Former war supporter admits mistake, blames Bush for failure

I swear to god, it's bizarre reading this stuff. It's like the author had been reading several of my posts going back months and longer... mine and posts from others here, Batman, including you. Too strange. Hayes will find this fascinating, I'm sure.

basso? A dismissive "quip."



D&D. Bizarro Central.

 

nice read...

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056

Conscientious Rejector?
First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.
By the Hot Zone Team, Tue Jan 2, 6:38 PM ETEmail Story IM Story
First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.


Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.


He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.


First Lt. Ehren Watada
Photo courtesy:
Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org

Watada's court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas.


Kevin Sites recently spoke with Lt. Watada about the reasoning behind his decision, the controversy the decision has caused and how he is dealing with the repercussions.


Lt. Watada spoke on the phone from his family's home in Hawaii. Click here to listen to the full audio version of the conversation. A transcript of the interview follows.



KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?


EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.


Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.


SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?


WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.


And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."


SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military — if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?


WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.


SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war?


WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution — with our lives as necessary — and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.


SITES: But Lieutenant, was there one specific incident that happened in Iraq or that the administration had said or done at a certain period that [made you say] "I have to examine this more closely"?

WATADA: No, I think that certainly as the war went on, and it was not going well, doubts came up in my mind, but at that point I still was willing to go. At one point I even volunteered to go to Iraq with any unit that was short of junior officers.

SITES: At what point was that?

WATADA: This was in September of 2005. But as soon as I found out, and as I began to read and research more and more that the administration had intentionally deceived the public and Congress over the reasons for going to Iraq, that's when I told myself "there's something wrong here."

"I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop."
— Lt. Ehren Watada

SITES: Was there any kind of personal conviction as well, I mean in terms of exposure to returning soldiers or Marines — the kinds of wounds they suffered, the kinds of stories that they were bringing back with them — did that have any kind of influence or create any factors for you in coming to this decision?

WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us.

SITES: Was there a fear that played into that? Did you see returning soldiers with lost limbs? Was there a concern for you that you might lose your life going to Iraq?

WATADA: No, that had nothing to do with the issue. The issue here is that we have thousands of soldiers returning. And what is their sacrifice for? For terrorism or establishing democracy or whatever the other reasons are. And I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop. We cannot have people in power that are irresponsible and corrupt and that keep on going that way because they're not held accountable to the people.

SITES: You know on that note, Lieutenant, let me read you something from a speech that you gave in August to the Veterans for Peace. You had said at one point, "Many have said this about the World Trade Towers: never again. I agree, never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free. Be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now, the time to stand up and be counted is today." Who were you speaking about when you said that?

WATADA: I was speaking about everybody. The American people. That we all have that duty, that obligation, that responsibility to do something when we see our government perpetrating a crime upon the world, or even upon us. And I think that the American people have lost that, that sense of duty. There is no self-interest in this war for the vast majority of the American people. And because of that the American soldiers have suffered.

There really is a detachment from this war, and many of the American people, because there is no draft, or for whatever reason, because taxes haven't been raised, they don't have anything personally to lose or gain with this war, and so they take little interest.

SITES: Do you think President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war?

WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.

SITES: But in some ways you have determined that. You're saying this is an illegal war, and an illegal act usually takes prosecution by someone with criminal intent. Is that correct?

WATADA: Right, and they have taken me to court with that, but they have refused — or it will be very unlikely that the prosecution in the military court will allow me to bring in evidence and witnesses to testify on my behalf that the war is illegal. So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable.

SITES: Now this is the same Congress though that in a lot of ways voted for this war initially. Do you think that they're going to turn around and in some ways say that they were wrong? And hold hearings to determine exactly that, that they made a mistake as well? It seems like a long shot.

WATADA: Right, well I think some in Congress are willing to do that, and some aren't. And that's the struggle, and that's the fight that's going to occur over the next year.


Lt. Watada with his mother, Carolyn
Ho, and father, Robert Watada
Photo courtesy:
Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org
SITES: Let me ask you why you decided to go to the press with this. In this particular case you're the first officer — there may have been other officers that have refused these orders, but you're the first one to really do this publicly. Why did you do that?

WATADA: Because I wanted to explain to the American people why I was taking the stand I was taking — that it wasn't for selfish reasons, it wasn't for cowardly reasons.

You know, I think the most important reason here is to raise awareness among the American people that hey — there's a war going on, and American soldiers are dying every day. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying every day. You need to take interest, and ask yourself where you stand, and what you're willing to do, to end this war, if you do believe that it's wrong — that it's illegal, and immoral. And I think I have accomplished that. Many, many people come up to me and say, "because of you, I have taken an active interest in what's going on over in Iraq."

And also, you know, [I want to] give a little hope and inspiration back to a lot of people. For a long time I was really without hope, thinking that there was nothing I could do about something that I saw, that was so wrong, and so tragic. And I think a lot of people who have been trying to end this war felt the same way — that there was just nothing that they could do. And I think by taking my stand publicly, and stating my beliefs and standing on those beliefs, a lot of people have taken encouragement from that.

SITES: You've said that you had a responsibility to your own conscience in this particular situation. Did you also have a responsibility to your unit as well? I just want to read you a quote from Veterans of Foreign Wars communications director Jerry Newbury. He said "[Lt. Watada] has an obligation to fulfill, and it's not up to the individual officer to decide when he's going to deploy or not deploy. Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that." Can you react to that quote?

WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.

It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.

SITES: How did your peers and your fellow officers react to your decision?

WATADA: I know that there have been some people within the military who won't agree with my stance, and there have been a lot of members of the Army of all ranks who have agreed with what I've done. And I see it almost every other day, where someone in uniform, or a dependent, approaches me in person, or through correspondence, and thanks me for what I have done, and either supports or respects my stand.

SITES: You've remained on base, and that's been a situation that can't be too comfortable for you. Can you fill us in on what that's been like there?

WATADA: I think that for the most part, people that I interact with closely — I have been moved, I'm no longer in the 3rd Striker Brigade, I'm over in 1st Corps — treat me professionally, politely, but keep their distance. I don't think anybody wants to get involved with the position that I've taken, either way. People approach me in private and give me their support.

SITES: Tell me about the repercussions you face in this court martial.

WATADA: Well I think with the charges that have been applied to me and referred over to a general court martial, I'm facing six years maximum confinement, dishonorable discharge from the army, and loss of all pay and allowances.

STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision?

WATADA: Sure, and I think that's the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today.

I think that there are many supporters out there who feel that I should not be made an example of, that I'm speaking out for what a lot of Americans are increasingly becoming aware of: that the war is illegal and immoral and it must be stopped. And that the military should not make an example or punish me severely for that.

SITES: Do you think that you made a mistake in joining the military? Your mother and father support you in this decision, and your father during the Vietnam War refused to go to Vietnam as well, but instead joined the Peace Corps. He went to his draft board and said, "let me join the Peace Corps and serve in Peru," which is what he did. Do you think in hindsight that that might have been a better decision for you as well?

WATADA: You know I think that John Murtha came out a few months ago in an interview and he was asked if, with all his experience, in Korea, and Vietnam, volunteering for those wars -- he was asked if he would join the military today. And he said absolutely not. And I think that with the knowledge that I have now, I agree. I would not join the military because I would be forced into a position where I would be ordered to do something that is wrong. It is illegal and immoral. And I would be put into a situation as a soldier to be abused and misused by those in power.

STIES: In your speech in front of the Veterans for Peace you said "the oath we take as soldiers swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people." Can you expand upon that a little bit — what did you mean when you said that?

WATADA: The constitution was established, and our laws are established, to protect human rights, to protect equal rights and constitutional civil liberties. And I think we have people in power who say that those laws, or those principles, do not apply to them — that they are above the law and can do whatever it takes to manipulate or create laws that enable them to do whatever they please. And that is a danger in our country, and I think the war in Iraq is just one symptom of this agenda. And I think as soldiers, as American people, we need to recognize this, and we need to put a stop to it before it's too late.

 

we've been through this so many times, i'm not sure there's much value in yet another exposition on why i think the war was justified, or a course in the semantics of whether we've lost, are losing, could lose, etc. quite frankly, i'm bored with it. i will make a few points however, hopefully quipfrei...

i am distressed no end by the endless drumbeat of "the catastrophe in iraq." Iraq is not a catastrophe. it is not yet a success, but it must become one. whether the war was in our national interest or not at its outset (i believe it was), it is clearly in our national interest to win now. that batman and his ilk are interested only in declaring defeat, coming home, and blaming bush, says far more about them than it does about bush or the conduct of the war.

The war has not been mistake free, either on a tactical level or a strategic level, but that is not an argument against its prosecution- rather we should learn from our mistakes and work to make things better. batman has been crowing about mistakes and catastrophe since the outset (remember the great sandstorm?), and has done nothing since except continually chant "disaster! catostrophe! defeat! BUSH!". the US has made mistakes in every war, right up until the moment of victory in each- it's the nature of the beast. as Clemenceau said, "War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory." tbatman focuses only on the mistakes, and offers nothing in the way of support for the ultimate, necessary, victory.

lastly, i am not a neocon, a republican, nor a Bush lover, although i do love bush (link NSFW), so while the internecine warfare among various stripes of the former may be midly diverting, i don't find it particularly illuminating. i support the war because it's justified on its merits. i support bush because he remains steadfast in his commitment to victory. my admiration for mccain, who i'm otherwise ambivalent about, is growing for the same reason.

 

In an ideal world I would be in favor of victory as well. I was against the war from the beginning and at first I was leaning towards sending in huge numbers of troops in order to reach victory.

However it became clear that wasn't going to happen. Do you think the McCain doctorine of sending in 20,000 more troops is really going to turn things around?

Do you think continuing to stay there and do as we have done so far is going to help anything?

If we aren't going to win, then we need to get out. It appears that nobody did what it would have taken to actually win. Now I don't know a way in which victory can be salvaged. If it could I would love to hear it. Though I do know that all of the generals and people on the ground are not in favor of 20,000 additional troops. Apparently even Bush's own inner circle are saying it is more of a political move than a winning strategy move.

I understand that you want victory. I wish could have that as well in Iraq. Why do you think 20,000 more troops will help acheive that when nobody else does?

Most importantly, if you don't believe that will help gain victory in Iraq, do you think it is a good idea to send more troops over for something will only result in more loss of life and not a victory?

 

I've paid my dues
Time after time
I've done my sentence
But committed no crime
And bad mistakes
I've made a few
I've had my share of sand
Kicked in my face
But I've come through

And we mean to go on and on and on and on

We are the champions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end
We are the champions
We are the champions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the champions of the World

I've taken my bows
And my curtain calls
You brought me fame and fortune
And everything that goes with it
I thank you all
But it's been no bed of roses
No pleasure cruise
I consider it a challenge before
The whole human race
And I ain't gonna lose

And we mean to go on and on and on and on

We are the champions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting
Till the end
We are the champions
We are the champions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the champions of the World

 

At Saddam's hanging, people in the room were chanting Moqtada, Moqtada. It would be reasonable to assume that people present at Saddam's execution are members of, or closely linked to, the Iraqi government that the US is supporting. People in this group felt more than comfortable chanting the name of the US' new # 1 enemy in Iraq.

So our troops are fighting and dying to prop up a government that is rife with supporters of one of our main opponents in Iraq.

I would love to hear a reasonable plan for victory given this reality, because it sounds like the definition of clusterf_ck to me. Continuing to engage in this clusterf_ck seriously degrades our national security.

 

Definitely interesting. The author seems a bit confused though, as he takes 'neoconservatives' to task for saying the execution was poor and then does the same thing himself. He also mish mashes the actors in the intervention so I'm not really sure who he thinks neoconservatives are besides the Weekly Standard crew. It should also be noted that Kristol et al were critical of the intervention long before the public sentiment turned against it.

As I have been saying since it happened, and you have as well, Deckard, the disbanding of the Iraqi army was a huge blunder. IMO the single greatest blunder since it would have given us the force augmentation to reach the levels needed to prevent everything from looting to a growing insurgency.

It's all 20-20 but I don't think there is a problem with people changing their minds. I do disagree with Batman though that the left is not really the bastion of isolationism. They simply have more play than the libertarians on the right, and even a realist/national interest righty isn't isolationist like a 'the US is satan' lefty. That doesn't mean all those left leaning are isolationists, but that is where most isolationists reside IMO. Even on this board you have people like Glynch who were against the intervention in Afghanistan.

The lessons that IMO need to be reenforced from this intervention are that you have to account for nationalism as an intervening power. I'll admit I thought the Iraqis would be happy with the intervention, and really I think they were on balance at first. But it takes very little for public sentiment to swing against the intervening power. I'm not even sure a 'hearts and minds' strategy CAN work. I think you need to establish order - period, in an intervention and bring the rest along after that. I think we need to be careful with the revisionism about the WMDs. Everyone including France et all thought Saddam had these programs going so I think we're now seeing a mistaken reversal in logic that since there are none, no one thought there were any to begin with - it simply isn't the case.

 

You're confusing being against nation building with being isolationist. They aren't synonymous. You can be a realist and believe we should only act in our own self interest/national interest and still be in favor of intervention.

I would agree that all or even most of the opposition to the war would be mislabeled if called isolationists. However, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that many in the opposition are against any intervention. The major mistake is in asserting that those opposed are some monolithic group who believe as they do for the same reasons.

Further, it is at best misleading to assert that 'each and every one' of the oppositions concerns have become fact. There were many dire predictions including that there would be a fundamentalist backlash causing the fall of the West friendly regimes in the Middle East (hasn't happened) where in actuality there has been significant movement toward reform in countries like Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait; that we would see a decrease in the cooperation against terrorism vis-a-vis Europe and Asia (hasn't happened); that the intervention would engender the growth of Al Quaeda tenfold (although the internal insurgency has grown AQ itself has become delegitimized in the eyes of many Muslims as they continue to slaughter Iraqi and Jordanian civilians). OTOH some good things have come of the intervention: an inevitable threat, a state sponsor of terrorism, and genocidal dictator has been removed (saddam), sanctions have been lifted, the US has withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and the people of Iraq have participated in their own governance. True, anyone trying to be objective would admit the intervention has not gone well but it is far from the case that all dire predictions have been proven true and all predictions of benefit have been proven false.

 

predictions of casualties were far more dire that those we've actually incurred, so strike another off your list.

 

True, yet a twist of Batman's words. His argument was hardly that isolationism = anti-nation building. Rather, he was pointing out the misnomer of labeling the left "isolationist", particularly as a differentiating trait.

This is all true as well, albeit again a twist of the original intent. The point is not "what good can we salvage from this gigantic screw-up?" - but acknowledgement that it was a screw-up from the beginning, and one that was repeatedly predicted. The former I think is a smart thing to do - the latter is long overdue from the Bush Junta and its followers, yourself included.

My apologies for the brief interruption.

 

Not a twist at all: he says anti-nation building is 'more' isolationist. It isn't and doesn't have anything to do with isolationism vs engagement.

Didn't know I was part of the 'Bush junta' . And again there isn't any twisting going on - his statement was that "every one of which has been proven well-founded" - a totalism that is not correct, as I have pointed out. My objective is not to deny that things have gone awry in Iraq, but to reign in those who venture from actual events to hyperbolic revisionism.

 

You're just a follower.

Your sidestepping is typical. Carry on. And your totalism argument is unproven as well.

 

Hmmm, well I quoted him saying 'every one is proven well founded.' That's pretty much a totality.

 

Thank you, captain obvious. Any more witty comments?

Please prove how that is an incorrect assertion.

 

Uh, ok. I said he made an assertion that was a totality. You said it wasn't. It is. What's your problem?

I already gave three examples above. Please prove that every concern has proven well founded.

 

*sigh* My argument is that the totality of Batman's arguments are proven, not that batman is _not_ arguing a totality.

Lol - those are proof? Don't turn my question back on me - the burden is on you as the defender of all things invasion.

Iraq wasn't a present danger and had zero to do with 9/11, the war would be costlier in terms of blood and money than we were being told, it would create more terrorists than it would eliminate, we would be greeted as invaders as often as liberators, no clear exit strategy and on and on

I'm off to eat oysters, feel free to show all (or any) of these are false statements.

 

Oh, ok. Don't blame me for your vagueness.

Insomuchas we can 'prove' anything in a dispute of opinions, yes - they are. Uh, lol - should I throw a rolleyes in here somewhere? That really proves my argument I guess.

I never claimed to be the defender of all things invasion. Nice totality there though. Why not turn the question back on you? In fact, you make that argument above so please prove that every prewar concern has now proven well founded. Did you make that claim above with no intention to back it up?

First, I did not say that none of the concerns had some validity. So you don't get to take a random selection and ask me to disprove them. As such I've given examples of concerns that did not come to fruition. That would disprove the totality Batman subscribes to above.

OTOH, just for fun let's look at statements like 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.' 9/11 was put in motion because of US troops in Saudi Arabia. US troops were in SA to contain Saddam. Hence the statement that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is false. Statements that it 'would create more terrorists than it would eliminate' are unproven rather than false. The intervention isn't over yet so how could we possibly know whether that is true or false? That we would be greeted as invaders more often than liberators is nebulous and more than likely not true. We know that the Kurds didn't greet us as invaders and neither, for the most part, did the Shiites. That some of them (Shiites) have changed their minds doesn't isn't really relevant to an evaluation of how they would greet us at the point of intervention, and the Sunnis opinion wasn't part of that calculus to begin with since they were the ruling populace.

Hope those oysters help your stamina .

 

For all your egotistical trumpeting, you are frightfully juvenile sometimes. Pot/kettle - I know.

The above jibe was, of course, simply to piss you off.

Hardly random. That was the meat of the original argument by BJ, and the primary tennants of most (if not all) anti-war crusaders from the beginning. As I've previously acknowledged, some good has come of it (the war), albeit limited and with unknown consequences of their own. For example, the removal of Saddam: Obstensibly a good thing for numerous aforementioned reasons, but the power vacuum is creating a rather unstable situation that the Bush plan never remotely addressed in an adequate fashion.

What a weasel. This is surprisingly audacious even for you.

Marvelously hayesian. Your whole argument revolves around lack of concrete and undeniable proof, which, given the arguments in question, is subjective to the point of quasi-impossible. Fine. All that does is make your argument more stubborn than rational, since the evidence counter to your POV far outnumbers your silly assertions. Which is hardly unexpected.

I'm irritated though, since you've managed to change this argument into your usual tripe regarding the provability of specific claims, knowing full well (and relying upon) their subjective nature (except the 9/11 and WMD claim - those are rather obvious to everyone now, even your glorious commander-in-chief - despite your pathetic "link" dubiously presented above that is more akin to a word game than reality). We could argue all day about the "absolutism" of who is right and wrong, and the inability of that mountain of evidence against you to wholeheartedly PROVE something wrong - given the obtuse nature of your thought processes, that would be as enjoyable as banging my head with a brick. I'd rather get back to something more productive, i.e., the nature of the invasion in the first place - the original facet that got me riled up in this thread:

In hindsight, Hayes, was the invasion justified? Was it ordered on appropriate and accurate grounds to justify the enormous costs in lives and fiscal expense? You keep wanting to turn this into an argument of "proof" for failure/success - I'd rather hear if you truly think all that evidence pointing to the validity of the above anti-war arguments is not sufficient to claim the premise of the invasion false, and the returns you trumpet hardly worth the cost.

Was it a screw-up or not? If not, why? What objectives/rationale/results merit special attention?