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.
bigfatmike,
“I tried to send a more complete answer earlier.”
Yeah, this blog has a capricious filter. For awhile, all of my comments were being eaten. Then as I was about to give up, some of them appeared and new ones seem to be going through again. Weird.
“I am not prepared to take a position on the legal basis for OIF.”
That’s neither Yes nor No. But okay, I can accept that for now and defer the legal question with you. I thought you were implying a stipulation on the law based on how you responded to a comment that was addressing 1 possible and 1 definite legal assertion made by jonathanturley. Actually, you meant to redirect the discussion outside the legal scope altogether.
Keep in mind, though, we can’t firewall the legal issue in a policy debate. Settling the legal question at step one helps the policy discussion because the law obviously bears weight on the policy since the law is based on the policy, and in turn, the law defines how the policy is enforced. While inextricably tied together, I agree though they’re not the same question. Well, we’ll do the best we can on the policy question missing a stipulation on the law.
“am I correct that you agree with me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was right on the law?”
I am not ignoring you. I tried to send a more complete answer earlier. I have edited this a bit in the hope that it will make it through for your attention.
I am not prepared to take a position on the legal basis for OIF.
What ever the legal basis it cannot possibly justify a disastrous policy based on a simplistic view of Iraqi society and lies to the American public.
Simply put, my position is that a legal basis for war is necessary but can never be a sufficient reason, by itself, to go to war.
War is too important to be left to legal technicalities.
Far more important than the legal case, it is vital to understand the world view that lead to the waste of trillions of dollars, thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, increased turmoil in an already volatile region, and directed our attention away from the real problems of how to deal with Islamic extremism.
You can debate the legal details. I am sure that is fascinating. However, I think the legal details are largely irrelevant to the important questions we face today.
Paul,
First of all you failed to address any of the specific fraudulent representations I listed.
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/06/13/u-s-shipping-more-weapons-and-preparing-more-military-aid-to-iraq/#comment-1177417
Your silence is hereby deemed as acceptance.
Second, your veracity on this issue is wholly non-existent; just like your intention to back up any of your claims with even a semblance of an argument.
How am I supposed to take you seriously, about a stance you’ve no doubt held for the past eleven years, by citing a portion of post you read just today as authority for that stance?
This is unfortunate since I find the attention you give to detail on other matters quite refreshing.
On this topic, however, you’re as convincing as a moon landing denier or a Holocaust denier.
People talk about the golden age of the Republican party when Reagan was in power.
I think that’s B.S.
The golden age of the Republican party was during the Eisenhower administration; a decade before I was born.
Whenever I see an alleged “conservative” intentionally lying with complete abandon, like you’ve done here, I just sit back and wonder “what would Ike think about someone like this?”
Bob, Esq – I sent in the first team to deal with you. You deserved the best. My none statements is not an acceptance of anything. Eric picked up the argument for me. He and bfm have been debating the issue. Just work your way upstream to connect with Eric’s very cogent argument. He does take a much different tack then I do, so you may have to shift your sails a bit. 😉
bigfatmike,
Again, am I correct that you agree with me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was right (technically) on the law? Yes or No.
When you answer the legal question and we’ve set that piece, I can address the next piece, the policy question.
I have always though the question ‘are we safer now’ is a stupid one. After all sometimes some times we have to walk far along the ledge and lean far over the precipice to reach the valley of safety.
But still, at some point you have to take the measure of a course of action.
Does it really seem that the policies put into motion by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and others have put us in the right direction. Or does it seem they have been a great diversion of our attention, our effort, our resources.
Have the lives and treasure we spent bought us anything worth while or have then been a great, bitter waste?
And a key point of our evaluation has to be whether these men were telling the truth when they made their case. Compelling cases do not require lies to be convincing.
Bob, Esq,
Age alone doesn’t decommission a law.
There was no expiration date on PL 102-1. Instead, the expiration condition for the legislative authority to militarily enforce the UNSC resolutions on Iraq was Iraq’s full compliance with these UNSC resolutions: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html .
bigfatmike: “We did not miss it” [regarding the legal basis for OIF]; “Sometimes it is easy to find justification to go to war”.
The discussion here is straining from pull in different directions. The Iraq debate includes several issues and inflection points. I’m pleased to discuss the policy question, but I would like first to settle the issue of OIF’s legality – get it out of the way.
My comment was in response specifically to jonathanturley’s statement that OIF was “based on lies”. In a previous post, he called OIF an “undeclared war” in a constitutional context. Both of those points convey a legal implication.
Of law, policy, and politics, “based on lies” can have a politics (political) meaning or a law (legal) meaning. Politically, it can mean popular support for OIF was “based on lies”. Legally, it can mean the cause of action for OIF was “based on lies”. I’m setting aside the political question for now and addressing the legal question.
Legally, jonathanturley is incorrect that OIF was “based on lies”. Saddam’s noncompliance is fact and the cause of action for the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement, including OIF, was whether Iraq fully complied with UNSC Res 687, 688, etc.. For example, President Bush, Oct 2002: “Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance — his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.”
If jonathanturley agrees with me that OIF was legally (distinct from politically) based on fact, not “based on lies”, I hope he clarifies his position.
On the 2nd issue that OIF was an “undeclared war”, jonathanturley is technically correct. However, his implication that OIF was therefore unconstitutional per the War Powers Act is incorrect.
In fact, military enforcement with Iraq was authorized by two statutes – PL 102-1 and PL 107-243 – within the greater bundle of US law on Iraq enforcement. Per 50 USC 1541, a statutory authorization is equivalent to a declaration of war. Moreover, our last declaration of war was in World War 2. Every military deployment with the War Powers Act has been authorized by statute and/or response to attack. Therefore, the statutory authorization for OIF was not only equivalent to a declaration of war, it conformed to modern norms.
Unless he is actually arguing for amendment of the War Powers Act, if jonathanturley agrees with me that the statutory authorization for OIF was equivalent to a declaration of war, I hope he clarifies his position on the constitutional question.
bigfatmike, am I correct that you agree with me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was right on the law?
If we can stipulate that OIF was right on the law, as distinct from the policy and political questions, then we can move onto whether OIF was justified on the policy.
“am I correct that you agree with me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was right on the law?”
I am not prepared to take a position on the legal basis for OIF.
I am no expert but I feel informed enough to make statements regarding reasonableness for policies and techniques used to mobilize public opinion.
What ever the legal basis it cannot possibly justify a disastrous policy based on a simplistic view of Iraqi society and lies to the American public.
Simply put, my position is that a legal basis for war is necessary but can never be a sufficient reason, by itself, to go to war.
Was is too important to be left to legal technicalities.
Some of the assumptions that made it easy for some experts to argue for war included the view that Iraqi society could be easily reconfigured with new elites to rule a reliable trading partner and ally, sectarian strife would be minimal, resistance to our forces would be minimal, therefore the war short and cheap, Iraqi oil would pay for much of our cost and reconstruction of Iraqi society, after the war Iraqi oil would act to stabilize international oil markets, the quick overthrow of Saddam would be both an object lesson to enhance our position and a threat to other tyrants that opposed us.
Far more important than the legal case, it is vital to understand the world view that lead to the waste of trillions of dollars, thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, increased turmoil in an already volatile region, and directed our attention away from the real problems of how to deal with Islamic extremism.
You can debate the legal details. I am sure that is fascinating. However, I think the legal details are largely irrelevant to the important questions we face today.
BigFatMike, I retrieved your comment at 2:57.
Oy. It’s difficult to partake in conversation or respond to critics in a timely manner when only 1 in X comments randomly survives the filter.
Bob,Esq,
One thinks showing one’s work adds, rather than recycles, value and allows for better judgement on the merits rather than disqualification on the very grounds of showing one’s work. At least, that’s how it normally works in our field, Bob,Esq – correct?
My analysis is my own, of course, but I do refer to primary sources. If you rather, these 2 links take you to tabulation of much (not all) of the sources I’ve relied upon to form my view, if you prefer to do the work yourself.
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/05/Regime-Change-in-Iraq-from-Clinton-to-Bush.html#endnotes
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2004/10/perspective-on-operation-iraqi-freedom.html
Plus this summary: The foundational legal documents for the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement mission were P.L. 102-1 (1991), P.L. 107-243 (2002), UNSC Res 678 (1990), UNSC Res 687 (1991), UNSC 688 (1991), and UNSC Res 1441 (2002). The greater body of UNSC resolutions informing and US statutes enforcing Saddam’s ceasefire obligations operated on that platform. P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243 satisfied the “statutory authorization” standard of the War Powers Act.
Paul, aren’t you dizzy yet?
Annie – if you read all the comments you would already know.
bigfatmike: “It is just irrelevant to the question of whether it made any sense to go to war”
In order to answer whether OIF “made any sense” in the context, you must weigh the alternatives at the decision point. After the penultimate Operation Desert Fox, we only had 3 choices remaining with Saddam:
A: The status quo – a ‘containment’ that was toxic, unstable, and most important, failed.
B: End the ‘containment’ by freeing a noncompliant, unreconstructed Saddam from further enforcement.
C: End the ‘containment’ by a Iraq made compliant either through Saddam complying under threat of regime change or if Saddam failed, then regime change.
The preferred way was for Saddam to comply on his own. Bush gave him a last chance to comply, as Clinton had done in 1998. Saddam had officially voided the UNSC resolutions in Iraq’s domestic policy after ODF. The only way to compel Iraq to cooperate with UNMOVIC in any measure was under credible threat of regime change.
Had Bush backed down when Saddam failed again, that left only freeing a noncompliant, unreconstructed Saddam.
Setting aside the precision of the pre-war intelligence and the fact of Saddam’s noncompliance, the Duelfer Report shows that freeing Saddam certainly meant a rearmed Saddam.
While the media made much of not finding a military/battlefield level of ready stocks and active production in post-war Iraq, the media virtually ignored that the Duelfer Report found Iraq to be in broad violation of its weapons obligations. In terms of the UNSC resolutions, WMD was found in Iraq.
Basically, Saddam was guilty on everything else, including an active program in the Iraqi intelligence services – Saddam’s regime organ that worked with terrorists and carried out Saddam’s black ops.
The question of whether OIF “made sense” in context is discussed here:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html
Excerpt:
Eric, I retrieved your comment at 12:21.
Paul C. Schulte
Bob, Esq – go back to JAG source. Borrowed it from her.
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/06/13/u-s-shipping-more-weapons-and-preparing-more-military-aid-to-iraq/#comment-1181429
See how easy it is to link to another comment? Maybe you’ll point us to JAG’s comment, Paul?
anon – I do not know how to do that. I do not know how to do italics yet, either.
Paul, don’t blame JAG for your misrepresentations. Why don’t you at least link to her comment?
Annie – specifically, what did I misrepresent?
Link to her comment so we can see in what context she posted the link and it’s original source, not just your cherry picked exerpt.
Bob, Esq – go back to JAG source. Borrowed it from her.
Bob, Esq – I agree with the contention that the clock was ticking on getting Iraq to comply with agreements under the UN agreements, so those are the operative agreements to start with. Did we HAVE to go to war? NO. Should we go to war? Depends on the intelligence. Intelligence from several countries tells us that Iraq has WMDs. Intelligence tells us he has used gas against his own people. Intelligence tells us he is a major disruptive force in the Middle East.
Bob, Esq.
Sources Paul?
======
Rarely or never.
Pontification comes to mind.
Bob, Esq – please don’t get off on these little personal issues. We can have a pleasant debate or not. I do enjoy discussing things with you but when you start attacking my veracity, I tend to get less pleasant to play with.
Those supposed 935 false statements included statements made after the war started. We were looking for the WMDs for 3 years before we gave up. I quoted this from an article that JAG offered up but did not actually read.
Paul,
Are you too lazy now to lie for yourself?
Everything Eric posted cited his own blog and his own term paper from law school as his “authority.”
In his solipsistic view, Bush didn’t defraud the country into war because the U.N. authorized the invasion back in 1991.
Forget the obvious legal problems with the stance, but the desperate need to re-write history as he wished it occurred is something he should take up with his therapist.
Sources Paul?
The Bush administration didn’t defraud the country into war because you question the particular source that cited 935 false statements they made to do it?
Tell me about the Apollo 11 moon landing Paul.
Are you sure you have enough reliable sources to confirm that it happened?
Your reputation for truthfulness is plummeting.
Bob, Esq – I am going to refer you to everything that Eric has posted over the last few weeks. Hopefully you have read it. He has posted and reposted and reposted the reasoning behind Iraqi Freedom.
bigfatmike: “they could not make a compelling case – there was no compelling case to be made.”
They didn’t have to. The Bush administration inherited the case for regime change. President Clinton made the case for regime change the official US policy on Iraq before Bush was elected, and, by the same token, endorsed Bush on Iraq.
http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-11.html
December 19, 1998 President Clinton speaks to the role of American and British troops fighting to generate Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. The President announces that U.S. policy toward Iraq would seek the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.
December 16, 1998 President Clinton orders air-strikes against Iraq in response to Iraq’s lack of compliance with UN inspectors, as outlined in UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler’s report to the UN Secretary General. President Clinton describes Iraqi actions as a failure in their “last chance” to prove willingness to comply.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
I made it very clear at that time what “unconditional cooperation” meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
… This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act, and act now.
… The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
… Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam 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.
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html
I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions. I mean, we’re all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons.
… it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/
Noting that Bush had to be “reeling” in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush’s first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining “chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material.”
“That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for,” Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
“So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ‘Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.’ You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks,” Clinton said.
“They didn’t have to [make the case for war against Iraq].”
So…we have looked at the causes of the war and found that Clinton made Bush do it? Bush was powerless under the Svengali-like persuasion of Clinton?
They could not make the case on its merits so they planted evidence, used evidence known to be false, duped gullible news reporters, and lied to the US public which is why they sent Powell to the UN, organized a coalition of the willing, and used trumped up and false data regarding nuclear weapons, yellow cake uranium, chemical and biological weapons, and planted news reports with reporters like Judith Miller of the NYTs.
‘They did not have to do that’; I suppose those activities are a sort of presidential intramural sport for amusement only. They did not have to do because you know the American public was on a tear to go to war no matter what. But heck, all that UN stuff is lots of fun. And who doesn’t enjoy grabbing a Frenchie by the scruff of the neck and rubbing his nose in it.
You can talk all you want about others who voiced similar views or support but it was neo cons in the Bush administration who actually orchestrated support and made the decision to take the nation to war.
But enough chit chat about the past.
What are the lessons for our current situation? What are our real interests in Iraq and that part of the world. What should be our immediate and near term objectives. What can we realistically hope to accomplish. What is a reasonable estimate for the cost and duration for our involvement . What do we put at risk, what is the downside if we intervene or if we stay out? What can we possibly hope to gain?
Does your read on the past suggest that we use diplomacy only, air strikes, advisors in country, combat troops supporting… which faction, the national government, the Kurds, some moderate not now in power, Iran or their surrogates?
If you support military action, how may air craft, from what bases, how many air craft carriers, how may combat brigades, for how long, at what cost in dollars, in lives?
Come on neo-neo-cons. I know you have the answers and are dying to enlighten us.
Bigfatmike, I retrieved your comment at 9:09.