I know that Saddam isn't the most trusted person in the world, but with this offer we could have stipulated that grounds for breaking the offer would be international military action. We could have tried this peaceful idea, and if it didn't work then everyone would have been on our side, action would have been taken by a real coalition, and the expense would have been shared, we wouldn't have lost our credibility, the whole world would have been seen acting together against a dictator etc. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5174 Another major Bush-Blair statement -- that they had exhausted all avenues of peaceful resolution of the crisis before declaring war on Baghdad -- has now turned out to be a lie. On November 7, 2003 the New York Times and the Guardian reported that Saddam Hussein had offered a deal in February 2003 meant to satisfy Bush and Blair on all the important aspects of the crisis: weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Middle East peace process, access of American oil companies to Iraqi petroleum, and the democratization of Iraq. According to these reports (confirmed by all the parties involved), Saddam proposed that up to 2,000 FBI and CIA agents be dispatched to Iraq to look for its WMD anywhere in the country. He pledged that he would go along with any deal to which Israel and the mainstream Palestinian leadership agreed. He promised to give US oil corporations a share in the exploration and extraction of oil in Iraq. And he promised free and fair multiparty elections in Iraq under international supervision in two years. Imad Hage, acting on behalf of Saddam, met Richard Perle, then chairman of the US Defense Policy Advisory Committee Board, in the lobby of the Marlborough Hotel in central London on March 7, and then they went to an office nearby and there for two hours Hage outlined the Iraqi offer to Perle. But so determined was Bush to invade Iraq that he refused point blank to consider Saddam's offer and resolve the crisis peacefully.
We could have tried this peaceful idea, and if it didn't work then everyone would have been on our side I don't think that's true. There will always be those who say more time should be allotted to allow whatever rogue to come into line.
Pointing out the existence, likely true, of one extreme doesn't justify having taken the other extreme. Said this pre-war, will repeat now; the study of military history reveals that most wars in human history have been fought for bad reasons, have accomplished little of positive significance, and have usually been improperly lead and planned. War as a last resort is not just a catch phrase, it should be a realistically implemented practice for any responsible government. Forget all the other dubious aspects of this war for a moment, such as the deception and ignorance which contributed to it's inception, and look simply at what measures were taken to accomplish the necessary aims before using the sword, and it's incredibly clear that we fall as far short of having tried everything else as is possible. To defend that practice under the assuption, without grounds, that nothing else would have woerked anyway not only is illogical, it misses the point; you attempt other paths because A) circumstances change, B) there are too many variables to asses what might or might not happen when you try different measures, and most of all C) you are prejudiced. This administration was clearly prejudiced for war, in a similar fashion to the military leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thank God that back then, unlike now, the push was coming from the generals and was overcome by the White House.
My only beef was with the idea that had we spent more time, the people who were against the action would've been for it had this new agreement been broken. I maintain that many of those who were against action when it was taken would've continued to be against any action later on, even if further agreements were broken. But I'm not saying that taking more time (for the inspectors, for instance) would not have been an acceptable course of action. I'm just saying that time and a new agreement would not have necessarily made any one more apt to support a military solution at a later date. As a matter of fact, your very post notes such an attitude. That an attempt to try everything before going forward with a military solution should be the course of action. I don't doubt that many people believe that, and that many people can find all sorts of new "everythings" to try when the time comes. Taking this offer seems reasonable on the surface, and maybe it was worth trying. However, had it not worked (for whatever reason), I don't think the military solution taken then would've had that much more support.
That may or may not have been how things played out. But it is certainly a possibility to be explored prior to sending people off to kill and be killed. If everyone wouldn't have been on our side, it is reasonable to think that more countries would have been on our side, because they would see that we were trying everything possible to avoid war. Even the French had said they would approve use of force if given 30 more days to use the inspections. I won't always say that more time should be allowed, but as long as there are other options they should be explored. In this case an offer was made that would have had U.S. CIA and FBI agents on the ground in Iraq, and it was rejected in favor of invading with a solely Anglo/American force.
Okay, the inspectors are given 30 more days. They don't find anything. Bush says that means they're hiding something. We go to war. Do you support the military action then (not knowing all of what we know now, of course)? Does France? The rest of the world? Here's the thing. We know why actions such as this weren't taken. The goal in this Iraq war, we've come to find out more clearly after the fact, was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That was the only acceptable outcome to the Administration.
Part of the offer was multi-party democratic elections. Furthermore with our CIA guys running around, they could have helped any party they wanted to. Again, nobody knows how it would have worked out. We could have gone to war anyway, or it may have been avoided, but we at least owe it to those that serve to try everything we can. Remember Lawrence Eagleburger mentioned before that he personally knew certain people in Bush's admnistration were hoping not to have a peaceful resolution, and hoping to go to war. If you have a group that doesn't want peace, it's not a positive sign that they are your leadership, and it won't help us when we need cooperation in the future.
Does your opinion change if the war starts 30 days later? I am not arguing that trying to find a peaceful solution, if available, is not a good way to go. I'm arguing with the idea that waiting another 30 days changes anyone's mind on the war. I'm arguing with the idea that if such a plan, if it truly ever existed, were accepted and then broken by Saddam that anyone's opinion would've changed on going to war. The man broke all sorts of agreements over the years, it didn't drum up a whole lot of support for this war.
There are several questions here. For one, what was the crisis that desperately needed averting? Saddam had been in power for over a decade sonce he had been any kind of external danger...that's enough time for a President to get elected, serve his term out, get re-elected, serve that term out, with another couple of years to spare. Since Saddam was a threat to us or his neighbours Michael Jordan won rings, retired, the Dream rose in Houston, Jordan came out of retirement and lead the Bulls to championships, the Bash Brothers swatted homers in Oakland, the Packers acquired Brett Favre, and several years later we saw the Maccarena craze. IOW, it's been a while. So what was the mad rush? I don't agree that waiting 30 days would have accimplished nothing, but where was the urgency? Our own intel was saying Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone, despite urgings from above the CIA found no connection to 9-11, and the WMD 'evidence' was as thin as it was unsupported. What took Iraq out of the fridge, let alone on the front burner? Second point; even if the above is academic, even if Iraq had to be taken care of at the expense of all else, to say that there is no definitive end to the theoretical practice of exhausting all other options is not the same as saying that to go in as quickly as we did, to override our allies, not to mention the agreement we had signed with the UNSC re: Iraq was the correct alternative. And, lastly, as Robert MacNamara says; if everyone else says you're wrong, only incredible hubris would prevent you from questioning your actions.
My opinion might have changed. I wasn't against a war with Iraq no matter what. If during that 30 days they showed that Saddam was hiding something, etc. I would've been all for the U.N. taking military action in order to carry out whatever inspections were necessary and take action based on those findings. In hindsight we see that they would've found nothing, so no I wouldn't have supported it, but I would have felt differently.
Uh....who cares if the Iraqis came up with a "peace" plan. They agreed to follow several UN resolutions at the end of the Gulf War and disobeyed them. They spent most of the nineties playing cat and mouse with inspectors while trying to whack Bush the Elder. And we'd trust them with a serious offer of peace? Give me a break.
It is now obvious to everyone except the Ostrich Brigade that Iraq was NOT playing cat and mouse with weapons inspectors, especially considering that there haen't been any WMD discoveries. It appears that Saddam was being forthcoming with the inspectors and we just didn't believe him. It also appears that Saddam was willing to let 2000 CIA and FBI agents have unfettered access to Iraq to confirm what the UN inspectors found. Give ME a break.
Diplomacy, with SH, never worked...Consider the facts of what he did before and after the Gulf War... Also, to say all avenues were exhausted is a true statement, as SH showed us time and time again he could be trusted and was a threat... Carry on...
SH was a threat in GWB's mind. You are right that we could not trust him, but he clearly was not a threat.
I don't think trust has anything to do with it. That's why you include verification with the plan. Having thousands of FBI and CIA combing around Iraq seems like a good way to verify. SH broke previous agreements, and if he broke this one, people would get their precious war anyway, just with a little more cooperation and justification, and without costing us goodwill of helpful allies. Of course if he didn't break his word, and there were no WMD's, then we end up saving all the lives, and also putting people's mind at ease that there wasn't a threat.
A) Ok...what did he do pre-war which was contrary to diplomatic attention? His invasion of Iran was done with our blessing, if not outright support. His worst attacks on his own people happened while he was on our payroll, propped up by us, and with our knowledge, and we were the ones who vetoed UN condemnations of same. B) What did he do post war that revealed the diplomatic route, ie sanctions and inspection were not working? C) People continue to assert that he revealed he could not be trusted. While I wouldn't trust any politician, and a tyrant less than most, this particular argument is as innaccurate as it is startling. That people still parrot this refrain shows how little they are looking objectively at the facts: * We concluded that he was decieving us because we concluded he had WMDs. Our basis for same were since exposed biased intel sources like Iraqi expatriates who wanted a role in the power structure of a post Saddam Iraq, and the fact that his tallies left a minor amount unaccounted for according to our decade old count. * He said that those minor amounts had simply degraded over time or been destroyed with typical beuracratic inefficiency. Our primary intel source, oft quoted, was his son in law. We quoted him several times talking about the WMDs Saddam had had in GW1...but consistently overlooked his further claim that they had since been destroyed. We also overlloked the fact that the kind of degradation and paperwork mishaps with which Saddam was accounting for the minor descrepencies were common to all nations with weapons programs including our own. * We simply concluded that, since we know he has WMDs, and since he is saying he hasn't any WMDs, he must be lying. Problem being, it's circular reasoning... * Since the war, whose position, his or ours, has been borne out by the facts? WHose position, his or ours, has been supported by virtually all the experts, including guys like Kay who were formerly among the greatest advocates that he was lying? Are you paying attention at all!?!?!?
Probably not, but given your response, are your pro SH? Come on...I'm saying that regardless of any offer, he wouldn't have stepped down, and given the info we had at the time, when we called his bluff, he had to go... Again, are you saying it would be better if SH was still in power?
