The Significance of the Najaf Bomb & Killing of the Ayatollah

Former Navy secretary blasts Bush on Iraq
By DENNIS O'BRIEN, The Virginian-Pilot
© August 30, 2003
Last updated: 9:14 PM

NORFOLK -- Former Navy Secretary James Webb blasted the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, saying it was sold to the American people on false premises.

``I am very troubled by the fact that we went into Iraq and very troubled about how we're going to get out of Iraq,'' Webb said Thursday to about 200 naval officers, veterans and civilians at the Radisson Hotel Norfolk. The lecture was sponsored by the Hampton Roads Naval Museum and the Naval War College Foundation.

The United States should quickly get the United Nations involved in administering and patrolling the country, he said.

``We need to get out of there before the mistake we made gets worse,'' said Webb, a Marine Corps veteran.

The Bush administration this week began making efforts toward getting a U.N. force on the ground in Iraq, but a sticking point at the United Nations has been the administration's insistence on a U.S. commander for U.N. troops.

Webb said the troops in Iraq are facing combat experiences similar to those he saw as a platoon leader and company commander in Vietnam, where he was awarded a Navy Cross, a Silver Star and two Bronze Stars for heroism, and two Purple Hearts for wounds.

Webb, who resigned as Navy secretary in 1988 to protest cuts in the size of the fleet, said military leaders have an obligation to their troops.

Bob Briner, a retired Navy captain from Virginia Beach, said he appreciated Webb's observations.

``What I like about Webb is that he's been there, he knows what he's talking about,'' he said.

 

That's so strange...As I understand it, resident experts have stated categorically that there is absolutely no comparison between the two. Clearly this Webb fellow is stupid, naive, and the victim of a screwed up education...

 

Not that this means anything, but I find it interesting nonetheless:

During the first 5 years of Vietnam (1961-1965), there was an average of 373 US deaths per year.

After that, we averaged 8,520 deaths over the next five years.

We're now at 302 and counting for our first year in Iraq.

(These do not include non-combat deaths.)

 

Eek! It's Vietnam all over again! The sky is falling!!!

(a more thorough analysis will be forthcoming when time permits)

 

OK, just a little bit for now:

1) Terrain is totally different. No real need to explain.

2) The North Vietnamese government was at no time overthrown and ejected from power during that war. Saddam lost his government in three weeks.

3) The North Vietnamese had the luxury of two large and powerful backers (USSR and China) giving them weapons and cash, while Saddam has no one at all to give him weapons and cash. Well, a little help from Al Qaeda, those guys he has no connection with.

4) Saddam has also lost the luxury of having an entire country as a safe haven, something which allowed the NV to survive for nearly three decades.

5) The North Vietnamese had the support of the people, Saddam has the hatred of his.

6) There are maybe 5,000 to 10,000 Baathists and Al Qaeda fighters/foreigners inside Iraq. The NVA had close to a million men, and the VC many more.

7) There is no superpower balancing us against Saddam. No USSR protecting him from our full wrath.

8) We could afford to withdraw from Vietnam. We cannot afford to withdraw from Iraq (sorry glynch).

9) We have already captured or killed over half of Saddam's former regime, the people who would lead the fight. At no time did we ever decapitate the North Vietnamese.

10) No need to go into detail about the vast disparity in technology, manpower, or political capital we have over Saddam. Compare disparity to the situation in Vietnam...

You can compare anything, Macbeth. That does not mean that it is a good comparison.

No, he's just promoting his new book. On Vietnam, what a coincidence...

 

I'm looking forward to it. While you're at it, could you please give me your opinion on the situational awareness of the civilian leadership for each war and how that compares to what the folks on the ground are seeing and experiencing? I'd also like to hear what you say about the political/idealogical influences on the fdecision making processes.

Thanks,

rr

 

I will address that later (excellent question/issue, BTW). But I really must sleep. Remind me later if I forget to respons to it.

 

I remember seeing a 60 Minutes interview with this al-Hakim guy prior to the war and he looked like bad news for the US. He had his sights on a leadership type role in Iraq to create his own religious state. I suppose now that he's out of the picture, civil war isn't exactly much better news.

 

Glynch, do you think we should abandon the whole war on terror or just Iraq? Do you put scare quotes around the phrase 'war on terror'?

 

I have no idea why it would be humiliating for the US to let the UN now to help with reconstruction in Iraq. We've already accomplished the goals we intervened for: we removed a ruthless genocidal dictator, we removed a state regime that sponsored terrorism, and we removed a WMD threat. With those FACTS in mind its laughable for this guy to declare 'the war is lost' and make comparisons to Vietnam.

Further, this type of rhetoric is hardly productive. It will more likely drive 'neo-cons' away from the compromise on issues like UN involvement rather than towards it. Is the intervention in Iraq something that can be described as a complete and utterly perfect success? Of course not. Is it a success? You're damn skippy it is. Are we worse off or are the people of Iraq worse off now than before the intervention? Hell no.

 

Poor Glynch. So predictable, so misguided. I'll take these one by one.

I argue we removed a WMD threat. EVERY international actor agreed there was a WMD threat. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Now there isn't. Everyone agreed Saddam would continue to drive for nukes until he had them. EVERYONE. Now he won't. Strike one.

Did I say Al Queda? Don't think so. I'm on record as saying there was not convincing evidence of such a connection. I said we removed a regime that sponsored terrorism. Is that a FACT? 100%, baby. Strike two...

'Our' sanctions? Gee, I thought those were the ever-lovin' peace and joy huggin UN's sanctions. Am I wrong about that? I thought sanctions were an 'alternative' to war and part of the 'containment' policy that we should have continued instead of removing the regime? Yes. The Iraqis are far better off now than before the intervention. Far fewer Iraqis have been killed as a result of the intervention than were killed, or would have been killed by Saddam's regime. At least you got one fact straight.

Strike three. Next batter.

 

here's a related article from the NYT

Empire of Novices
By MAUREEN DOWD


ASHINGTON

The Bush foreign policy team always had contempt for Bill Clinton's herky-jerky, improvised interventions around the world. When it took control, it promised a global stewardship purring with gravity, finesse and farsightedness.

But now the Bush "dream team" is making the impetuous Clinton look like Rommel.

When your aim is remaking the Middle East, you don't want to get stuck making it up as you go along.

Even officials with a combined century of international experience can behave with jejeunosity — if they start believing their own spin.

The group that started out presuming it could shape the world is now getting shoved by the world.

Our unseen tormentors are the ones who seem canny and organized, not us. As they move from killing individual U.S. soldiers and Iraqis to sabotaging power plants, burning oil pipelines, blowing up mosques, demolishing the U.N. headquarters and now hitting the Baghdad police headquarters, our enemies seem better prepared and more committed to creating chaos in Iraq — and Afghanistan — than we are to creating order.

They've also proved more adept at putting together an effective coalition than the Bush team: a terrifying blend of terrorists from other countries, Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam fighters, radical Shiites and Saddam remnants, all pouring into Iraq and united by their hatred of America.

If we review the Bush war council's motives for conquering Iraq, the scorecard looks grim:

• We wanted to get rid of Osama and Saddam and the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We didn't. They're replicating and coming at us like cockroaches. According to Newsweek, Osama is in the mountains of Afghanistan, plotting to use biological weapons against America. If all those yuppies can climb Mount Everest, at 29,000 feet, can't we pay some locals to nab Osama at 14,000 feet?

• Bushies thought freeing Iraq from Saddam would be the first step toward the Middle East road map for peace, as well as a guarantee of greater security for Israel. But the road map blew up, and Israel seems farther away from making peace with the Arabs than ever. The U.S. has now pathetically called on Yasir Arafat to use his power to help after pretending for more than a year that he didn't exist.

• Rummy wanted to exorcise the stigma of Vietnam and prove you could use a lighter, faster force. But our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan may not banish our fears of being mired in a place halfway around the world where we don't understand the language or culture, and where our stretched-thin soldiers are picked off, guerrilla-style.

• The neocons wanted to marginalize the wimpy U.N. by barreling past it into Iraq. Now the Bush administration is crawling back to the U.N., but other nations are suspicious of U.S. security and politics in Iraq.

• Dick Cheney and Rummy wanted to blow off multilateralism and snub what Bushies call "the chocolate-making countries": France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg. But faced with untold billions in costs and mounting casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are beginning to see the advantages of sidekicks that know the perils of empire.

• The Pentagon wanted to sideline the C.I.A. and State and run the war and reconstruction itself. Now, overwhelmed, the Pentagon's special operations chiefs were reduced to screening a 1965 movie, "The Battle of Algiers," last week, as David Ignatius reported in The Washington Post, to try to learn why the French suffered a colonial disaster in a guerrilla war against Muslims in Algiers.

• The neocons hoped democracy in Iraq would spread like a fever in the Mideast, even among our double-dealing friends like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But after the majestic handoff of democracy to the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, it seems the puppets (now nervous about bodyguards) don't even want to work late, much less govern. As one aide told The Times, "On the Council, someone makes a suggestion, then it goes around the room, with everyone talking about it, and then by that time, it's late afternoon and time to go home."

• The vice president wanted to banish that old 60's feeling of moral ambivalence, of America in the wrong. Our unilateral move in Iraq, with the justifications on W.M.D. and Qaeda links to Saddam getting shakier each month, has made us more hated around the world than ever.

 

Uh, so what? Nice way to dismiss my arguments, lol. I have always argued the war was justified for three reasons: (a) to remove a genocidal dictator, (b) to remove a WMD threat, (c) to stop a state sponsor of terrorism - although I never supported the Al Queda connections being made by the administration.

Where are we now? We've removed the genocidal dictator, removed the WMD threat, removed the state sponsor of terrorism. Sounds like success to me, but you go spin like a top glynch.

**********
Originally posted by Hayes

I argue we removed a WMD threat. EVERY international actor agreed there was a WMD threat. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Now there isn't. Everyone agreed Saddam would continue to drive for nukes until he had them. EVERYONE. Now he won't. Strike one.

*******

Interesting mix of arguments. Mix and match, mix and match. The UN thought he had WMD, even if not nukes. My argument is not now, nor has it ever been that he HAD nukes, but that everyone believed he had other WMD, and that he would continue to drive for nukes until he got them. No one disputes that except you. If you are right and the 'majority of the world' believed he didn't have WMD then why were they supporting sanctions or inspections in the first place? And your basis for that is what?

I have always contended the greatest threat was Saddam acquiring nukes. Check out past threads (although you've already seen them). This is not some fresh 'spin,' its the facts.

I will certainly admit I thought they would have found significant WMD facilities/stores etc, and they haven't. That, however, does not change the FACT that the CONSENSUS clearly felt he did, and that Saddam himself encouraged this belief. Nor does it change the concern that he would acquire nukes, which you dismiss but with no reasonable argument.

As for future military intervention, not finding WMD really doesn't affect my advocacy at all. In the future if it is reasonable to believe a dangerous dictator (a) has WMD of one kind or another, and/or (b) has a drive to acquire the worse of WMD - nukes, and/or (c) is genocidal, and/or (d) is a state sponsor of terrorism...then I have no problems using the military as a solution to the problem if other remedies seem less likely to succeed.

I would continue with the quips but your comparison with Jorge sent a chill up the spine. I'll stop even though I've been gravely insulted .

Hayes Quote:
Did I say Al Queda? Don't think so. I'm on record as saying there was not convincing evidence of such a connection. I said we removed a regime that sponsored terrorism.

************

It has always been sufficient that he was a genocidal dictator and we had the power to remove him. It has always been sufficient that he was a WMD threat. It has always been sufficient that Saddam's regime, BY ITS OWN ADMISSION, was a state sponsor of terrorism. Do you dispute this? As I NEVER used the Al Queda connection in my advocacy of the war, I certainly don't have to start defending such a connection NOW, lol. And I must admit I find your advocacy of the CIA's competance most amusing...

Hayes Quote:
'Our' sanctions? Gee, I thought those were the ever-lovin' peace and joy huggin UN's sanctions. Am I wrong about that?
**************

Ah, so the US controls the UN but does not control the UN? The UN is the solution but its not because the US controls UN policy? Spin, spin, little top. Do you deny you argued for continuing containment instead of intervening? Do you deny 'containment' necessarily must involve limiting access to resources, ie 'sanctions.' Do you deny that Saddam could have allowed resources to reach to people, including the children you so heartbreakingly allude to? Do you deny that Saddam is no longer a barrier to resources reaching the children? Finally, do you deny the US has lead the movement to remove sanctions on Iraq now that Saddam has been deposed, and that other nations like France and Russia have resisted? Where does that leave your argument?

Quote:
Far fewer Iraqis have been killed as a result of the intervention than were killed, or would have been killed by Saddam's regime.
***********

Saddam was in the millions with no end in sight. There simply is no comparison.

Interesting. You scold me for projecting and then do it yourself. We can revisit this if millions die in a civil war, although I'll tell you now that you seem to be justifying dictatorial rule for the sake of stability, something many of our Chinese posters would agree with, but that I would not.

I don't know how you think policy is made, but weighing the impact of inaction vs action seems to be the most prudent way of doing things. We are better off now that Saddam has been removed. Iraqis are better off now that Saddam has been removed. As I've said before, seems like success to me.

In addition, you completely conceed my arguments that you are not being productive. If you really want to affect change with your voice, you should be encouraging the administration, and their supporters, on their move to get the UN involved. But you are not. You are gloating that your position for inaction is somehow justified by that movement. How is that productive?

 

I have always contended the greatest threat was Saddam acquiring nukes Hayes.

Uh, no. My point, as I have spelled out numerous times, is that as long as Saddam was in power he would be trying to obtain nukes. Many have made the point that although they acknowledged this, there was no sufficient evidence that he was close (timewise) to achieving this, and therefore they didn't support the war. For me that argument seemed largely irrelevant. Once we acknowledge he was going to continue to try and acquire them until he was successful, the threat became inevitable, therefore removing that threat was justified.


It has always been sufficient that he was a genocidal dictator and we had the power to remove him. Hayes

These are certainly independent reasons to remove Saddam, yes. This is where I diverged from the administration. As MacBeth and other pointed out, the administration offered NOT to remove him if he allowed full inspections - proving somewhat the point that Saddam committing genocide was not the main reason for the action. I have always argued his being genocidal was justification enough to remove him.

I actually explained this in-depth in FB's thread about why this reason (stopping genocide) was enough to remove Saddam. Some totalitarian regimes are simply to large and powerful to remove. The PRC is a classic example of this. It is simply infeasible that we could invade the PRC and remove the government. Some regimes we have other ways to influence, again like the PRC, where our economic ties help create conditions for economic and then political liberalization. In some cases military action would more than likely fail, such as in North Korea, where the regime very well may torch the whole Korean peninsula on the way out, and Japan with it - destroying more innocents than it could possibly save. In some cases there is a good chance of the US influencing regime change without intervention, or at least regime transition. The regimes in Central Asia come to mind, where we have some influence with regimes that both want to be our allies and want to engage in the world economy.

In Iraq none of these were possibilities. There is no other great power in the area. The US, and the UN for that matter, had no chance of influencing a regime transition. There apparently was no other actor willing to remove Saddam, except for the 50 countries that joined the coalition that removed him. Just as in Bosnia the UN refused to act and there was no likelihood of the situation resolving itself. Therefore removing Saddam was justified.

Ah, so the US controls the UN but does not control the UN? The UN is the solution but its not because the US controls UN policy?

Interesting how you avoid the question put straight to you. Wasn't your position that we should continue the 'containment' policy? That the Status Quo was 'working' and hence war was unnecessary? Doesn't this also implicate you in the sanctions, since containment necessarily requires sanctions? How do you deal with the FACT that the US moved to lift sanctions and 'the rest of the world,' as you put it, moved to block the lifting of the sanctions?

And again I see no answer from you about the FACTS:

-that UN policy was doing nothing to remove a genocidal dictator.
-that you justify genocide in the name of stability.
-that you are both revolted by the CIA and enamoured with them.
-that we have removed a state sponsor of terrorism.
-that you are being completely unproductive by criticising the administration whether they seek to act unilaterally or through the UN.

I would continue with the quips but your comparison with Jorge sent a chill up the spine. I'll stop even though I've been gravely insulted . Hayes.

Phew. I was pretty scared there for a minute