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 Manning Memo
On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.
— Vincent Bugliosi
A Monumental Lie
In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.
On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.
According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.
Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.
In the original NIE report, members of the U.S. intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.
— Vincent Bugliosi
http://youtu.be/Sbey4hPlrX0
Dislike MSNBC and Rachel Maddow all you want, but this special report spells ot exactly why we invaded Iraq. No other report that I’ve seen or read on the reasons behind the war in Iraq spells it out this clearly. Some people should be sitting in prison.
bigfatmike wrote “Can a UN resolution obligate any state to declare war?”
No. The relevant chapter of the UN Charter — Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression — includes no such provision.
https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
The problem is that Bush the Younger made a claim (someone might be able to find his exact words) where he claimed that the U.S. has the authority to execute pre-emptory attacks to prevent more 9/11s. The above UN chapter includes this sentence in Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Bush took it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner, but when someone does this they have a duty to ensure that the intelligence is rock solid. The Curveball incident proved that the Bush administration grasped at any straw to attack Iraq.
And there are still people who believe that Iraq had WMDs.
North Korea blatantly attacked South Korea in 1950, but Truman wisely gathered many countries into his UN coalition before heading north of the 38th parallel.
bigfatmike,
There are those who would have you believe that the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq is because the U.N. said “go.”
With this re-writing of history and law, into pure fiction, the author hopes to wash away the memory of the fact “the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
on 1, June 13, 2014 at 12:00 pmTheSaucyMugwump (@TheSaucyMugwump)
Nick Spinelli wrote “Saucy, Are you French? This seems personal.”
Saucy said…
I am tediously analytical. I expect politicians to debate facts and news outlets to report them. When people twist reality to further their agenda, I become rather annoyed.
*****************
Saucy, we may not agree on most political subjects, but you are clearly a reasonable guy. I’m glad you decided to comment here.
It seems to me the world industrial/military/security complex has created the situation in the Middle East that they desired. Constant turmoil with scattered regional powers. We have taken trillions of public treasure and turned it into private wealth. We have created enough instability and fear to ensure the continued expenditure of treasure supplying arms to both sides of the conflict. The oil fields are unstable, thus keeping the value of stable supplies at a premium.
When will the public quit supporting this corruption? Quit honoring the people who are mercenaries, not heroes, doing their dirty work?
The US divided Iraq into three major ethnic regions. The Shhiit, who control Iran, were given the most power. We support rebels (Al Quaeda or worse?) in Syria. We support a military coup in Egypt. On and on etc etc etc!
Paul,
Did I ask you to show me which resolution “authorized” the U.S. to use military force against Iraq?
No.
Does the U.N. have power over our military or any power to authorize a U.S. president to use military force?
No. Perhaps in the mind of a five year old; but not in reality.
So I say again.
Show us the legal mechanism whereby a U.N. resolution obligated the U.S. to declare a state of war existed between Iraq and the United States upon “tripping” said resolution.
Bob, Esq – It was at the top of the link I gave you.
Paul,
You didn’t answer my question.
Don’t play coy.
Show us the legal mechanism whereby a U.N. resolution obligated the U.S. to declare a state of war existed between Iraq and the United States upon “tripping” said resolution.
Bob, Esq – here you go.
UNSCR 678 – November 29, 1990
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait) “and all subsequent relevant resolutions.”
Authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
” whereby a U.N. resolution obligated the U.S. to declare a state of war existed between Iraq and the United States”
Can a UN resolution obligate any state to declare war?
Isn’t the most the UN can do is authorize a state to use military force?
This will be the second Crusade (On The Origin of the Crusader Pathogen).
Turley says Bush II wrote a letter to French Pres. saying god told him to invade Iraq (Turley Blog).
Nick Spinelli wrote “The French are a sanctimonious, entitled, lazy, people”
Their 30-something hour work-week is rather unrealistic in a globalized world. I did rather appreciate the well-dressed, thin women, however. I was shocked at how many Islamic women walked around in full veils (this was before France righteously banned them).
“Their haute cuisine is pretentious”
This is so American of me, but in Paris I avoided the sidewalk cafes because the food was poor and the prices were high. I finally figured out that Subways in tourist areas and small restaurants in shopping malls were my friends. I loved London because of the many fish & chip shops.
Iraq was lost the moment George W and his group walked into the White House – bombing Iraq back to the stone age will not change things one bit.
The aircraft carrier being sent to Iraq is the George H W Bush. Can we all not see the irony?
The fact is the US is not omnipotent. We cannot solve every problem.
Some might now be asking would the US have been better off with Saddam in power rather than the current situation.
Sometimes there is great benefit from a honest appraisal of exactly what might be accomplished in a bad situation.
Saucy, Fox News does not have anything w/ my disdain for the French, and not just their reprehensible actions in WW2. The “freedom fries” horseshit was stupid. The French are a sanctimonious, entitled, lazy, people. They do make great wine and cheese. I like their simple country peasant cuisine a lot. Their haute cuisine is pretentious. I learned much about the French and their cuisine from Julia Child and Jacque Pepin.
Nick Spinelli wrote “Saucy, Are you French? This seems personal.”
I can see why you’d say that. You should get me riled up on the subject of North Korea sometime (see JT’s North Korea post of today). I’m neither French nor Korean.
No, what annoys me is what Fox News did during the run up to the Iraq War. They and idiot Republicans (not that Democrats are any better) brought up the anti-French hysteria because France was opposed to the war. The entire “freedom fries” episode caused me to forget about Fox News as a serious news source. I have traveled through Paris’ Gare du Nord and almost ran into one of the soldiers patrolling it. I will never forget the look he gave me (“Get out of my way, you stupid civilian, before I shoot you!”) because he was on serious duty. The soldiers were patrolling as if they were in combat: they were separated by a sufficient distance to prevent one Muslim from shooting them all with one blast and they had fully-automatic rifles (I used to be a gun nut).
I am tediously analytical. I expect politicians to debate facts and news outlets to report them. When people twist reality to further their agenda, I become rather annoyed.
Ridiculous. It was ridiculous in the first place. It’s human nature. Sending an occupying army into a country and expecting everyone to be happy about it is a fool’s errand. Like Libya, Egypt, etc, etc… and soon to be Ukraine, we have unleashed a complex series of events that we don’t understand and cannot control. This ridiculous foreign policy, while making defense contractors more wealthy, may be the undoing of all of us.
Paul: “Saddam tripped a series of UN resolutions which then gave the United States and others the right to go into Iraq and finish the first Iraq War. There was no lying going on, Prof. Turley. You have to go back to the UN resolutions and the US actions regarding those resolutions.”
Go ahead Paul. Show us the legal mechanism whereby a U.N. resolution obligated the U.S. to declare a state of war existed between Iraq and the United States upon “tripping” said resolution.
There was no lying going on??
And I guess the moon landing never happened either?
Bob, Esq. – Here is the list of Saddam’s violations.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
WordMess is eating comments again.
One of mine is trapped too.