots on the grounds, we may be moving toward a further influx of hundreds of millions or billions in military aid and even air strikes. As ISIS insurgents are seizing U.S. weaponry, the U.S. has already started to flood the country a new massive shipment of new free weapons.
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or ISIS is on a roll and nearing the capital. It is an al-qaeda linked terrorist group following the Wahhabi movement, the extreme religious view advanced by our ally Saudi Arabia.
So let’s take stock. We replaced a dictator based on lies in a massive invasion ordered by George W. Bush. We then spent over $2 trillion (the cost is over $4 trillion when you include Afghanistan). Both President Bush and President Obama continued to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in the country despite massive corruption and billions that simply disappeared. At the same time we have been cutting back on our own educational, environmental, scientific, and social programs due to a lack of money. Consider what $4 trillion would have done.
More importantly, we have lost some 4,486 U.S. service members between 2003 and 2012. Thousands have been wounded, many with lifelong disabilities. Our leaders continued to pour troops into the country because no one wanted to admit that the war was a mistake or that we were losing to Islamic insurgents. We continued to lose people and spend trillions in the belief that we could reverse centuries of sectarian and social strife.
In the meantime, we became increasingly hated by many Iraqis and we opened the country not to Saddamists but Al Qaeda forces who moved into the area as an opportunity to fight America and take over large parts of the country. They are now seizing advanced US weaponry so we are again arming extremists. Now to make our disaster complete we not only have Al Qaeda taking control of areas but Iran has now reportedly sent in troops to fuel the Shiite/Sunni violence. It is offering as many as 10,000 Iranian troops.
It is another example of the economic principle of “path dependence”: we have so much invested that we cannot change course. So once again, we will open up our coffers until the last helicopter leaves from the roof from the Green Zone.
The necessary condition to secure and build the peace for future generations, for Iraq and America, is security. Obama’s foreign policy has created insecurity.
“The necessary condition to secure and build the peace for future generations, for Iraq and America, is security. Obama’s foreign policy has created insecurity.”
I am still working on some of your documents. I am just not as prolific as you.
But I think we can knock this comment down right away.
Your remarks fundamentally misunderstand the nature of security. We can strive for security. But we can never have it in any absolute sense. And we never really know to what degree we do have it.
You claim seems to be that ‘security’ is necessary for your idea of the good life. I would guess you would include an increasing standard of living for more people, safe communities, education for our children, and a vibrant economy.
But the facts demonstrate non of that depends on security. Through most of the cold war the world stood within 30 minutes of annihilation. The US alone had about 30,000 nuclear devices. If there had been anything but the smallest exchange, hundreds of millions would have died in the initial blasts and fire balls. Hundreds of millions more would have died within days or weeks from clouds of radiation circling the globe. There is the possibility that all human life would have been extinguished by nuclear winter leading to the deepest and coldest ice age the world has seen. And it all could have started in less than 30 minutes.
Yet, during that time, many of the people in many nations made huge strides in health, education, nutrition, standards of living, economic vitality, and most any other measure of human well being. Security, as desirable as it is, is not what allows us to make progress.
What leads on the greater development is far from clear. But I would argue that what ever it is that leads to development, it includes a lack of violence, somehow keeping the peace, the minimization of war. It is stability and peace, even a fitful, limited peace, that allows us to build our lives and our communities.
It is the neo cons of the Bush administration who tried to build a unilateral world in which the US was the single most powerful imperial nation on earth. To the extent they were able to implement that system, even our allies chaffed under the assumption that our presumed exceptionalism gave us the privilege to ride rough over their interests and run international affairs. Could there be a less stable international system. I think not.
Obama does face challenges. And there are many questions regarding his techniques. But his approach has been more consultative and more cooperative, yet capable of exercising power where necessary.
I am no fan of the Obama administration. But it is clear to me that Obama offers a path to greater international stability which is what allows our communities to flourish. Obama’s flawed approach seems far more likely to lead to enhanced long term security.
bfm – MAD worked to keep us secure, so we did have security. But we also had a feeling of insecurity. Still, we advanced much. The Soviets had the same sense of security and insecurity, but did not advance as much. What do you think the reason was?
” The Soviets had the same sense of security and insecurity, but did not advance as much. What do you think the reason was?”
There are probably many reasons but I think there are probably two key ones: 1)regardless of whether central planning is possible, they did not have data collection and data processing capability to make it work, 2) a kind of intimidation or corruption that made accurate industrial and economic reporting less likely – so even if they had the data processing capability they could not develop the raw data necessary. Market economies have an advantage – when they take care to develop accurate numbers.
swarthmoremom,
In case it shows up later, I wrote a longer response earlier that didn’t post. Here’s a shorter version.
President Obama inherited Iraq from President Bush as a strategic victory and an emerging keystone regional partner growing at peace. Always remember that this was the Iraq that Obama left to the mercies of a region growing sharply more volatile and dangerous, specifically in its neighbor:
Blaming President Bush for current events in Iraq relies on the fallacy of attenuated causation. The proximate causes of, one, the construction of ISIS in Syria that combined with, two, the US-abandoned vulnerability of Iraq arose from changed circumstances and conditions due to post-Bush events related to policy course changes made by Obama that fundamentally deviated from Bush’s foreign policy.
The emerging trend-setting post-Saddam Iraq was the key to winning the War on Terror. Was. Due to the Counterinsurgency “Surge”, Iraq had turned the corner, earned at great cost by American and allied peace operators together with the Iraqi people, when Bush passed the presidential baton to Obama. Then Obama just threw it away. Obama threw away the Iraqi people who had staked their lives on the American promise from the leader of the free world.
The UNMOVIC website seems to be off-line.
As a substitute, here is the key UNMOVIC finding for OIF, Unresolved Disarmament Issues Iraq’s Proscribed Weapons Programmes 06 March 2003:
http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/cluster_document.pdf .
It’s 175 pages long. If you rather not slog through it, the US State Department fact sheet, Historic Review of UNMOVIC’s Report on Unresolved Disarmament Issues from March 10, 2003, is a quick easy read:
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/18513.htm .
If you’re uninterested in the details, this is the nub: “UNMOVIC evaluated and assessed this material as it has became available and, as a first step, produced an internal working document covering about 100 unresolved disarmament issues, fully referenced to the database, including entries which need to be confidential.”
Recall that Bush’s ultimatum, reiterating Clinton’s ultimatum to Saddam in 1998, was “[Saddam’s] only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.”
Recall that in 1998, Clinton bombed Iraq based on a 3-week compliance test by UNSCOM, stating “If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.”
Compared to UNSCOM’s 3 week compliance test, the UNMOVIC compliance test had already stretched to 3 months by the March 2003 report. Despite that Clinton set the precedent for immediate military action upon the compliance test result, Operation Iraqi Freedom was further delayed for an extra month.
Saddam was gifted a reprieve yet didn’t use the extra month after the Blix report to prove the full compliance necessary to prevent regime change. The post-war Duelfer Report corroborated Iraq was in broad violation.
swarthmoremom,
Always remember that President Obama inherited Iraq from President Bush as a strategic victory and a regional keystone partner growing at peace. Blaming President Bush for current events in Iraq relies on the fallacy of attenuated causation. The proximate causes of, one, the construction of ISIS in Syria that combined with, two, the US-abandoned vulnerability of Iraq arose from changed circumstances and conditions due to post-Bush events related to fundamental policy course changes made by President Obama that deviated from Bush’s foreign policy.
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2013/03/10-year-anniversary-start-Operation-Iraqi-Freedom-thoughts.html
In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community; fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past — but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that.
— President Clinton on the commencement of Operation Desert Fox, 1998
The necessary condition to secure and build the peace for future generations is security. When President Bush passed the presidential baton to President Obama, America was winning the War on Terror.
To wit, David Schanzer, Director of the Triangle Center of Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, on the progress made by the counter-terrorism campaign:
In other words, Obama was handed a succeeding counter-terrorism campaign that had greatly reduced the physical terror threat of 9/11.
In addition to resolving the Saddam problem, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a devastating defeat for the terrorists in the post-war contest. The terrorists who sabotaged the initial US-led peace operations and inflicted atrocities on the
Iraqi people had planned for Iraq to be their Vietnam War defeat of America.
Instead, the Iraqi-American alliance turned Iraq into the worst-case, nightmare scenario for the terrorists, who were decimated on the ground and, more consequentially, rebuffed in the war of ideas as Iraq’s Sunni Muslims chose to side with the Americans.
In the context of the greater War on Terror, Obama inherited OIF from Bush as a strategic victory poised to realize Clinton’s vision of “a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past — but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.”
To wit, again, President Obama on post-Saddam Iraq:
In other words, by Obama’s own description, the emerging pluralistic,liberalizing post-Saddam Iraq was set to have “a key role” in a reforming Middle East.
The success of OIF was hard earned. In 2006, the situation in Iraq appeared bleak, reminiscent of low points that preceded other victories in US military history. However, harsh learning curves are normal in war or, in the case of OIF, the peace operations of the post-war.
American, Iraqi, and allied forces learned how to succeed in Iraq, and the Petraeus-led Counterinsurgency “Surge” turned the Iraq mission around.
For the US military, the lessons learned in Iraq set a critical methodological baseline for the 21st century. The military can replenish equipment and even men, but there is only one way for the institution to learn how to win in the evolving strategic environment.
To wit, again, General Petraeus:
The American victory in Iraq should have revitalized the commitment and resolve of American leadership of the free world and the concomitant pause of our competitors.
To wit, again, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker:
With American leadership tempered by the crucible of Iraq, the next step of winning the War on Terror was building peace in the Middle East based on new norms. How? American partnership with the emerging pluralistic, liberalizing post-Saddam Iraq as the keystone building block and the Bush Freedom Agenda. While the Arab Spring happened during the Obama administration, the Bush Freedom Agenda had positioned America to boost liberal reform in the Middle East. Yet in the singular window to make a historic difference, in the moment America held – as President Clinton had envisioned for the US with Iraq – “a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past”, Obama astonishingly, instead, rejected the Bush Freedom Agenda and opted to ‘lead from behind’ with tragically predictable and evitable consequences.
Bush set up Obama for victory in the War on Terror. Obama simply needed to stay the course from Bush to win the war and build the peace, like President Eisenhower stayed the course from Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. Instead, Obama claimed Bush’s liberal foreign policy goals yet disclaimed Bush’s rational, progressing means to achieve them, thus causing Obama’s irrational foreign policy and regressing foreign affairs.
Once again, the necessary condition to secure and build the peace is security. Obama’s foreign policy has created insecurity.
In sum, America was winning the War on Terror when President Bush left office. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a strategic victory that had resolved the festering Saddam problem (none too soon, according to the Duelfer Report), revitalized international enforcement in the defining international enforcement mission of the post-Cold War, demonstrated the mettle of American leadership and devastated the terrorists with the Counterinsurgency “Surge”, and provided the US with an emerging keystone partner in pluralistic, liberalizing post-Saddam Iraq to reform the region. However, since taking office, Obama has reversed the hard-won progress made under Bush by committing the gross strategic blunders of bungling the SOFA negotiation with Iraq and changing course from Bush’s foreign policy. Consequently, the terrorists have resurged in the gaps opened by the stumbling, diminished American leadership under President Obama.
—
Misinformation and mischaracterization have distorted the popular perception of the context, stakes, and achievements of Operation Iraqi Freedom with compounding, harmful effects. They have obscured the strict enforcement mission with Saddam’s Iraq that President Bush carried forward from President Clinton and the ground-breaking peace operations by the US military in post-Saddam Iraq, thus undermining the enforcement of international norms and obstructing the further development and application of peace operations.
The distorted public perception of the Iraq mission has led to poor policy decisions by the Obama administration in the Arab Spring, most notably regarding Libya and Syria. Where President Bush positioned America after 9/11 to lead vigorously from the front as the liberal internationalist “leader of the free world”, President Obama has reduced America to ‘leading from behind’ with predictable tragic consequences. Bush gave Obama a hard-earned winning hand in Iraq, yet the Obama administration bungled the SOFA negotiation at a critical turning point. The premature exit from Iraq has cast doubt on the future of Iraq’s development and caused the loss of a difference-making regional strategic partnership.
Eric, I retrieved your comment at 3:39.
bigfatmike,
Part Two: OIF was justified on the policy – in Bush’s shoes at the decision point for OIF.
Context matters. We only had 3 options on Iraq.
The options that Bush inherited from Clinton were circumscribed. None of them was pretty. By the close of the Clinton administration, the US-led Iraq enforcement had been reduced to:
A. Status quo. Kick the can on the toxic and, more importantly, failing ‘containment’ – and hope.
B. Remove the enforcement and free a noncompliant Saddam, unreconstructed.
C. Resolution by giving Saddam a final chance to comply under a credible
threat of regime change.
An intellectually honest argument against President Bush’s decision for choosing resolution must include a compelling case for kicking the can and/or freeing a noncompliant Saddam. (Recall Obama’s statement as an Illinois state senator that Saddam would fade away if we kicked the can, a position contradicted by the pre-war intelligence and the post-war evidence.)
I recommend reading the http://www.UNMOVIC.org reporting on Iraq’s triggering noncompliance at the decision point and the Duelfer Report on the post-war fact-finding of Iraq’s violations:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/
Regarding option A, the Duelfer Report corroborated the pre-war intelligence that the ‘containment’ status quo was broken. Saddam had neutralized the sanctions, was reconstituting his WMD capability including large-scale illicit procurement, and rebuilt proscribed delivery systems. A clandestine program was already active in the Iraqi intelligence services that – by itself – validated OIF.
Revisionist critics of OIF emphasize that a military/battlefield level of WMD stocks wasn’t found in Iraq, yet overlook that Saddam was noncompliant with UNMOVIC and found to be in broad violation of Iraq’s weapons and non-weapons obligation under the UNSC resolutions.
Regarding option B, freeing a noncompliant Saddam was a non-starter in US policy. The last chance to free a noncompliant Saddam was in 1995, when his son-in-law – the one that Saddam tricked into returning to Iraq, then executed – revealed WMD stocks that Saddam had successfully hidden from the inspections. Instead of ending the Iraq enforcement, the US and UN reasonably reacted to Saddam’s deception and defiance by making the proof burden for Iraq stricter.
Per the Duelfer Report, a freed noncompliant Saddam meant a rearmed Saddam. Worse, the Duelfer Reports shows that Saddam, who already owned a track record of dangerously poor judgement that compelled US intervention in the first place, was growing more irrational while also consolidating power. Obama’s pre-OIF contention that Saddam would fade away was unhinged from the facts.
So, with the ‘containment’ broken and freeing a noncompliant Saddam a non-starter, that left us only with option C.
The hope was Saddam would come to his senses and comply volitionally. Keep in mind, with ODF, Clinton had already declared Saddam failed his last chance. Saddam remained in material breach of both Iraq’s weapons and non-weapons ceasefire obligations. In other words, Bush would have been right on the law and justified on the policy to invade Iraq without inserting UNMOVIC as Saddam’s last chance to pass his compliance test under credible threat of regime change.
Instead, Bush gave Saddam a second last chance to comply. Clinton bombed Iraq based on a 3-week (plus 8 years) compliance test in 1998. Bush invaded Iraq based on a 4-month (plus 12 years) compliance test in 2003.
If Bush had backed down when Saddam ‘called our bluff’, that would have left us with the options of a broken ‘containment’ or freeing a noncompliant Saddam.
The Duelfer Report makes clear that either alternative to regime change meant a rearmed Saddam who was increasingly irrational to boot. Keep in mind why we intervened militarily in Iraq in the first place in 1991.
We were already deeply engaged with Iraq before OIF.
Revisionist critics of OIF assume the false premise that the US was something other than intertwined with Iraq before OIF as the chief enforcer on the Gulf War ceasefire and UNSC resolutions.
Moreover, regime change was the official US policy for Iraq since Clinton.
To wit, President Clinton’s statement on the Iraq Liberation Act:
From President Clinton’s statement on Operation Desert Fox:
It wasn’t just lip service, either. Before OIF, the US was already active in regime change efforts in the infamous CIA style. However the regime change came about, the US was committed to helping the Iraqi people transition after Saddam to a liberal state. In other words, if the Iraq liberation element of Clinton’s Iraq policy had manifested without a US-led ground invasion, we still would have gone into Iraq for peace operations, eg, the US role after the Serbia regime change.
However, it doesn’t appear that the CIA-style effort was able to overcome Saddam’s more-infamous repression of the Iraqi people in violation of UNSC Res 688, which was also a trigger for OIF.
Would the how of regime change made a difference to the cost of the post-war?
I doubt it. Keep in mind that the war part of the regime change was mission-accomplished in a few weeks with relatively low casualties to both the US-led coalition and the Iraqis. The vast majority of casualties was caused by the terrorist invasion of US-defended Iraq during the post-war peace operations stage.
If the US would have been in Iraq following either way of regime change, would the terrorists have invaded Iraq if Saddam had fallen to a CIA-style regime change, instead?
Given that the US mission in Iraq from the Gulf War onward – before OIF – was the chief source of anti-American propaganda, plus the geopolitical and cultural centrality of Iraq, plus the terrorists’ basic purpose of dominating humanity, it stands to reason that the terrorist invasion of post-war Iraq would have happened regardless of the how of regime change.
Would other nations outside the Anglosphere have invested more troops in the post-war peace operations with a CIA-style regime change?
I doubt it. One, the US did lead a multinational coalition in Iraq comparable to US-led coalitions in other missions. Two, to answer the question, look at the simultaneous shortfall of other nations in Afghanistan, as well as in 1990s international missions, despite the full internationalization of OEF. Three, the force make-up of the coalition in Desert Shield/Storm that included local Arab military is inapposite to OIF because neighboring troops defending their own country from Saddam is fundamentally different than the issues arising from neighboring troops occupying Iraq. The US role as a 3rd-party advocate among the Iraqis and advocate for Iraq in the international community was essential.
Again, context matters. We only had 3 choices on Iraq. In order to be intellectually honest while opposing Bush’s decision for Iraqi compliance through a credible threat of regime change, you need to place yourself in Bush’s shoes at the decision point for OIF and make a compelling case for either kicking the can on a broken ‘containment’ (status quo) or, instead, freeing a noncompliant Saddam, unreconstructed. Read the Duelfer Report before you answer.
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/18/george_w_bushs_horrific_deadly_blunder_would_saddam_hussein_be_better_than_iraqs_new_hell/ “Since we are at it, as those ripples are circular, we now come full circle in Iraq. No one wants to say it, so let’s say it here: The project now, best outcome, is to reassemble the Iraq of Saddam Hussein — uneasy with itself, brimming with animosities, but whole. This is the Iraq George W. Bush set out to destroy — purposely but without purpose, if you see what I mean. He did, swiftly. And now by any other name we want it back.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/06/dick-cheney-my-thoughts-and-prayers-are-with-the-iraqi-oil-wells.html ”
489851141-580.jpg
JACKSON HOLE, WYOMING (The Borowitz Report)—Former Vice-President Dick Cheney broke his silence about the crisis in Iraq on Tuesday, telling reporters, “My thoughts and prayers are with the Iraqi oil wells.”
Speaking from his Wyoming ranch, Cheney said that he had planned to remain quiet about the current state of affairs in Iraq, but “thinking about those oil wells has kept me up at night.”
“If Dick Cheney won’t speak for the Iraqi oil wells, who will?” he said.
Cheney indicated that, as of now, there was no fighting near Iraq’s oil wells, but warned, “If the violence spreads, those wells could be in jeopardy. And it’s up to the international community to insure that that worst-case scenario doesn’t happen.”
The former Vice-President said that he expected to “catch hell” for inserting himself into the debate about Iraq, but was resolute in his decision to do so. “If I prevent one drop of precious oil from being spilled, it will have been worth it,” he said.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/18/cheney-rips-obama-over-foreign-policy-in-op-ed/?hpt=hp_t2
Excellent summation.
“The Men Who Sealed Iraq’s Disaster With a Handshake
Obama’s rush for the exit and Maliki’s autocratic rule ensured that much hard-won progress would not last.”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/fouad-ajami-the-men-who-sealed-iraqs-disaster-with-a-handshake-1402698324
*was there*
Nana,
SO TRUE! I have a daughter that spent a year in Afghanistan and was he during the Taliban attack on Camp Bastion and Leatherneck in 2012. When I hear people who have no loved ones serving in the military jump at the chance of sending our troops back in harms way, I see red. There will undoubtedly be a time when we need to defend ourselves, but our troops aren’t the sacrificial lambs for those who want to police the world. It’s high time Muslim’s change their own culture and work together for peace, if they can’t do that without our help, then too damn bad for them. They should be left to their own devices and we should mind our own business here at home.
It’s so easy to speculate what was, should be or could be after the fact. People who want US troops to return to Iraq to fight and die for factions who historically for centuries, have killed each other for power, you should volunteer; including McCain and his warmongering cohorts, to lead the charge back to Iraq. Talk to veterans who have lost limbs, suffer with disabilities daily or have PTSD, and ask them if we should send US troops back to Iraq to fight a war that our troops could not understand or knew what they were fighting for. We cannot afford to continue losing lives for people who won’t coexist peacefully, or should we continue to pay for their war while neglecting our infrastructure, ignoring poverty, education and healthcare in our Country.
opinion of the blog
pete,
I refer to primary sources, too, but for preformed analysis, that’s the blog. If you want primary sources that have informed my view, try the 2 links in the comment at June 16, 2014 at 1:13 pm.
Paul C. Schulte: “He does take a much different tack then I do, so you may have to shift your sails a bit.”
The main difference between me and most others, including many supporters, is an appreciation of what the burdens and presumptions meant practically.
The enforcement procedure was designed on the premise that the burden was on Saddam and no burden was on the enforcer. By shifting the burden, revisionist critics of OIF blame Bush for not proving something that the Iraq enforcement was not designed to prove. The Iraq enforcement was designed to test Iraq’s compliance. That’s what Bush enforced and that’s what it did. Saddam failed the test.
You defend the point that Bush, Blair, and other leaders sincerely believed that Saddam had WMD stocks, active programs, etc.. To me, what they might have believed is irrelevant. It didn’t matter what Bush or anyone else believed about Saddam. Saddam’s guilt was established. The enforcement procedure was established.
Even if hypothetically Bush believed despite the intel, track record, and appearances that Saddam had secretly sworn off WMD forever and destroyed everything, Bush’s duty as chief enforcer meant he was not allowed>/I> to act on that belief until Saddam satisfied his burden. Until Saddam proved compliance, he was guilty and the “clear and present danger” was imputed.
As is, the UNMOVIC reporting and the Duelfer Report show Iraq was in broad violation and the ‘containment’ was broken. Clinton was right about Saddam. If Bush backs down, Saddam rearms.
eric
if you wish to debate the merits or legality of operation iraqi liberation you might want to link your arguments to something other than someones opinion blog.
but while we’re at it try this one
http://www.stonekettle.com/2014/06/absolutely-nothing.html
Darren Smith,
Understood. Will do in the future. You know, I was wondering how it was that the links got truncated in my earlier comment with the Clinton Iraq quotes. Thanks for the heads-up.
bigfatmike,
Let’s get started on the policy question. I won’t unpack everything in one comment. But if you would like a cheat sheet of where I’ll go, I suggest this OIF FAQ:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html
OIF was justified on the policy.
Understanding the justification requires the proper context: Bush’s shoes at the decision point for OIF.
Bear with me while I stretch the metaphor. To understand Bush’s shoes at the decision point for OIF requires knowing they were hand-me-downs. The shoes were new when his father had them made to confront Saddam, used them for the 1st time, and then handed them to Clinton. By the time Clinton handed the shoes to Bush, they were falling apart with frayed patches, and at the end of their wearable life.
The Saddam problem compounded over the course of 3 presidencies, mostly Clinton’s. The official US policy that solving the Saddam problem required regime change was established by Clinton out of the escalating struggle with Saddam that preoccupied Clinton’s whole presidency. (See my comment at June 16, 2014 at 12:28 am; and Paul’s compilation at June 15, 2014 at 4:40 am illustrating the consensus view of the Saddam problem that Bush inherited from Clinton.)
The charge that Bush invented the Saddam problem was strange given that it had been front-page, headline news for over a decade and Bush carried forward Clinton’s standing case against Saddam. Legislators and Clinton officials who had rung the bell on Saddam throughout the Clinton administration (eg, HR 322, Nov 97)were suddenly claiming that they had signed onto PL 107-243 only because Bush ‘lied’. Actually, PL 107-243 effectively only restated Clinton’s standing case against Saddam with firmer language.
The only substantive difference between Bush and Clinton on Saddam was the additional lens of the collapse of the ad hoc post-ODF ‘containment’ combined with the heightened post-9/11 threat consideration. (See my comment at June 14, 2014 at 12:06 am and Clinton’s statements quoted at June 16, 2014 at 12:28 am.)
Which brings me to the issue of the pre-war intelligence.
When I began researching Regime Change in Iraq from Clinton to Bush, my first question was Clinton’s treatment of the intelligence in Operation Desert Fox.
In terms of law, policy, and precedent, Clinton’s case for ODF established the procedural baseline for regime change. Practically, Clinton cleared the penultimate step to ground invasion with the ODF bombing and the classification of Saddam as a “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” who “will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
I figured, Clinton must have had his hands on rock-solid intel for ODF, right? I wanted to find out what happened to it.
What I found out surprised me: Clinton didn’t cite to the intelligence at all.
There was nothing in ODF about the US ‘proving’ Saddam possessed WMD. Instead, Saddam’s guilt on WMD was established, presumptive fact, the danger was imputed from the failure to cure Iraq’s guilt, and the casus belli was Saddam’s noncompliance. (For more on the compliance v intel issue, see learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-of-definition-in-iraq.html .)
Furthermore, I discovered that our intel on Iraq’s weapons was unreliable by the mid-1990s – in other words, years before ODF in Dec 98 – because of Saddam’s “denial and deception operations”. It wasn’t a controversy since the Iraq enforcement was based on Saddam’s compliance, not the US intel.
The limited role of intel was reinforced when I read Clinton’s endorsements of Bush on Iraq. Despite the outcry over the intel, Clinton was unconcerned; he said Bush should have just left it out. Instead, Clinton emphasized the post-9/11 danger based on Saddam’s “unaccounted for” weapons.
The established and presumed guilt and burden of proof for Saddam were more than legal technicalities. They were the practical core of the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement, including the ODF precedent that set the procedural baseline for OIF.
Bush didn’t invent the Saddam problem. Bush carried forward Clinton’s policy to solve the Saddam problem.
Eric
Your comment at 8:14 PM went into moderation because it had more than two hyperlinks. I dereferenced on of them so that it would work. If you have more than one hyperlink you would like to show readers you can use additional comments to do so.
Darren, You are a hard working man. Thanks, much.
Paul C. Schulte,
Don’t shut up on my account. There’s a reason the Spurs just blew out the Heat.