An American Coward Speaks

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=397352

I have read most of Pat Conroys' books, he is a fine writer. Thirty years from now, no graduate from the University of Wisconson will write an essay of this caliber.

Why?

An Honest Confession by an American Coward
by Pat Conroy

The true things always ambush me on the road and take me by surprise when I am drifting down the light of placid days, careless about flanks and rearguard actions. I was not looking for a true thing to come upon me in the state of New Jersey. Nothing has ever happened to me in New Jersey. But came it did, and it came to stay.

In the past four years I have been interviewing my teammates on the 1966-67 basketball team at the Citadel for a book I'm writing. For the most part, this has been like buying back a part of my past that I had mislaid or shut out of my life.
--snip--
When I visited my old teammate Al Kroboth's house in New Jersey, I spent the first hours quizzing him about his memories of games and practices and the screams of coaches that had echoed in field houses more than 30 years before. Al had been a splendid forward-center for the Citadel; at 6 feet 5 inches and carrying 220 pounds, he played with indefatigable energy and enthusiasm. For most of his senior year, he led the nation in field-goal percentage, with UCLA center Lew Alcindor hot on his trail.

-snip-
After we talked basketball, we came to a subject I dreaded to bring up with Al, but which lay between us and would not lie still.

"Al, you know I was a draft dodger and antiwar demonstrator."

"That's what I heard, Conroy," Al said. "I have nothing against what you did, but I did what I thought was right."

"Tell me about Vietnam, big Al. Tell me what happened to you," I said.

On his seventh mission as a navigator in an A-6 for Major Leonard Robertson, Al was getting ready to deliver their payload when the fighter-bomber was hit by enemy fire. Though Al has no memory of it, he punched out somewhere in the middle of the ill-fated dive and lost consciousness. He doesn't know if he was unconscious for six hours or six days, nor does he know what happened to Major Robertson (whose name is engraved on the Wall in Washington and on the MIA bracelet Al wears).

When Al awoke, he couldn't move. A Viet Cong soldier held an AK-47 to his head. His back and his neck were broken, and he had shattered his left scapula in the fall. When he was well enough to get to his feet (he still can't recall how much time had passed), two armed Viet Cong led Al from the jungles of South Vietnam to a prison in Hanoi. The journey took three months. Al Kroboth walked barefooted through the most impassable terrain in Vietnam, and he did it sometimes in the dead of night. He bathed when it rained, and he slept in bomb craters with his two Viet Cong captors. As they moved farther north, infections
began to erupt on his body, and his legs were covered with leeches picked up while crossing the rice paddies.

At the very time of Al's walk, I had a small role in organizing the only antiwar demonstration ever held in Beaufort, South Carolina, the home of Parris Island and the Marine Corps Air Station. In a Marine Corps town at that time, it was difficult to come up with a quorum of people who had even minor disagreements about the Vietnam War. But my small group managed to attract a crowd of about 150 to Beaufort's waterfront. With my mother and my wife on either side of me, we listened to the featured speaker, Dr. Howard Levy, suggest to the very few young enlisted Marines present that if they get sent to Vietnam, here's how they can help end this war: Roll a grenade under your officer's bunk when he's asleep in his tent. It's called fragging and is becoming more and more popular with the ground troops who know this war is ********. I was enraged by the suggestion. At that very moment my father, a Marine officer, was asleep in Vietnam. But in 1972, at the age of 27, I thought I was serving America's interests by pointing out what massive flaws and miscalculations and corruptions had led her to conduct a ground war in Southeast Asia.
--snip--
When I was demonstrating in America against Nixon and the Christmas bombings in Hanoi, Al and his fellow prisoners were holding hands under the full fury of those bombings, singing "God Bless America." It was those bombs that convinced Hanoi they would do well to release the American POWs, including my college teammate. When he told me about the C-141 landing in Hanoi to pick up the prisoners, Al said he felt no emotion, none at all, until he saw the giant American flag painted on the plane's tail. I stopped writing as Al wept over the memory of that flag on that plane, on that morning, during that time in the life of America.

It was that same long night, after listening to Al's story, that I began to make judgments about how I had conducted myself during the Vietnam War.

In the darkness of the sleeping Kroboth household, lying in the third-floor guest bedroom, I began to assess my role as a citizen in the '60s, when my country called my name and I shot her the bird. Unlike the stupid boys who wrapped themselves in Viet Cong flags and burned the American one, I knew how to demonstrate against the war without flirting with treason or astonishingly bad taste. I had come directly from the warrior culture of this country and I knew how to act.

But in the 25 years that have passed since South Vietnam fell, I have immersed myself in the study of totalitarianism during the unspeakable century we just left behind. I have questioned survivors of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, talked to Italians who told me tales of the Nazi occupation, French partisans who had counted German tanks in the forests of Normandy, and officers who survived the Bataan Death March. I quiz journalists returning from wars in Bosnia, the Sudan, the Congo, Angola, Indonesia, Guatemala, San Salvador, Chile, Northern Ireland, Algeria.

As I lay sleepless, I realized I'd done all this research to better understand my country. I now revere words like democracy, freedom, the right to vote, and the grandeur of the extraordinary vision of the founding fathers. Do I see America's flaws? Of course. But I now can honor her basic, incorruptible virtues, the ones that let me walk the streets screaming my ass off that my country had no idea what it was doing in South Vietnam. My country let me scream to my heart's content - the same country that produced both Al Kroboth and me.

Now, at this moment in New Jersey, I come to a conclusion about my actions as a young man when Vietnam was a dirty word to me.
--snip-
I have come to a conclusion about my country that I knew then in my bones but lacked the courage to act on: America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.
I looked for some conclusion, a summation of this trip to my teammate's house. I wanted to come to the single right thing, a true thing that I may not like but that I could live with. After hearing Al Kroboth's story of his walk across Vietnam and his brutal imprisonment in the North, I found myself passing harrowing, remorseless judgment on myself. I had not turned out to be the man I had once envisioned myself to be. I thought I would be the kind of man that America could point to and say, "There. That's the guy. That's the one who got it right. The whole package. The one I can depend on."

It had never once occurred to me that I would find myself in the position I did on that night in Al Kroboth's house in Roselle, New Jersey: an American coward spending the night with an American hero.
It is OK to be a pacifist, and OK to object to the war. The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

I don't expect non Americans to understand, nor non warriors. I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.

DR

[Gurdur]

The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?
I assume you mean, "Do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" ?

If so, I would say that most can answer that challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion --- but the answers may not be ones you like. Clue: there are very different ideas on just what is good for the country.
I don't expect non Americans to understand,
This seems both way off-base to me, and also gratuitous baiting. Do you really think Americans have a monopoly on idealism, patiotism, nationalism or selfless service?
Or is this some narcisstic preoccupation with the USA, as though other countries did not exist, or somehow the USA is the only country worthwhile?

Oh, and BTW, other countries still have national service -- compulsory service of up to two years -- while the USA doesn't, largely as the result of precisely the cackhanded war in Vietnam. So do those countries actually reflect Kennedy's expressed ideal better than the USA now?
Just asking.
nor non warriors.
Having been a warrior myself, I'm impervious to put-downs of this kind; but questions do raise themselves. Was Ghandi a "warrior"? Was Martin Luther King? IMHO, they most certainly were in all the important ways.

And taking it from the other side of criticism: would the Waffen SS have "understood" your question? They definitely would have thought they did; what they called selfless service was most certainly part of their ethos.
And that is a very important point, isn't it? At what point does patriotism become mindless ultra-nationalism? And a regress to the worse aspects of childishness?

After all, it's so very, very childish to sit around and endlessly chant all the time, "My country is better than yours. My country can beat your country up", yes? And that is what so often this kind of approach on a bulletin board devolves into: "My daddy is bigger/richer than your daddy".
Somehow I can't see that as worthwhile in the slightest, nor can I see such ersatz-nationalism primping itself and strutting on a bulletin board as reflecting Kennedy's expressed ideals in the slightest.
I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.
Doubtful, these days; Kurds might feel a great ideal of an Iraqi Kurdistan, and many of the Ba'athists would, but the Ba'athists hardly count these days, having become too identified with a minority Sunni group wanting to keep its privileges, while the Shi'ites are still searching for what they would like to see as a future. Seeing as to how their country has been taken over for the meantime and they get only to follow foreign orders in all really important decisions (rightly or wrongly), and seeing as to howmany of the educated and the idealist have been driven out of Iraq recently precisely because of the wave of violence, the question might seem rather moot for them at the moment.

[latent aaaack]

Darth, do you believe 40,000 dead Americans and a couple million dead SE Asians was good for our country? That would make you an extremist, so I will not assume that is your position. Your rational is similar to those of suicide bombers. No, nothing that is good would ask of you that you die for no reason. The line you bolded is chilling; "America is worth dying for even when she is wrong." Your veneration of war above all else is not the answer to the "what can you do for your country" line, its the answer to "what can you do to reduce your country's (literally) life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"

[Zep]

Hindsight is always 20/20, although there are a few notable exceptions to that observation. And everyone of us can certainly look back in time and quail in our boots at what we did (or did not do) that we thought was absolutely right at the time.

Gurdur is right about patriotism - it is not the sole province of Americans. It is the surfeit of patriotism leading to the denigration of the patriots to other, possibly conflicting causes that can lead to worse things happening. And so proceeds to jingoism and beyond. So it would seem the brave patriot is the one that takes care to ensure that his own patriotism does not cloud his judgement.

Note this also: I'm proudly patriotically Australian - true blue dinky-di, as we say. But does that mean I'm also proudly patriotically not American? Anti American? Don't care? It's actually none of the above. I believe the world is too small now, technically and in outlook, to build national fences too high to see over.

So perhaps when Kennedy asked "Do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country", that may have meant having the courage to tug insistently on the hem of the national psyche and say "No, please don't do this - my friends and countrymen are getting abused, tortured and killed for this, and it's not worth it!" Sanity check...

[Mycroft]

It is OK to be a pacifist, and OK to object to the war.

I sometimes wonder. I grew up in a world where it was taken for granted that Vietnam was wrong and that protesting it was a great thing, but I sometimes wonder how things would have been different if we'd been in that fight to win.


The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

If the challenge you're speaking of is the "...ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country..." you could certainly argue that Pat Conroy and others like him were doing for their country, at least as they saw it.

[latent aaaack]

I sometimes wonder. I grew up in a world where it was taken for granted that Vietnam was wrong and that protesting it was a great thing, but I sometimes wonder how things would have been different if we'd been in that fight to win.


Go on, how do you think things would be different? Do you think making Vietnam a democracy would have saved our country from injury or do you mean that wars should be won for the sake of winning them and nothing else?

[Skeptic]

I sometimes wonder. I grew up in a world where it was taken for granted that Vietnam was wrong and that protesting it was a great thing,

... but which abandoned the millions of Vietnamese forced to live under communism to their fate with a shrug.

[a_unique_person]

Darth, do you believe 40,000 dead Americans and a couple million dead SE Asians was good for our country? That would make you an extremist, so I will not assume that is your position. Your rational is similar to those of suicide bombers. No, nothing that is good would ask of you that you die for no reason. The line you bolded is chilling; "America is worth dying for even when she is wrong." Your veneration of war above all else is not the answer to the "what can you do for your country" line, its the answer to "what can you do to reduce your country's (literally) life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"

I was scratching my head too. If your country is wrong, it's wrong. It's not necessarily you who will die for it, but someone else from another country.

[latent aaaack]

... but which abandoned the millions of Vietnamese forced to live under communism to their fate with a shrug.

Your patriotism and loyalty to Vietnam are commendable (if very weird) but I have to question your loyalty to your countrymen when you imply that Americans should die not even for Vietnamese lives but for Vietnam's political system.

[Mycroft]

Your patriotism and loyalty to Vietnam are commendable (if very weird) but I have to question your loyalty to your countrymen when you imply that Americans should die not even for Vietnamese lives but for Vietnam's political system.

Vietnamese lives and the Vietnamese political system are not separate things.

I find your assumption that an American life should be inherently more valuable than a Vietnamese life unacceptably racist.

[latent aaaack]

Vietnamese lives and the Vietnamese political system are not separate things.

I find your assumption that an American life should be inherently more valuable than a Vietnamese life unacceptably racist.

I'll ignore the opinion of the Vietnamese people about that war for a second.

It's not American policy to kill millions of people in order to stop small scale murder of dissidents that falls short of genocide. That wouldn't even make sense.

It's also arguably not even necessarily American policy to go to war over actual genocides, as in Rwanda, Darfur, and Iraq. Furthermore America did just the opposite in supporting the Shah who's policies were every bit as murderous and brutal as communist Vietnam, if not more so. If you think it that America should sacrifice troops to stop brutal practices that fall short of genocide that's a different discussion and does not relate to the current discussion.

[PogoPedant]

America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.

So, Darth, does that mean that you'd rather die than try to improve America? Isn't that a bit... what's the word... moronic?

Idiotic bordering on the insane?

Stunningly stupid?


I don't expect non Americans to understand, nor non warriors.

And I think you need a hug.

[fishbob]

America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.
America - this incredibly fortunate piece of geography we call home - did not send soldiers to southeast Asia to die; people in positions of authority did that.

The question above completely misses the point, and I have to wonder why the author, after all his years of immersing himself in the study of totalitarianism, still does not have a clue.

America is good enough to defend, even to death - that America is home and friends and family. But being somewhat skeptical of the motivations of the leadership (then and now), I don't buy that America was what the dying was for.

The real question was always: Are mistakes or mismanagement or self-serving greed good enough to die for?

[Skeptic]

Your patriotism and loyalty to Vietnam are commendable (if very weird) but I have to question your loyalty to your countrymen when you imply that Americans should die not even for Vietnamese lives but for Vietnam's political system.

Using your definition, WWII was wrong--why should Americans die for Europe's political system, or to save the lives of Europeans?

[SezMe]

I sometimes wonder. I grew up in a world where it was taken for granted that Vietnam was wrong and that protesting it was a great thing, but I sometimes wonder how things would have been different if we'd been in that fight to win.
Which begs the question of what "win" means. In the context of Vietnam, what would that imply, Mycroft?

And it is a central question to our present situation in Iraq (if I may indulge in a derail). The neocons, Bush, and others talk about "winning" or "complete the mission" or similar phrases. But I cannot figure out what this "winning" means in military terms.

So we are, in some sense, back in Vietnam again and back to Mycroft's "wonder". Mycroft, do you now wonder about "winning" in Iraq? What do you conclude? What do the lessons of Vietnam hold for you?

[latent aaaack]

Using your definition, WWII was wrong--why should Americans die for Europe's political system, or to save the lives of Europeans?

This type of thinking is the same thing that skeptics accuse parapsychologists of doing, of getting negative results and then shoe-horning afterwards the results they get to fit the their previously held biases. America did not go to war so Europe could have a better political system. This is the same kind of thinking that's led the American public to be so easily manipulated by the Bush admin into thinking we're in Iraq for fateful altruistic reasons instead of for no reason. You're comparing a civil war in a small now provenly irrelevant country to an entire continent being invaded by a power that declared war on America. That's 'woo' that's a bit more consequential than using a stick to search for water. It's unfortunetly like what Hitler said, that people will sooner believe a big lie than a small lie.

[a_unique_person]

... but which abandoned the millions of Vietnamese forced to live under communism to their fate with a shrug.

So those who died were spared that fate?

[geni]

It is OK to be a pacifist, and OK to object to the war. The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

I don't expect non Americans to understand,


Why? Unlike yours my country has a real history of honest imperialism. I can spot old men trying to get young men to die for their beliliefs


nor non warriors.


Are you posting this from Iraq or Afganistian?


I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.


No I really rather doubt it.

[TragicMonkey]

I guess we abandoned many more millions Chinese to their fate of living under communism by not invading China? How do we live with ourselves?

A country's first duty is to its own people. Helping other people is nice, but not at the expense of its own. You don't let your child go hungry because you donated all your food to a charity drive. You can only do so much.

As for Conroy's essay, I'm reminded of the friends and relatives of people who suffer from terrible diseases. Yes, they suffer, and yes, they're brave if they can bear it, and yes, it's tragic that they have to be in that situation. And sometimes it's natural to feel guilty that you're standing there in good health when someone else isn't. But sympathy shouldn't extend to the point that you wish you had the disease, too. He sounds like he'd prefer to have shared their hell in Vietnam merely because that would assuage his guilt at not having gone through it--even if it were wrong.

The phrase "courage of your convictions" has always meant to me that you do the right thing even if it does make you miserable. For some people, that's why they went to Vietnam. For other people, that's why they didn't go.

[BPSCG]

The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?Less remembered than his, "Ask not" challenge was this promise (and I wonder if this wasn't what DR was actually referring to):
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
I wonder how many people would still subscribe to that. Precious few, I'm afraid.

[bob_kark]

I wonder how many people would still subscribe to that. Precious few, I'm afraid.

Please don't tell me that's why we're in Iraq. What about Iran, North Korea, Chad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Libya, Azerbaijan, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Transnistria, Gabon, UAE, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Maldives Syria, Cameroon, Myanmar, Qatar, Tunisia, Gambia, Jordon, Central African Republic, Belarus, and Mauritania? Why aren't we assuring the survival and the success of liberty there?

Here's a better question, since when is the President of the United States synonymous with America? America itself has never been wrong AFAIK. Many Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, etc... have been. They are our elected representatives and are to work for our best interests. When a President does not work towards the interests of America, are we to lay down and allow injustice to happen or is it more noble, more American, to stand up to this injustice and allow them to know that this cannot happen?

[BPSCG]

Please don't tell me that's why we're in Iraq. What about Iran, North Korea, Chad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Libya, Azerbaijan, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Transnistria, Gabon, UAE, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Maldives Syria, Cameroon, Myanmar, Qatar, Tunisia, Gambia, Jordon, Central African Republic, Belarus, and Mauritania? Why aren't we assuring the survival and the success of liberty there?So Kennedy's promise was just a lot of hot air?

[bob_kark]

So Kennedy's promise was just a lot of hot air?
I believe the evidence speaks for itself.

[Crossbow]

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=397352

I have read most of Pat Conroys' books, he is a fine writer. Thirty years from now, no graduate from the University of Wisconson will write an essay of this caliber.

Why?


It is OK to be a pacifist, and OK to object to the war. The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

I don't expect non Americans to understand, nor non warriors. I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.

DR

Wow!

I think that I am the only one in this thread so far that actually listened to the entire address made by the then new President Kennedy as opposed to just remembering the one bit that happens to suit someone's particular view of the world.

To summarize, the address dealt primarily with foreign policy at a time when the USA was facing several threats (Vietnam, among them) from states sponsored by the USSR. In particular, the Kennedy Administration was building support for dealing with the Soviets and their allies, and as such he was trying to prepare the people of the USA for dealing with these situations by letting the citizens of the USA know that he expected their best efforts. By the same token, Kennedy was putting those in foreign countries who we were about to be supported by the USA on notice that the aid provided is not to be taken blank check and that he expects their best efforts as well.

Anyway, if anyone really cares to see the entire speech it can be found below.

http://www.bartelby.com/124/pres56.html

President John F. Kennedy
Inaugural Address
Friday, January 20, 1961



...

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

[crackers]

So Kennedy's promise was just a lot of hot air?


Let's hope so. Otherwise, we have to invade all those countries Bob Kark listed. Even if we re-institute the draft, eventually we'll run out of soldiers. Sooner or later, we'll have to start drafting grandmas and little kids.

[billydkid]

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=397352

I have read most of Pat Conroys' books, he is a fine writer. Thirty years from now, no graduate from the University of Wisconson will write an essay of this caliber.

Why?


It is OK to be a pacifist, and OK to object to the war. The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

I don't expect non Americans to understand, nor non warriors. I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.

DR
America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong - How the hell is dying Vietnam or dying in Iraq equivalent to dying for America? Both of those wars not only had nothing to do with the defense of this country and both were against this country's best interests. It is not patriotic to die in a war that is damaging the country you are supposedly fighting for.

[drkitten]

Less remembered than his, "Ask not" challenge was this promise (and I wonder if this wasn't what DR was actually referring to):

I wonder how many people would still subscribe to that. Precious few, I'm afraid.

I should hope so. It's a stupid challenge as phrased.

"Pay any price?" I'm a better accountant than that; when I pay prices, I prefer to comparison shop and take the lowest one. "The survival and the success of liberty" is well-worth paying for -- mismanagement and fraud isn't.

[Ziggurat]

The question is, can you answer John Kennedy's challenge without mental reservation or purpose of evasion?

I don't expect non Americans to understand, nor non warriors. I will suggest that the average Iraqi gets it.

I'm not a warrior, but I get the question. I can't honestly say that I know the answer for sure, though I know what answer I would aspire to. And most people, even those who would say yes, are thankfully not put in a position where they need to find an answer.

[Ohmer]

America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.

Does this apply to those who died at Kent State in 1970?

[Darth Rotor]

No, nothing that is good would ask of you that you die for no reason. The line you bolded is chilling; "America is worth dying for even when she is wrong." Your veneration of war above all else is not the answer to the "what can you do for your country" line, its the answer to "what can you do to reduce your country's (literally) life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"
The bolded line surprised me, particularly when one considers Conroy's militant anti militarism during his career. My position is that America is worth killing for, though if another route can be found to achieve our aims, all to the good.

I don't venerate war above all else, not sure where you get that idea. I acknowledge it as a human habit.

I am also no longer in the business.
Darth, do you believe 40,000 dead Americans and a couple million dead SE Asians was good for our country?
It was good for Viet Nam, somewhat, in that by fighting the war the nation forever shook off colonial chains, European and otherwise.

"Good for our country" how? Losing wars isn't often good. As a battle of the Cold War, when you look at a geostrategic problem solution set, it is at best neutral, and in most cases, bad. One of the few good things was the end of the draft that, IMO, was materially aided by the political turmoil of the war.

But given the way you asked your question -- OBTW, the butcher's bill was 55,000+ on the US side) -- the only way to honestly answer your question is

I don't know.

I am still unsure (even after a heck of a lot of study of it) about the long term benefits and detriment of the Viet Nam War. The short term wasn't pretty. That the spread of communism was a strategic imperative of the 1940's - 1970's, which is the political context of the war, I agree. That the method chosen to address Viet Nam was "good for America," the escalations by JFK and LBJ, I have a very hard time with. Ike was against expanding US involvement, yet he favored the Geneva discussions that led to the 17th Parallel. (IIRC, Harry Truman's remarks on Viet Nam (as retired president) tended to be "this is a bad idea." Been a while since I read his stuff.)

Was the expenditure of our blood and treasure necessary at the time? Not knowing how well the US could have "worked a deal" with Ho and his Viet Minh once the French were kicked out, I can only guess that he could have been approached as an independent communist, somewhat like Tito, and a relationship could have been formed. That would have saved America and Viet Nam a lot of blood and treasure. The risk of writing it off was empowering the spread of Communism into Cambodia, which happened once we left anyway. There was some merit to the domino theory.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So, Darth, does that mean that you'd rather die than try to improve America?
I think that Conroy's meaning was dying for one's coutry, in the act of doing something for it, is not a life wasted. I may be reading his meaning incorrectly.
Stunningly stupid?
What you are willing to kill for, or to die while attempting, is a significant part of your world view, don't you think?
[quoite]And I think you need a hug.[/QUOTE]
You are probably right. :D Thanks.

DR

[Garrette]

What you are willing to kill for, or to die while attempting, is a significant part of your world view, don't you think?
I agree.

There have been two instances in my civilian life when I avoided fights with the appropriate "tough-guy" line. The first is humorous though I was quite frightened and very much alone.

The second was not humorous then and I do not intend it to be humorous in the retelling. Here is a short version:

Thug: "Are you really willing to get the s*** kicked out of you for him?"

Me: "There are a lot of people I'm willing to get the s*** kicked out of me for. He's one of the few I'm willing to kick the s*** out of someone else for. The real question then is Are you willing to get the s*** kicked out of you for him?


The thug backed down. The sentiment is real and can be extrapolated to killing.

[Darth Rotor]

Vietnamese lives and the Vietnamese political system are not separate things.

I find your assumption that an American life should be inherently more valuable than a Vietnamese life unacceptably racist.
Mycroft,

Substitute the word "German," "Hungarian" or "Italian" for "Vietnamese" into that last sentence and see if it comes out racist. I think "nationalist" or "chauvinist" rather than "racist" fits your point better.

DR

[This Guy]

I used to feel that it was America! Right or wrong, do or die! I hated the war protesters of the 60's and 70's. Thought they were all traitors. I felt that those that ran to Canada were the lowest of the low. And all these feelings were based on my concept of what it was to be an American. None of it was based on any understanding of why the war was being fought.

My views now are a bit different. Should any aggressor invade our soil, I would gather my guns and fight to the death to repel them! If a clear and present danger to America shows itself, I'm all for doing what it takes to eliminate the threat. I think Afghanistan is an example of that. Iraq, on the other hand, isn't.

I think dissent, when our nation's leaders do what's wrong, is as much a heroic act as taking arms to fight our enemy.

[Darth Rotor]

Thanks to all of you who commented. My surprise at Mr Conroy's essay, which I stumbled upon yesterday, was due to his career producing popular, iconoclastic writing. That he somehow thinks, now, that he followed the wrong path when the road forked seems the kind of bitter regret that I hope not to encounter when I am in my 60's. Maybe he doesn't feel regret as deeply as what I read into it, but is writing a love letter of sorts to those of his teammates who followed the path he didn't, and he's reaching out to them.

To some comments I have not responded to:
Gurdur: Yes on Ghandi and MLK as warriors, and Red Cloud as well. I hadn't looked at it in that context, but your point makes good sense. As to the "doubtful" on Iraqis, my having failed to differentiate between "country" and "family/clan/tribe" in the comparison makes that point pretty weak. Good point for your observation.

@Zep: So perhaps when Kennedy asked "Do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country", that may have meant having the courage to tug insistently on the hem of the national psyche and say "No, please don't do this - my friends and countrymen are getting abused, tortured and killed for this, and it's not worth it!" Sanity check...
Very good point. Again, given Mr Conroy's long habit of anti establishment writing, I find his essay a surprise, as your point seems to fit his original sentiments, as they manifested themselves in his writing.

@ Mycroft: If the challenge you're speaking of is the "...ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country..." you could certainly argue that Pat Conroy and others like him were doing for their country, at least as they saw it.
Yes, at the time, which is what caused me to do a double take on his essay.

@AUP: I was scratching my head too. If your country is wrong, it's wrong. It's not necessarily you who will die for it, but someone else from another country.For the "country" to be wrong, in matters like war it tends to be the leadership who is wrong, but given Conroy's context, "wrong" is a subjective assessment, based on PoV.

As to who dies for what, I refer you to General Patton's infamous remarks on that topic, which I tend to agree with.

@ Geni: I retired last year, but I got to go to the sandbox, lucky me. I was in a few operations during the Cold war where had the opportunity to be a target. Lucky me, no one shot me. Is American imperialism dishonest? :confused:

@ Tragic Monkey: I guess we abandoned many more millions Chinese to their fate of living under communism by not invading China? How do we live with ourselves?Are you familiar with the old "Who Lost China" wheeze of the 1950's? It seems America matured by the time of the Cambodian Killing Fields, to answer your second point. Note on Conroy's "survivor's" guilt, thanks, I was trying to frame in my head last night what motivated him, and I think you are close to the mark.

For Crossbow and BPSCG: both the "ask not" and "bear any burden" were in my head when I wrote that last night, but that didn't make it onto the post beyond "Kennedy's Challenge." A response some people can make on "what can you do for your country" was well phrased by Zep.

billydkid: America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong - How the hell is dying Vietnam or dying in Iraq equivalent to dying for America? Both of those wars not only had nothing to do with the defense of this country and both were against this country's best interests. It is not patriotic to die in a war that is damaging the country you are supposedly fighting for.Tuchman agrees with your Viet Nam assessment, and I tend to agree with you (as well as many men better than I) about the Iraq war being not in America's strategic interest. To answer your question, the worthy action that Conroy lauds in this essay is to serve (at risk of death) when your country calls, knowing full well that whoever the American people put into office may or may not be right. The counter position is to desert, which men of honor don't do. The US Army in Europe, Cold War, faced the very real prospect of dying in a gas or tactical nuclear attack if heads of state did something stupid and started the shooting again. For about 20 years, American aircrews flew unarmed reconnaisance over hostile territory to ensure that the USA would not be surprised by an attack. These men died for their country (http://www.aiipowmia.com/koreacw/cw1.html) or were held prisoner.

@ Ohmer: Does this apply to those who died at Kent State in 1970 I don't know. I am not sure what they knew, and what they thought they were fighting about and for, other than "the system" being wrong. I also don't know how they felt about America, or if they had given it serious thought. Them being dead, I'll not likely know.

Thanks to you all, again.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I think dissent, when our nation's leaders do what's wrong, is as much a heroic act as taking arms to fight our enemy.
Dissent is less dangerous, but is as important.

DR

[Garrette]

I think dissent, when our nation's leaders do what's wrong, is as much a heroic act as taking arms to fight our enemy.I don't think Darth disagrees, at least with the principle ("dissent" takes many forms and can require varying degrees of voluntary risk; not all who dissent are heroic just as not all who take up arms are heroic.).

I know that I agree with the sentiment. I will, in fact, go you one better:

Dissent, even absent proof of our leaders being wrong, can be patriotic. The positive results of debate are not restricted to science.

[Huntster]

Darth, do you believe 40,000 dead Americans and a couple million dead SE Asians was good for our country?

That was about 55,000 dead Americans.

And it would have been better if the country would have learned something from it.

Sadly, this situation illustrates that the lesson was lost (or ignored, or manipulated).

[Huntster]

....I sometimes wonder how things would have been different if we'd been in that fight to win......

Any entity that goes into a fight without the will to win won't last long.

And that's the lesson that seems to repeatedly be lost (I guess you can call that fact a "losing streak").

[Darth Rotor]

That was about 55,000 dead Americans.

And it would have been better if the country would have learned something from it.

Sadly, this situation illustrates that the lesson was lost (or ignored, or manipulated).
The lessons of Bosnia and Somalia seem also to have been overlooked, at least somewhat, despite recency of experience in the hands of the operators.

On a related note, that of failing to learn, did you ever read the original Shock and Awe (http://www.dodccrp.org/publications/pdf/Ullman_Shock.pdf)paper from NDU?
Authors:
Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade
Assist from:
L.A. “Bud” Edney
Fred M. Franks
Charles A. Horner
Jonathan T. Howe

Here is the disclaimer: We note for the record that should a Rapid Dominance force actually be fielded with the requisite operational capabilities, this force would be neither a silver bullet nor a panacea and certainly not an antidote or preventative for a major policy blunder, miscalculation, or mistake. It should also be fully appreciated that situations will exist in which Rapid Dominance (or any other doctrine) may not work or apply because of other political, strategic, or other limiting factors.

DR

[Huntster]

....America did not go to war so Europe could have a better political system......

So, why did the United States go to war in Europe?

(After the dissertation you gave Skeptic, it's remarkable somebody had to ask you...........)

[geni]

@ Geni: I retired last year, but I got to go to the sandbox, lucky me. I was in a few operations during the Cold war where had the opportunity to be a target. Lucky me, no one shot me.

You left before victory was atchived in something other than a coffin. That doesn't make you a warrior.


Is American imperialism dishonest? :confused:


Of course. It is part of the reason you are so bad at it.

[geni]

So, why did the United States go to war in Europe?

Because part of europe declaired war on the US and started sinking its ships.

[Huntster]

Quote:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

I wonder how many people would still subscribe to that. Precious few, I'm afraid.
Please don't tell me that's why we're in Iraq. What about Iran, North Korea, Chad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Libya, Azerbaijan, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Transnistria, Gabon, UAE, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Maldives Syria, Cameroon, Myanmar, Qatar, Tunisia, Gambia, Jordon, Central African Republic, Belarus, and Mauritania? Why aren't we assuring the survival and the success of liberty there?

When can we start?

[Huntster]

Edited out.

[Darth Rotor]

You left before victory was atchived in something other than a coffin. That doesn't make you a warrior.
Huh? So you have to die to be a warrior? This seems to be a veiled reference to the Spartan mothers' admonition to come back victorious or on one's shield. It doesn't work that way anymore, regardless of how noble that notion is. I won't derali this into a discussion of 'the warrior spirit' as it has already been pointed out to me that my initial remark on that was a bit short on substance.

Of course, we also don't wage war the old school way. You going to go see "The Three Hundred?" :cool:
[quoite]Of course. It is part of the reason you are so bad at it.[/QUOTE]
ROFL. Thus spake the toothless lion. :)

Cheers.

DR

[crackers]

When can we start?

YOU can start any time you like. Let us know how it goes.

[Darth Rotor]

Because part of europe declaired war on the US and started sinking its ships.
Geni, U-boats were sinking American ships well before December of 1941. Before Pearl Harbor, convoys of supplies were already headed to England. American ships and sailors (mostly merchant seamen) were heading to meet Davy Jones in the cold waters of the North Atlantic.

By 1941 the United States was taking an increasing part in the war, despite its nominal neutrality. In April 1941 President Roosevelt extended the 'Pan-American Security Zone' east almost as far as Iceland. British forces had occupied Iceland when Denmark fell to the Germans in 1940, the US was persuaded to provide forces to relieve British troops on the island. American warships began escorting Allied convoys in the western Atlantic as far as Iceland, and had several hostile encounters with U-boats.



DR

[fishbob]

When can we start?

Who is this 'we' Kimo Sabe?

[Darth Rotor]

Please don't tell me that's why we're in Iraq. What about Iran, North Korea, Chad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Libya, Azerbaijan, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Transnistria, Gabon, UAE, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Maldives Syria, Cameroon, Myanmar, Qatar, Tunisia, Gambia, Jordon, Central African Republic, Belarus, and Mauritania? Why aren't we assuring the survival and the success of liberty there?
Bob, the problem is, and always was, there is no single policy aim being pursued, there are a bundle. There is also the problem of "what long term benefit" for sending troops to any of those countries, for any number of reasons? An alleged policy aim with Iraq (debatable of course, particularly in hindsight but by many before hand) is that its unique location made it a good place to try and infect the Mid East with democracy, tied to Saddamn's well known thuggery, tied to over all PG security, tied to the expectation (fantasy?) that unlike some of the basket case nations, Iraq had the ecnomic means to preclude have a functioning economy due to its oil reserves.

It is a mistake to play reductionist and confine any decision to go to war with a single aim. Wilson's war rhetoric to "Make the World Safe For Democracy" was not the same thing as the totality of his aims of, or justification for, war.

DR

[a_unique_person]

It was good for Viet Nam, somewhat, in that by fighting the war the nation forever shook off colonial chains, European and otherwise.



Vietnam had just done that when it kicked out the French.


Was the expenditure of our blood and treasure necessary at the time? Not knowing how well the US could have "worked a deal" with Ho and his Viet Minh once the French were kicked out, I can only guess that he could have been approached as an independent communist, somewhat like Tito, and a relationship could have been formed. That would have saved America and Viet Nam a lot of blood and treasure. The risk of writing it off was empowering the spread of Communism into Cambodia, which happened once we left anyway. There was some merit to the domino theory.

DR


Cambodia had been a stable, peaceful kingdom. It was the Vietnam war itself that destabilised Cambodia and allowed the Khmer Rouge to take over.

[This Guy]

Geni, U-boats were sinking American ships well before December of 1941. Before Pearl Harbor, convoys of supplies were already headed to England. American ships and sailors (mostly merchant seamen) were heading to meet Davy Jones in the cold waters of the North Atlantic.

By 1941 the United States was taking an increasing part in the war, despite its nominal neutrality. In April 1941 President Roosevelt extended the 'Pan-American Security Zone' east almost as far as Iceland. British forces had occupied Iceland when Denmark fell to the Germans in 1940, the US was persuaded to provide forces to relieve British troops on the island. American warships began escorting Allied convoys in the western Atlantic as far as Iceland, and had several hostile encounters with U-boats.



DR

It could certainly be argued that these actions of Roosevelt's made our entry in the war inevitable, if not a fact before the formal declaration. But that's probably fodder for another thread :)

[Darth Rotor]

It could certainly be argued that these actions of Roosevelt's made our entry in the war inevitable, if not a fact before the formal declaration. But that's probably fodder for another thread :)
Hehe, FDR lied and deceived us into war, while at dawn we slept, ignoring the the Illuminati as they cleverly put Ben-Gay into Stalin's boxer shorts . . . :D

DR

[geni]

Huh? So you have to die to be a warrior? This seems to be a veiled reference to the Spartan mothers' admonition to come back victorious or on one's shield. It doesn't work that way anymore, regardless of how noble that notion is.

It doesn't work that way for the US. It works that way for other groups though. Hezbollah for example.

The notion isn't noble so much as practicel. Humans generaly don't want to die so the victory or death option is one way for leaders to make sure thier troops stay focused.


Of course, we also don't wage war the old school way.

The weapons mostly have their origins in WW2. To sides in the major conflict areas are even older. Tribe and religion.


ROFL. Thus spake the toothless lion. :)


I think one british empire is enough for now. But look at that empire. Sure there was talk of uplifting savages or whatever and racism allowed it to be sold to the masses but no one pretended it was anything other than empire building.

[geni]

Geni, U-boats were sinking American ships well before December of 1941. Before Pearl Harbor, convoys of supplies were already headed to England. American ships and sailors (mostly merchant seamen) were heading to meet Davy Jones in the cold waters of the North Atlantic.



However the "Second happy time" didn't start untill after the decleration of war.

[roger]

Darth,

How would you judge Shock and Awe to have worked in Iraq? Certainly we toppled the regime easily enough, but we are still there with no end in sight.

I'm no military strategist, but I wonder how well we have managed to "destroy...the adversary's will to resist before, during, and after battle", as they write. I can't tell from the except you quoted whether you agree or disagree with that sentiment.

[This Guy]

Darth,

How would you judge Shock and Awe to have worked in Iraq? Certainly we toppled the regime easily enough, but we are still there with no end in sight.

I'm no military strategist, but I wonder how well we have managed to "destroy...the adversary's will to resist before, during, and after battle", as they write. I can't tell from the except you quoted whether you agree or disagree with that sentiment.

Not answering for DR, just giving my feelings on the disclaimer DR posted, in reference to your question.

I think Shock and Awe worked great! We were able to overwhelm the enemy, and gain control of the country (for all practical purposes) in very short time. Shock and Awe I think, achieved it purpose! The problem was PPP (Pi$$ Poor Planning) in regards to once we sent in the troops.

I think the Shock and Awe is a valid military strategy, IF it is used in conjunction with a properly planned occupation of the country attacked.

Understand this (and what follows) in no way is meant to say that I think we did right by attacking Iraq. I was shocked when I heard we had attacked, and I've felt from the beginning that we should not have attacked. I'm just commenting on the value of a Shock and Awe strategy.

I think it worked great, but the part after Shock and Awe is where things fell apart. The list of errors has been posted and commented on time and time again, so I won't litter this thread with them. I'll just repeat, Shock and Awe worked.

The disclaimer made clear that S&A was "no silver bullet". It is not a replacement for proper military planning, and forethought regarding what should happen after we've destroyed the regime's will/ability to continue fighting. IMHO we did not plan well enough, how to control the ground, and prevent (if it was even possible) the growth of rebel forces. Having allowed (again, if we could have even prevented it) them to form their forces, we set ourselves up for exactly what we have. A civil war in another country, with us setting smack dab in the middle of it.

In summary I'll say that while (IMHO) we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, I think Shock and Awe got us in quickly, and with relatively few casualties. The problem is that (other than us not belonging there in the first place) we didn't plan properly for what happened next. And I'll finish with a snip from DR's quote of the disclaimer -

this force would be neither a silver bullet nor a panacea and certainly not an antidote or preventative for a major policy blunder, miscalculation, or mistake.

I think our trip to Iraq is all of the above.

ETA- Guess I was a bit redundant. But just to make sure, does anyone not realize I think we should have stayed out of Iraq? ;)

[Huntster]

Who is this 'we' Kimo Sabe?

Us. All of us. Together. As "a team".

What? No?

Is "that" the lesson that will finally get "learned"?:

"Just let it ride"?

[Gurdur]

Us. All of us. Together. As "a team".
Quite apart from the justified doubts about the value of having you personally on any team, you completely and utterly missed the point.
The point was that the USA government, like many other national governments, routinely supports dictatorships and theocracies it likes (like Uzbekistan, like Saudi Arabia); so when USA (or other) politicians talk about bringing about democracy by bombing the hell out of places, a huge amount of skepticism is more than warrented as to real motives.
What? No? Is "that" the lesson that will finally get "learned"?: "Just let it ride"?
In view of the bigoted and amoral ultra-nationalíst supremacism you've shown in your other posts, just like any Serbian bigoted nationalist, except your one is the USA, then frankly, who the hell do you think are you kidding?
:boggled:

[Huntster]

Not answering for DR, just giving my feelings on the disclaimer DR posted, in reference to your question.

I think Shock and Awe worked great! We were able to overwhelm the enemy, and gain control of the country (for all practical purposes) in very short time. Shock and Awe I think, achieved it purpose! The problem was PPP (Pi$$ Poor Planning) in regards to once we sent in the troops.....

I agree, to a limit. DR's disclaimer states that Shock and Awe can't make up for policy failures, and you indicate "PPP".

I say the policy failure was due to intelligence failures. The military performed well, and (IMO) still can.

We are now in the phase where the military is hindered by political problems.

The United States never did well with guerrilla war, but actually performed quite efficiently in Missouri during the War Between the States, when the military had the support of the political leaders in offensive actions against guerrillas.

They aggressively sought them and killed them. It was after the war, when the military was withdrawn, that the likes of the James brothers, Youngers, etc were most effective, turning from "guerrilla" to "outlaw" (same-old, same-old).

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Us. All of us. Together. As "a team".

Quite apart from the justified doubts about the value of having you personally on any team, you completely and utterly missed the point.

If you value loyalty, they don't come any better than me.

But, then, you wouldn't understand that attribute, would you?

The point was that the USA government, like many other national governments, routinely supports dictatorships and theocracies it likes (like Uzbekistan, like Saudi Arabia);

Like "many other national governments"?

Which national government routinely suports dictatorships and theeocracies they don't like?

.....so when USA (or other) politicians talk about bringing about democracy by bombing the hell out of places, a huge amount of skepticism is more than warrented as to real motives.

Oh, God bless skepticism!

Put it up on a cross and crucify it. Let's see if it comes back.............

Quote:
What? No? Is "that" the lesson that will finally get "learned"?: "Just let it ride"?

In view of the bigoted and amoral ultra-nationalíst supremacism you've shown in your other posts, just like any Serbian bigoted nationalist, except your one is the USA, then frankly, who the hell do you think are you kidding?

Nobody.

I'd just like to see the likes of Kim Jong Il get his ass kicked sooner rather than later.

But I can be patient.................

[Nancarrow]

Oh, God bless skepticism!

Put it up on a cross and crucify it. Let's see if it comes back.............


Are you sure this is the right message board for you?

[This Guy]

I agree, to a limit. DR's disclaimer states that Shock and Awe can't make up for policy failures, and you indicate "PPP".

I say the policy failure was due to intelligence failures. The military performed well, and (IMO) still can.

I agree! My comments on the poor planning was in regards to the political leaders. IMHO our military has always done a great job of doing what has been asked of it. It's been when the folks in Washington get wishy washy about the wars that we have problems. That and them sending our fine men and women places they should not have been sent in the first place.

The United States never did well with guerrilla war, but actually performed quite efficiently in Missouri during the War Between the States, when the military had the support of the political leaders in offensive actions against guerrillas.

This part got me thinking! This may be more fodder for another thread, but other than our little tiff between the states (;)) have we won a guerrilla war? I'm showing my ignorance now, but that's nothing new. Time to do some research. That's what I hate about these forums! They make me think! In addition to the pain, it makes work for me! ;)

[SezMe]

We are now in the phase where the military is hindered by political problems.
You've got that exactly bassackwards.

We are now in the phase where the political process is hindered by the military.

The various ethnic/tribal/religious sectors of Iraq have got to sort out their own future. Until that political process is at least begun, then there is virtually nothing the military can do. In fact, our presence there inhibits, to some extent, that very process.

The military is good at killing people. It is not designed to build infrastructure, negotiate or mediate between factions, provide policing and justice services, etc. in remote lands.

We - and Iraq - will be much better off when we act on such ideas and get our collective butts out of the way. You - and Shrubs - notion of "victory" is so badly out of place that it hurts.

[Gurdur]

If you value loyalty, they don't come any better than me.
On a bulletin board. You haven't proven it anywhere else.
But, then, you wouldn't understand that attribute, would you?
Yet again you only display your willful ignorance. :)
Which national government routinely suports dictatorships and theeocracies they don't like?
:) Reading Comprehension 101: some national governments do not support dictatorships and theocracies.
Oh, God bless skepticism!
God made me a skeptic. :D
Put it up on a cross and crucify it. Let's see if it comes back...
I love it when you start spiraling down into complete bizarreness. :D
But I can be patient............
You haven't got any other choice, have you? :D
For all your huffing and puffing in cyberspace, you have not demonstrated one iota of action in real life in pursuit of ideals. Put your money where your mouth is. Or is all this huffing and puffing of yours actually your real goal? Just to mouth off on a bulletin board, where it's all safe and easy?

[Gurdur]

We are now in the phase where the military is hindered by political problems.
This only illustrates your willful ignorance yet again, and your worship of a primitive tribalist war-god.

Politics and military go hand in hand; as Clausewitz said, war is politics by other means; as Cicero said 2000 years ago (one would think you and they would have learnt by now from him), "Armed forces abroad are of little use without wise council at home"; as Sun Tzu said, do not make war relying solely on military superiority; as many others have said over the centuries, you cannot simply focus on having armed forces if you don't have the slightest clue what you're going to do with them if circumstances go against you.

The present political situation in Iraq was foreordained and created by both Washington political shortsightedness and by military incompleteness --- lack of enough occupation troops, lack of training in policing, lack of clear goals.

To make the point really, really, really simple for you: :)

It doesn't matter how big a gun you carry if you're a bloody confused idiot.

Whining about not being able to fight guerilla wars well only points up your and others' failure of thought.

[Darth Rotor]

The military is good at killing people. It is not designed to build infrastructure, negotiate or mediate between factions, provide policing and justice services, etc. in remote lands.

You have missed about 15 years of military development, which includes a fuzzy thing called OOTW and Nation Building and Peace Enforcement. The US military is good at those things, and has to be by Joint Doctrine. The question is, for how long and under what conditions. The Bosnia Op was reasonably successful, albeit with some fits and starts. However, in that, the political solution led, then the dirty work began. It is the opposite in Iraq, though the two situations aren't all that analagous.

While you are correct, the core competence is killing, or as an old Infantry friend of mine once remarked "blow things up and break things" there are entire MOS's devoted to missons the easily fit into this OOTW stuff. MP's, CA, Combat Engineers, Log Toads, and the comms guys. You also might be surprised at how well combat arms folks innovate when they have to.

The problem is, and I think you touched on this, that the political lead in to any of that was not particularly well devised.
We - and Iraq - will be much better off when we act on such ideas and get our collective butts out of the way. You - and Shrubs - notion of "victory" is so badly out of place that it hurts.
Darth,

How would you judge Shock and Awe to have worked in Iraq? Certainly we toppled the regime easily enough, but we are still there with no end in sight.

I'm no military strategist, but I wonder how well we have managed to "destroy...the adversary's will to resist before, during, and after battle", as they write. I can't tell from the except you quoted whether you agree or disagree with that sentiment
The Shock and Awe, was fine in execution, for what it had to do. ( I worked with a USAF guy who was in the trageting cell during the first two months of Iraq, and his accounts really opened my eyes to what was being attempted from the ironmongery side.)

What irritated me, and what I think was ill conceived, was how foolishly that sound byte was used in the media war. Since Shock and Awe is not a magic bullet, a silver bullet, etc, per the authors, but a technique for breaking down the ability of the enemy to ever get inside your OODA loop, its utility in other than 'major combat operations' is questionable.

Was it effective against a pre planned counter insurgency? Not really, nor would its authors expect it to be. I posted a link a few weeks back to a piece by Dreyfuss on that matter, the pre arrangement of a resistance. A 2005 interview/discussion he had with the ex Iraqi ambassador to Hanoi. Saddam was under no illusions, it seemed, about his odds should the US start to roll across the LD.

Garrette: Question for you. When you were in Baghdad, did you run across, or get to talk to, any old regime / Ba'athist guys who discussed the pre planning of a resistance?

DR

[a_unique_person]

I agree, to a limit. DR's disclaimer states that Shock and Awe can't make up for policy failures, and you indicate "PPP".

I say the policy failure was due to intelligence failures. The military performed well, and (IMO) still can.

We are now in the phase where the military is hindered by political problems.

The United States never did well with guerrilla war, but actually performed quite efficiently in Missouri during the War Between the States, when the military had the support of the political leaders in offensive actions against guerrillas.

They aggressively sought them and killed them. It was after the war, when the military was withdrawn, that the likes of the James brothers, Youngers, etc were most effective, turning from "guerrilla" to "outlaw" (same-old, same-old).

So, it's not OK to dis the troops, but it is OK to dis the intelligence forces?

[SezMe]

You have missed about 15 years of military development, which includes a fuzzy thing called OOTW and Nation Building and Peace Enforcement. The US military is good at those things, and has to be by Joint Doctrine. The question is, for how long and under what conditions. The Bosnia Op was reasonably successful, albeit with some fits and starts. However, in that, the political solution led, then the dirty work began. It is the opposite in Iraq, though the two situations aren't all that analagous.
OOTW?

I have no doubt that the US military has a number of areas of expertise that I am totally unaware of and that they are good at. However, I can't think of any instance where the US military succeeded, including Bosnia, at nation building. As you correctly point out, the politics were out front. Can you cite an example of where US military was demonstrably "good" at "Nation Building"?

Look, I'm not out to bash the US military. In fact, quite the contrary. I think the military has performed admirably in Iraq. The problem is the mission(s) they were given and the incompetence of leadership to execute the mission from Bush, to Rumsfeld, Feith, et. al. in the Pentagon.

[Darth Rotor]

So, it's not OK to dis the troops, but it is OK to dis the intelligence forces?
Intel has been chosen as a whipping boy by a number of the administrations more outspoken supporters. I never thought it was fair, and people like Scheuer took it personally. (Imperial Hubris)

I think this blame game is used by some due to the inherent problems in intelligence in the first place: the intel guys can rarely give you certainty, and they can't read minds and give intentions. They can give a lot: trends, data, patterns, indicators, some good "this is here, and it usually moves there, and here is why" sort of stuff. Intel can give you a lot of options, and a lot of excellent analysis, but they can't give you a Pure Truth Machine.

So, were some of the intel estimates less than 100% right? Sure. Intel spends a career being sorta right some of the time, and dead on some of the time. It depends on what you are looking at, time horizons, perishable intel, humint quality, and cross referencing conflicting reports. (Which are legion.)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

OOTW?

I have no doubt that the US military has a number of areas of expertise that I am totally unaware of and that they are good at. However, I can't think of any instance where the US military succeeded, including Bosnia, at nation building. As you correctly point out, the politics were out front. Can you cite an example of where US military was demonstrably "good" at "Nation Building"?

Look, I'm not out to bash the US military. In fact, quite the contrary. I think the military has performed admirably in Iraq. The problem is the mission(s) they were given and the incompetence of leadership to execute the mission from Bush, to Rumsfeld, Feith, et. al. in the Pentagon.
You think Bosnia is a failure of nation building? Why? It was a great success at peace enforcement.

The best example was the Marshall plan, but again, the political lead was key there.

DR

[This Guy]

So, it's not OK to dis the troops, but it is OK to dis the intelligence forces?

Not answering for Hunster (I'm sure he'll do that for himself), but giving my $0.02 worth.

From what I've read it appears that there was some very good intelligence available before we attacked Iraq. The problem was that our leaders appear to have only paid heed to those bits that backed their forgone conclusions, and supported them in doing what they were going to do anyway.

I could be wrong, but I think the Intel folks did a fine job. But of course, Intel is always a shaky thing! Until we get that remote viewing stuff down (;)), there will always be a degree of guess work involved in the interpretation of Intel.

[qayak]

When can we start?

You already did. America is the most agressive country that has ever been.

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

[qayak]

So, it's not OK to dis the troops, but it is OK to dis the intelligence forces?

Yes. The troops are there doing the job they signed up for. Remember, the entire military is a volunteer force which is why there is so little complaining from the troops as opposed to Vietnam where the force was made up of draftees.

The troops are there doing the job they were given based on the politics of the administration and the intelligence given to justify those politics. If the administration throws intelligence out to cover their butts then the intelligence is open to critisism.

[SezMe]

You think Bosnia is a failure of nation building? Why? It was a great success at peace enforcement.

The best example was the Marshall plan, but again, the political lead was key there.

DR

No, I don't think Bosnia is a failure.

You're missing my point. You said that the US military was "good" at "nation building". All I'm doing is asking for an example that demonstrates that competence. You've cited Bosnia and the Marshall Plan, but noted (quite correctly) that these successes might well be due to good politics, not because of a core US military competency.

IOW, you made a claim and I am asking for evidence to support that claim. That's all.

(Gawd, I sound like CFL. I'll seek atonement. :) )

ETA: OOTW?

[Darth Rotor]

No, I don't think Bosnia is a failure.
Since the military tasks involved in naiton building are those of providing security, stability, establishing relationships, confidence building, and acting as an enabling force for all the contractors and NGO's who follow on, or as usual leach off of the backbone capability present, not to mention multinational orgs like UN, the mission is the usual hybrid. As time goes on in that mission, fewer and fewer nation building tasks are purely military. Bosnia is an excellent example. The last US troops left within the last year.

I don't know aobut you, but I think that $100,000,000 million in construction projects in the years 1995 to 1998 is pretty good stuff (that is what I was aware of from the job I was doing) Again, the detail is that a bunch of that is military and DoD contracting teams coordinating a joint civil military project to completion. It is an unconventional mission.

In terms of getting a nation up and on its feet, what more do you want?
You're missing my point. You said that the US military was "good" at "nation building".
Yes, it fulfills its role in nation building well. It's not a purely military undertaking, nor is any other of the OOTW missions.
All I'm doing is asking for an example that demonstrates that competence.
ou've cited Bosnia and the Marshall Plan, but noted (quite correctly) that these successes might well be due to good politics, not because of a core US military competency.
The competencies required are formally embedded in most of the non combat MOS's. A key task is setting the conditions for the work to be done. It tends to be a phased effort, as noted above.
IOW, you made a claim and I am asking for evidence to support that claim. That's all.
Check the level of economic activity in Bosnia from 1995 to present, and the restoration of public services. http://www.unece.org/stats/trend/bih.pdf (Note, this has to be credited to the whole NATO team, not just the US. Team effort. But that's the other point, part of the nation building mission is explicitly working with partners, NGO's, etc.
ETA: OOTW?
Operations Other Than War. The term came into common usage during the early 1990's to encapsulate a whole range of military activity that wasn't combat.

I'll offer El Salvador as another example, a long term mission, that included the slow transition from junta to more pluralistic rule.

www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/profiles/BosniaAndHerzegovina.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/bosnia_and_herzegovina/economical_profile_en.htm

DR

[Darth Rotor]

You already did. America is the most agressive country that has ever been.

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm
"Ever been." Over what time period? Compared to the kingdoms of Europe, I find that an interesting assertion.

If you pick out every naval and military incident during 1699-1899 in France, I think you'll find a similar bellicosity.

Neat link, though, thanks.

DR

[This Guy]

"Ever been." Over what time period? Compared to the kingdoms of Europe, I find that an interesting assertion.

DR

Me too!

I did find some interesting events in that link though! Most of them appeared to be very minor operations. A good number, in the early 1800's, were dealing with pirates.

Though I love this country, I'll be the first to admit that we've made mistakes, and done things/gone places we shouldn't have. But I think the majority of the items on that linked page were fairly minor items, and most of them (that I read at least) were justified.

[qayak]

"Ever been." Over what time period? Compared to the kingdoms of Europe, I find that an interesting assertion.

If you pick out every naval and military incident during 1699-1899 in France, I think you'll find a similar bellicosity.

Neat link, though, thanks.

DR


If you read the link, the time frame was there for the US invasions and the reference to "ever been" is pretty straight forward. The US has invaded more foreign countries than any other civilization in the history of humanity.

The list only includes military operations on foreign soil, not EVERY naval operation as is the standard you set for the French record. If you eliminate the World Wars and fighting pirates, you are left with around 140 invasions of sovereign nations.

Pretty hard to argue with the US State Department's own records. ;)

[qayak]

I did find some interesting events in that link though! Most of them appeared to be very minor operations. A good number, in the early 1800's, were dealing with pirates.

You can drop the missions dealing with pirates and the two world wars and the US still holds the record.

If you didn't know about some of these operations, you will be in for a shock when you count the number of dead from the operations by doing a search of some of the larger ones. Example:

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1117-11.htm

The Philipines (1899-1902) The American reaction was swift and the slaughter by US forces is legendary. Philippine scholar Luziminda Francisco refers to that brutal imperial American war that launched the 20th century as the "first Vietnam War" in which estimates of from 600,000 to a million Filipinos died. She states that the estimate of up to a million deaths might "err on the side of understatement" as one US congressman, who visited the Philippines at the time, was quoted as saying "They never rebel in Luzon (Philippines) anymore because there isn't anybody left to rebel...our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records, they simply swept the country and wherever and whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him."

This is how the US military describes the action: "1899--1901 -- Philippine Islands. U.S. forces protected American interests following the war with Spain and conquered the islands by defeating the Filipinos in their war for independence."

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, God bless skepticism!

Put it up on a cross and crucify it. Let's see if it comes back.............
Are you sure this is the right message board for you?

I'm not leaving messages, and I'm not afraid of any particular "board".

You?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
The United States never did well with guerrilla war, but actually performed quite efficiently in Missouri during the War Between the States, when the military had the support of the political leaders in offensive actions against guerrillas.

This part got me thinking! This may be more fodder for another thread, but other than our little tiff between the states () have we won a guerrilla war?

Yup: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War)

...... U.S. President William McKinley later told reporters "that the insurgents had attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines.....

....In 1900, Aguinaldo shifted from conventional to guerrilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited their disadvantaged situation and made American occupation of the Philippine archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerrilla war, the Americans lost nearly 500 men who were either killed or wounded. The Philippine Army began staging bloody ambushes and raids. Most infamous were the guerrilla victories at Pulang Lupa and Balangiga. At first, it even seemed as if the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. This was even considered by President McKinley at the beginning of the phase.

The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipino soldiers. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual guerrillas.

The subsequent American repression towards the population tremendously reduced the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino soldiers, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.....

You've gotta be bad if you want to win a war. __________________

[Huntster]

.....The various ethnic/tribal/religious sectors of Iraq have got to sort out their own future. Until that political process is at least begun, then there is virtually nothing the military can do. In fact, our presence there inhibits, to some extent, that very process....

"The various ethnic/tribal/religious sectors of Iraq" sorting out their differences is a military process, not a political one.

Until people get that through their thick skulls, nothing good will come.

The military is good at killing people. It is not designed to build infrastructure, negotiate or mediate between factions, provide policing and justice services, etc. in remote lands.

The military is our best tool for killing people, but it is also an outstanding tool for building infrastructure.

Ever hear of the "Army Corps of Engineers"?

Know the history?

We - and Iraq - will be much better off when we act on such ideas and get our collective butts out of the way. You - and Shrubs - notion of "victory" is so badly out of place that it hurts.

I suspect you don't know "hurt" yet.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
If you value loyalty, they don't come any better than me.

On a bulletin board. You haven't proven it anywhere else.

Actually, I have.

And you'll likely never know about it.

Quote:
Which national government routinely suports dictatorships and theeocracies they don't like?

Reading Comprehension 101: some national governments do not support dictatorships and theocracies.

Thanks for the clarification, even if you need a lesson in Writing 101.

And perhaps a lesson in Geography 101 is in order for you:

Many national governments don't have the longevity or influence to support dictatorships and theocracies; they're fighting for their very survival.

Quote:
But I can be patient............

You haven't got any other choice, have you?

Nope.

Neither do you.

For all your huffing and puffing in cyberspace, you have not demonstrated one iota of action in real life in pursuit of ideals.

You have no idea what I have done or not done in life.

Put your money where your mouth is. Or is all this huffing and puffing of yours actually your real goal? Just to mouth off on a bulletin board, where it's all safe and easy?

It is safe and easy.

I know.

I did the hard time.

You?

[SezMe]

The various ethnic/tribal/religious sectors of Iraq sorting out their differences is a military process, not a political one.
No, in reality, it is not. In your militaristic, macho mind it is.

Do you really think that the various ethnic/tribal/religious factions will resolve their differences in Iraq militarily when they have not been able to do so in over 1000 years? Do you really think the Sunni will be able to kill every Shiite - the only "military" solution? Do you really think the Shiite will be able to kill every Sunni - the only "military" solution?

Hunster, our world views are so far apart that I do not think we can bridge the gap in a forum like this. Your nationalistic, militaristic, macho ideas are anathma to me. Therefore, without prejudice, I now simply decline to further engage you.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
We are now in the phase where the military is hindered by political problems.
This only illustrates your willful ignorance yet again, and your worship of a primitive tribalist war-god.

Politics and military go hand in hand; as Clausewitz said, war is politics by other means; as Cicero said 2000 years ago (one would think you and they would have learnt by now from him), "Armed forces abroad are of little use without wise council at home"; as Sun Tzu said, do not make war relying solely on military superiority; as many others have said over the centuries, you cannot simply focus on having armed forces if you don't have the slightest clue what you're going to do with them if circumstances go against you.

All correct, in the best situation.

The United States has that situation. It has a civilian government, and it has the world's most powerful military. That incredibly powerful military is loyally subservient to the civilian government, even after that government has misused the military more than once in relatively recent times.

The present political situation in Iraq was foreordained and created by both Washington political shortsightedness and by military incompleteness --- lack of enough occupation troops, lack of training in policing, lack of clear goals.

That is a heap of BS.

To make the point really, really, really simple for you: :)

It doesn't matter how big a gun you carry if you're a bloody confused idiot.

To make the point really, really, really simple for you:

The guy with the big, big gun isn't necessarily the bloody confused idiot if he obeys the silly fools who give the orders.

The Iraq invasion was voted on by Congress and approved. The vote came after British Prime Minister Blair virtually begged for it.

The invasion was complete in just 3 weeks.

The democratic vote came as planned.

The whining came throughout, from folks like yourself.

Whining about not being able to fight guerilla wars well only points up your and others' failure of thought.

I can fight a guerrilla war. Been there.

You?

[Huntster]

So, it's not OK to dis the troops, but it is OK to dis the intelligence forces?

I'm not "dissing" anybody. I'm stating what appears to be fact.

Even before the current Iraq situation, the intelligence community was in focus, particularly after 9/11. Remember the "9/11 Commission"?

The current situation is clearly an intelligence failure. British intelligence is included.

But, of course, you knew that, didn't you?

[Huntster]

...I have no doubt that the US military has a number of areas of expertise that I am totally unaware of and that they are good at. However, I can't think of any instance where the US military succeeded, including Bosnia, at nation building......

Then you have a very poor grasp of recent history.

Ever hear of the Marshall Plan?

Know anything about General MacArthur in Japan, who was thought of as a God?

[Huntster]

Not answering for Hunster (I'm sure he'll do that for himself), but giving my $0.02 worth.

From what I've read it appears that there was some very good intelligence available before we attacked Iraq. The problem was that our leaders appear to have only paid heed to those bits that backed their forgone conclusions, and supported them in doing what they were going to do anyway.

Interesting analysis.

What intelligence suggested that Iraq didn't have WMDs?

I could be wrong, but I think the Intel folks did a fine job. But of course, Intel is always a shaky thing! Until we get that remote viewing stuff down (;)), there will always be a degree of guess work involved in the interpretation of Intel.

The problem was that the intel community was relying way too much on that exact kind of technology, and didn't have personnel on the ground.

Here's the scary thing:

Little has changed, at least as far as I can see.

[fishbob]

Us. All of us. Together. As "a team".

What? No?

Is "that" the lesson that will finally get "learned"?:

"Just let it ride"?

The lesson that should finally get learned is that there is no "I" in Team.
Neither is there a "lets blindly follow the most clueless member when he decides to do some chest thumping".

[Huntster]

....The Philipines (1899-1902) The American reaction was swift and the slaughter by US forces is legendary. Philippine scholar Luziminda Francisco refers to that brutal imperial American war that launched the 20th century as the "first Vietnam War" in which estimates of from 600,000 to a million Filipinos died. She states that the estimate of up to a million deaths might "err on the side of understatement" as one US congressman, who visited the Philippines at the time, was quoted as saying "They never rebel in Luzon (Philippines) anymore because there isn't anybody left to rebel...our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records, they simply swept the country and wherever and whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him."

This is how the US military describes the action: "1899--1901 -- Philippine Islands. U.S. forces protected American interests following the war with Spain and conquered the islands by defeating the Filipinos in their war for independence."

I guess you just don't get it, do you?

When it's time to fight, you fight.

Ever been in a fight?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
The various ethnic/tribal/religious sectors of Iraq sorting out their differences is a military process, not a political one.
No, in reality, it is not. In your militaristic, macho mind it is.

Can you describe a time in Iraqi history when it has not been a militaristic situation?

Do you really think that the various ethnic/tribal/religious factions will resolve their differences in Iraq militarily when they have not been able to do so in over 1000 years?

Do you really think that the various ethnic/tribal/religious factions will resolve their differences in Iraq peacefully when they have not been able to do so in over 1000 years?

Do you really think the Sunni will be able to kill every Shiite - the only "military" solution?

Saddam was Sunni.

It's the Shiite's turn.

Do you really think the Shiite will be able to kill every Sunni - the only "military" solution?

No, they won't.

They'll kill all they need to kill, and the rest will sit down and shut up.

Hunster, our world views are so far apart that I do not think we can bridge the gap in a forum like this. Your nationalistic, militaristic, macho ideas are anathma to me. Therefore, without prejudice, I now simply decline to further engage you.

Okay. Stop addressing me.

You can continue to address situations like Iraq, Kosovo, North Korea, ad infinatum at your pleasure.

It can be no other way. The game continues.............

[Huntster]

The lesson that should finally get learned is that there is no "I" in Team.

Who said there was?

Neither is there a "lets blindly follow the most clueless member when he decides to do some chest thumping".

Who said there was?

The military "blindly" follows the orders of the civilian elected government in this country.

At least, you'd better pray it does...........

[fishbob]

The military is our best tool for killing people, but it is also an outstanding tool for building infrastructure.

Ever hear of the "Army Corps of Engineers"?

Know the history?

I heard of them. Weren't those the guys that designed and managed the construction of the New Orleans levee system?

5 or 6 years ago, I was told by a CoE contracting officer that they really don't do much engineering anymore and should change the name to the Corps of Contracting. Outstanding tool is right - for disaster and inefficiency.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
The military is our best tool for killing people, but it is also an outstanding tool for building infrastructure.

Ever hear of the "Army Corps of Engineers"?

Know the history?
I heard of them. Weren't those the guys that designed and managed the construction of the New Orleans levee system?

Yup.

It worked for a lot of years, despite politics.

Know the history?

5 or 6 years ago, I was told by a CoE contracting officer that they really don't do much engineering anymore and should change the name to the Corps of Contracting.

Yeah, the Corps doesn't hire blue collar workers anymore. It contracts that out.

Got a problem with that?

Outstanding tool is right - for disaster and inefficiency.

Got something to back that up with?

[fishbob]

Yup.

It worked for a lot of years, despite politics.

Know the history?

Yep. And in the last few years gone to hell in a hand basket.

Yeah, the Corps doesn't hire blue collar workers anymore. It contracts that out.

Got a problem with that?

I specifically said engineers. So yeah, the problem is you don't read what is written or you have a strange definition of blue collar.

Got something to back that up with? A long list of failed projects. In Alaska. Specifics by PM if you are interested.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup.

It worked for a lot of years, despite politics.

Know the history?

Yep. And in the last few years gone to hell in a hand basket.

Got something to back that up besides typed words?

Quote:
Yeah, the Corps doesn't hire blue collar workers anymore. It contracts that out.

Got a problem with that?

I specifically said engineers.

The Corps contracts engineers and engineering, too.

Or didn't you know?

Quote:
Got something to back that up with?

A long list of failed projects. In Alaska. Specifics by PM if you are interested.

I've got a long history in Alaska. Alongside the Corps. No PMs needed. No secrets.

Let it all out.

[Zep]

Less remembered than his, "Ask not" challenge was this promise (and I wonder if this wasn't what DR was actually referring to):
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
I wonder how many people would still subscribe to that. Precious few, I'm afraid.As I read this, Beeps, I understood Kennedy was referring pretty much exclusively to the liberty of the United States' citizens, wherever in the world they were.

Then again, perhaps you need to define more accurately what you mean by "liberty". We would probably both contend that the citizens of, say, Peoples Republic of China have little or no liberty as we know it. Yet they seem to think that they do, for the most part.

I would also like to see what Kernnedy meant by "friend" and by "foe". That sort of status would seem to be rather flexible and arbitrary depending on the situation at any point in time.

But Kennedy was always a clever SOB, politically, wasn't he! ;)

[qayak]

I guess you just don't get it, do you?

When it's time to fight, you fight.

Ever been in a fight?

No, Huntster you are the biggest and baddest person to ever live.

Yeah, RIGHT! :dl:

[qayak]

What intelligence suggested that Iraq didn't have WMDs?

All the intelligence showed Iraq did not have WMD. That's why Bush couldn't get world support for his invasion.

[This Guy]

Interesting analysis.

What intelligence suggested that Iraq didn't have WMDs?

SNIP

Off hand I can't quickly find a reference to support my claim as stated. When I made the claim, I was including the reports of the UN weapons inspectors, but that is not what I stated.

So, I'll plead guilty to making an unwarranted accusation. It was an honest mistake, in that I had no intent to be misleading. I'll restate my claim.

How about the US Administration ignored the findings/statements of the UN weapons inspectors. Statements that pointed out strongly that there were little to no WMDs in Iraq, and that Iraq had even Preemptively destroyed it's WMDs.

Scott Ritter made those statements. A bit of a reversal from his earlier statements about Iraq's disarmament. But it appears to have been the truth. From my looking about, the Wiki has a pretty good discussion on this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

But IMHO the best source is Hans Blix's briefing to the security council in Feb 2003. This was the report that convinced me that our saber rattling had done the job, and Iraq was willing to submit to inspections, and likely didn't have any WMDs that mattered.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,895882,00.html

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. "

"More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

"In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences."

There were some concerns about "missing" stock piles, and Missile testing/development, but it was expressed that those issues were being addressed and it appeared to me that they would be resolved as time went on.

This report was what gave me hope that we could avoid a war in Iraq. This report was what caused me so much confusion when I learned that we were at war in March. Barely a month later!

[bob_kark]

Bob, the problem is, and always was, there is no single policy aim being pursued, there are a bundle. There is also the problem of "what long term benefit" for sending troops to any of those countries, for any number of reasons? An alleged policy aim with Iraq (debatable of course, particularly in hindsight but by many before hand) is that its unique location made it a good place to try and infect the Mid East with democracy, tied to Saddamn's well known thuggery, tied to over all PG security, tied to the expectation (fantasy?) that unlike some of the basket case nations, Iraq had the ecnomic means to preclude have a functioning economy due to its oil reserves.

It is a mistake to play reductionist and confine any decision to go to war with a single aim. Wilson's war rhetoric to "Make the World Safe For Democracy" was not the same thing as the totality of his aims of, or justification for, war.

DR

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not afraid of a valid war. Sometimes it becomes a necessity. Unfortunately, I don't see any valid reason why Iraq was enough of a threat to the US, its allies, or its interests. IMO, the current administration has placed its assets in Iraq instead of where they were more greatly needed, such as Afghanistan or in reserve if needed for Iran, North Korea, or even to make threats of war, no matter how subtle, more effective against these countries.

Let us not pretend that the war in Iraq is to bring democracy to Iraq. The real effort as far as I can tell is a botched attempt to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, as well as developing a somewhat legitimate ally that was neither a dictatorship, monarchy, or Israel. Unfortunately, no one thought about what would happen after the government toppled. As a result, not only are our troops paying for the mistake of invading Iraq, they're paying for the even greater mistake of not knowing what to do once they were successful.

While I completely agree that this is our mess and we must clean it up, we're still in a quagmire as the administration continues to turn a blind eye to the problems in Iraq. To ignore the problem for years and allow it to fester and devolve into the current state of near if not full civil war is unacceptable. To delay changes to policy even further to allow a new defense secretary to decorate his new office only furthers my belief that we have an ineffective administration that is unable to see the forest for the trees.

So, when someone tells me that America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong, I have to respond that while fighting for America will always be a worthy cause, an administration that is wrong and continues to be so firmly and utterly wrong is not worth dying for. It greatly pains me to know that my government is sending troops out to die to clean up our mess and we can't even provide them with an effective strategy, proper support, proper equipment at times, or even an end to fighting in sight.

So, I'd like to amend that statement, even though it may sound extremely cheesy, I believe it has more truth to it. American soldiers are good enough to properly support, especially when the cause is wrong. They are not pawns to use whenever we see fit. Their purpose is to protect our country and our allies, not our whims or half baked ideas. They are as much our protectors as they are our responsibility.

[Gurdur]

I guess you just don't get it, do you? When it's time to fight, you fight.
No, Huntster, you are the one who so obviously and cluelessly doesn't get it.

All we ever see from you is willfully ignorant amoral chest-thumping, your huffing and puffing on a bulletin board. You evade all points, you know exactly zero about whom you are addressing, and all you do is let loose bigoted statements without regard for facts. Who the hell cares how much you posture, and declare yourself ready for the fight on a bulletin board? Better get back to polishing your keyboard to use against those invading Brit/Cuban/UN hordes, you have nothing else to say after all.

[shemp]

America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.

I wonder how many Germans said this in 1939:

Germany is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.

Or how many French (the world's most notorious cowards!) said this in 1800:

France is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.

Or how many Romans said this over a period of more than 1,000 years:

Rome is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.

America is my country, but it's MY life, the only one I will ever have, and I, along with everyone else, should be free to decide if he or she wishes to give it up for their country. Sadly, many did not have that choice. They were forced to do so by tyrants. And those Americans who died in WWII didn't really have a choice either; America was truly under attack by tyrants. But Vietnam, and Saddam's Iraq, were different animals: neither attacked us. What they did attack was American interests, not American soil, not American people, not American freedom.

I have far more respect for what Al Kroboth did than for what Pat Conroy, on an individual level. But if it weren't for the Pat Conroys, far more good young men would have lost their lives there, or we would have been drawn into an even larger and more protracted war.

I am the one who decides what to do with my life, because I have that freedom to do so in America. And when that freedom is threatened, I will take up arms and fight for it. But I will not take up arms to fight for insane men who start wars to serve their own egos and the interests of the wealthy.

[Huntster]

Off hand I can't quickly find a reference to support my claim as stated. When I made the claim, I was including the reports of the UN weapons inspectors, but that is not what I stated.

So, I'll plead guilty to making an unwarranted accusation. It was an honest mistake, in that I had no intent to be misleading. I'll restate my claim.

How about the US Administration ignored the findings/statements of the UN weapons inspectors. Statements that pointed out strongly that there were little to no WMDs in Iraq, and that Iraq had even Preemptively destroyed it's WMDs.

Sorry: (http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/iraqdossier.pdf)

Iraq’s policy of deception
Iraq has admitted to UNSCOM to having a large, effective, system for hiding
proscribed material including documentation, components, production
equipment and possibly biological and chemical agents and weapons from
the UN. Shortly after the adoption of UNSCR 687 in April 1991, an
Administrative Security Committee (ASC) was formed with responsibility
for advising Saddam on the information which could be released to
UNSCOM and the IAEA. The Committee consisted of senior Military
Industrial Commission (MIC) scientists from all of Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction programmes. The Higher Security Committee (HSC) of the
Presidential Office was in overall command of deception operations. The
system was directed from the very highest political levels within the
Presidential Office and involved, if not Saddam himself, his youngest son,
Qusai. The system for hiding proscribed material relies on high mobility and
good command and control. It uses lorries to move items at short notice and
most hide sites appear to be located close to good road links and
telecommunications. The Baghdad area was particularly favoured. In
addition to active measures to hide material from the UN, Iraq has attempted
to monitor, delay and collect intelligence on UN operations to aid its overall
deception plan.

Sorry again; from Blix's report (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm) submitted less than two months prior to the US invasion:

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

Scott Ritter made those statements. A bit of a reversal from his earlier statements about Iraq's disarmament. But it appears to have been the truth. From my looking about, the Wiki has a pretty good discussion on this -

Ritter was no apologist for Iraq: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter)

Ritter served from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was charged with finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction and WMD-related manufacturing capabilities in Iraq. He was chief inspector in fourteen of the more than thirty inspection missions in which he participated.

In January of 1998, his inspection team into Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials, and Ritter was accused by Iraq of being a spy for the CIA. He was then expelled from Iraq by its government in August 1998. Shortly thereafter, he spoke on the Public Broadcasting Service show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program

[1]

When the United States and the UN Security Council failed to take action against Iraq for their ongoing failure to cooperate fully with inspectors (a breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154), Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission on August 26, 1998. [2]

In his letter of resignation, Ritter said the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work. Ritter later said, in an interview, that he resigned from his role as a United Nations weapons inspector over inconsistencies between United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154 and how it was implemented.

The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with." [3]

But IMHO the best source is Hans Blix's briefing to the security council in Feb 2003. This was the report that convinced me that our saber rattling had done the job, and Iraq was willing to submit to inspections, and likely didn't have any WMDs that mattered.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,895882,00.html

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. "

"More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

"In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences."

There were some concerns about "missing" stock piles, and Missile testing/development, but it was expressed that those issues were being addressed and it appeared to me that they would be resolved as time went on.

This report was what gave me hope that we could avoid a war in Iraq. This report was what caused me so much confusion when I learned that we were at war in March. Barely a month later!

From Blix's last report, which you linked above:

By contrast, the task of "disarmament" foreseen in resolution 687 (1991) and the progress on "key remaining disarmament tasks" foreseen in resolution 1284 (1999) as well as the "disarmament obligations", which Iraq was given a "final opportunity to comply with" under resolution 1441 (2002), were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span. Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

Eleventh hour fun and games from Saddam.

Sorry. I'm not fool enough to trust the bastard.

You?

[This Guy]

Sorry: (http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/iraqdossier.pdf)
The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, Chairman - Lord Butler.

The Intro states - "In translating material to the dossier, warnings in the JIC assessments were lost about the limited intelligence base on which some aspects of these assessments were being made. Language in the dossier, and used by the Prime Minister, may have left readers with the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case. It was a serious weakness that the JIC’s warnings on the limitations of the intelligence were not made sufficiently clear in the dossier."

And - "Between September 2002 and the outbreak of war, the intelligence community turned their attention to Iraqi plans for deception and concealment
and to providing information to UNMOVIC in their searches for hidden programmes and weapons; and also to contingency planning for war. We were surprised that, as the generally negative results of UNMOVIC inspections became apparent in early 2003, there was no re-evaluation of he quality of UK intelligence."
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/news/launchstatement.pdf
Sorry again; from Blix's report (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm) submitted less than two months prior to the US invasion:
So, we should use an older report over a newer report?

Ritter was no apologist for Iraq: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter)

Again, old data over new?

From Blix's last report, which you linked above:

Here you quoted an assessment of what could have been. No debate there. But I fail to see how that changes the rest of the assessments of the document?

Is there evidence that Iraq failed to comply with the inspection team after the date of this report (Feb 2003)?



Eleventh hour fun and games from Saddam.
Considering that there were forces massing for an attack, more or less at his door step, I think it was worth waiting to allow him time to invite the attack by a failure to comply with the inspections. I'm not aware of any attempts on his part to not comply with inspections between the last Blix report and the start of hostilities. Please provide any verifiable information you have that indicates otherwise.

Sorry. I'm not fool enough to trust the bastard.

You?

Not as far as I could throw him. However, as long as the inspections were on going, until we warned the inspectors to leave, if I recall correctly, I think it was much more prudent to wait and watch. Had he again defied the inspectors, I would have had little problem with the attack. I always have at least a little problem anytime military force is used by anyone, because it means someone is going to die, and while I understand that is necessary some times, I still don't like it.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. In "WMD in Iraq evidence and implications"
JANUARY 2004 (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3FullText.pdf) NOTICE IT'S PDF!

We find, among other things, "The dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers’ views sometime in 2002. (p. 50)"

"Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above, by:

Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.” the conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war. (p. 52)

Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)

Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)

Misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire. (p. 53)"

These findings back up my earlier claim, but I'll leave that alone.

All things considered, it's my opinion that there was much to gain and little to loose by having allowed the inspections to continue. I believed at the time (March 2003) that Saddam understood that he was gonna get pounced on if he twitched. He was allowing inspections, and the inspectors were giving reports that were much more accurate than what we were being fed from the Administration.

It's also my opinion that Bush had every intention of attacking Iraq from the get go. I don't think anything anyone said was going to prevent that. Obviously we'll never know what, if anything could have stopped him.

[Darth Rotor]

America is my country, but it's MY life, the only one I will ever have, and I, along with everyone else, should be free to decide if he or she wishes to give it up for their country. Sadly, many did not have that choice. They were forced to do so by tyrants. And those Americans who died in WWII didn't really have a choice either; America was truly under attack by tyrants.

But Vietnam, and Saddam's Iraq, were different animals: neither attacked us. What they did attack was American interests, not American soil, not American people, not American freedom.

I have far more respect for what Al Kroboth did than for what Pat Conroy, on an individual level. But if it weren't for the Pat Conroys, far more good young men would have lost their lives there, or we would have been drawn into an even larger and more protracted war.

I am the one who decides what to do with my life, because I have that freedom to do so in America. And when that freedom is threatened, I will take up arms and fight for it. But I will not take up arms to fight for insane men who start wars to serve their own egos and the interests of the wealthy.
Shemp, that's well said. :) Indeed, that sounds like what Conroy might have said 20 years ago, so it makes his essay all the more paradoxical to me.

DR

[latent aaaack]

Shemp, that's well said. :) Indeed, that sounds like what Conroy might have said 20 years ago, so it makes his essay all the more paradoxical to me.

DR

That's what pseudoscientists do, hold up triumphantly those rare unrepresentative results that support their previously held biases.

Everyone of course has their own values and priorities but in this case how is what you're doing any different than remembering the hits and forgetting the misses, by repeating ad nauseum that this one guy changed his mind on Vietnam (when virtually everyone else in the country went the opposite direction over time)?

[Darth Rotor]

That's what pseudoscientists do, hold up triumphantly those rare unrepresentative results that support their previously held biases.
What bias are you talking about, some strawman bias of mine that you invented in your head?
Everyone of course has their own values and priorities but in this case how is what you're doing any different than remembering the hits and forgetting the misses, by repeating ad nauseum that this one guy changed his mind on Vietnam (when virtually everyone else in the country went the opposite direction over time)?
What are you talking about? No one can rewrite history because Pat Conroy has written an essay that shows a change of viewpoint. Daniel Ellsberg is still alive and well, and still dissenting. He's one of the more eloquent dissenters, IMO. About 10 years ago, Senators McCain and Kerry (Colorado) stood up and supported President Clinton's efforts to improve our relations with Viet Nam, to stop holding a grudge. That is another change in viewpoint, a change of heart, but it doesn't rewrite history either.

You are looking for something that isn't there.

DR

[Garrette]

Garrette: Question for you. When you were in Baghdad, did you run across, or get to talk to, any old regime / Ba'athist guys who discussed the pre planning of a resistance?No.

I worked closely and for a long time with several low level Baathists, both below the four-level decapitation and including a few who were in those top tiers but granted exceptions.

I also knew the first CPA-appointed, interim Iraqi Minister of Education who, as it turned out, had been vetted poorly and was a high ranking Baathist and whose actions bore this out. He got booted, should have been arrested, and disappeared.

The closest I got to what you’re asking was some minor involvement with the first demonstration/protest by former Iraqi Army Officers outside the Green Zone. I can’t remember the date but I was at the gate waiting for someone else when they showed up. I spoke with someone long enough to determine what they wanted and helped link them up with the right folks in CPA, including Bremer. Their complaint was no money, no jobs, no prospects. They remained polite and non-threatening, with me at least, but there seemed to be a veiled threat.

Intel has been chosen as a whipping boy by a number of the administrations more outspoken supporters. I never thought it was fair, and people like Scheuer took it personally. (Imperial Hubris)

I think this blame game is used by some due to the inherent problems in intelligence in the first place: the intel guys can rarely give you certainty, and they can't read minds and give intentions. They can give a lot: trends, data, patterns, indicators, some good "this is here, and it usually moves there, and here is why" sort of stuff. Intel can give you a lot of options, and a lot of excellent analysis, but they can't give you a Pure Truth Machine.

So, were some of the intel estimates less than 100% right? Sure. Intel spends a career being sorta right some of the time, and dead on some of the time. It depends on what you are looking at, time horizons, perishable intel, humint quality, and cross referencing conflicting reports. (Which are legion.)I grew up in Military Intelligence, including a couple of minor tie-ins with Langley. I was saying as early as the late 80s that we were broken because of the scarcity of human assets. That scarcity remains, imo, our biggest failing though it appears it is being at least somewhat addressed. The problem is that fixing this type of shortcoming is a very long process measured at least in half-decades and possibly in decades.

All the intelligence showed Iraq did not have WMD. That's why Bush couldn't get world support for his invasion.No. Some intelligence showed Iraq did not have WMD. Some showed Iraq did, including some imagery (I’ve seen small samples of it) and Saddam’s own posturing. It was not definitive either way, because intel rarely is definitive. It can be easily and legitimately argued that the balance of intel leaned toward the “does-not-have” side, but it was not a Slam Dunk, just as it was not a Slam Dunk they did have it, Tenet’s assertions notwithstanding.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorry:

The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, Chairman - Lord Butler.

The Intro states - "In translating material to the dossier, warnings in the JIC assessments were lost about the limited intelligence base on which some aspects of these assessments were being made. Language in the dossier, and used by the Prime Minister, may have left readers with the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case. It was a serious weakness that the JIC’s warnings on the limitations of the intelligence were not made sufficiently clear in the dossier."

And - "Between September 2002 and the outbreak of war, the intelligence community turned their attention to Iraqi plans for deception and concealment
and to providing information to UNMOVIC in their searches for hidden programmes and weapons; and also to contingency planning for war. We were surprised that, as the generally negative results of UNMOVIC inspections became apparent in early 2003, there was no re-evaluation of he quality of UK intelligence."
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/news/launchstatement.pdf

Quote:
Sorry again; from Blix's report submitted less than two months prior to the US invasion:

So, we should use an older report over a newer report?

When trying to understand what happened in March 2003?

You're damned right. Later information (aka "hindsight", which is commonly described as being quite acute) didn't do Bush and Blair any good then.

Of course, it's used extensively as political weapons now by propagandists..........

Quote:
Ritter was no apologist for Iraq:

Again, old data over new?

Yes. The same with Blix.

Two months before the invasion, he was reporting to the UN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/) about chemical warheads found in the thousands (which usually means the chemicals are available to put in the warheads).:

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.

He refers to biological agents in that same address:

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

Yet, just days after the invasion comes this (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/):

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.


This behavior is commonly referred to as "CYA."

Quote:
Eleventh hour fun and games from Saddam.

Considering that there were forces massing for an attack, more or less at his door step, I think it was worth waiting to allow him time to invite the attack by a failure to comply with the inspections.

The game was over. Time was up. He had well over a decade.

I'm not aware of any attempts on his part to not comply with inspections between the last Blix report and the start of hostilities. Please provide any verifiable information you have that indicates otherwise.

Don't need to.

He was told before Blix's last report that we were coming to get him.

Blair addressed a joint session of Congress asking them to approve military action, and Congress did so 3 months before Blix's January address linked above.

Quote:
Sorry. I'm not fool enough to trust the bastard.

You?

Not as far as I could throw him. However, as long as the inspections were on going, until we warned the inspectors to leave, if I recall correctly, I think it was much more prudent to wait and watch.

For what? The same-old, same-old?

Had he again defied the inspectors, I would have had little problem with the attack.

Yeah. Right.

It's also my opinion that Bush had every intention of attacking Iraq from the get go.

And his Liberal buddy Blair's, too?

Congress in on it?

"Vast Unified Right/Left Wing Conspiracy"?

This is getting downright funny.......................

[This Guy]

When trying to understand what happened in March 2003?

You're damned right. Later information (aka "hindsight", which is commonly described as being quite acute) didn't do Bush and Blair any good then.

Of course, it's used extensively as political weapons now by propagandists..........

The Blix report link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,895882,00.html)I provided before was presented to the Security Council on Feb 14, roughly a month BEFORE the commencement of Hostilities.

If you read the WIKI link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)I provided before you would have seen the following -

In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."[32]

In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's "bizarre turnaround" in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made.[33] In 2000, Ritter produced a film that portrayed Iraq as fully disarmed. The film was funded by an Iraqi-American businessman who had received Oil-for-Food coupons from Saddam Hussein that he sold for $400,000.[34][35] During the 2002–2003 build-up to war Ritter criticized the Bush administration and maintained that it had provided no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a significant WMD capability. In an interview with Time in September 2002 Ritter said there were attempts to use UNSCOM for spying on Iraq.[36]

Bolding mine.

These are not hindsight. These are things that were being said before we invaded Iraq.

Let's cut to the chase here.

(1) I am of the opinion that we should not have attacked Iraq. My opinion is that in the months leading up to the invasion UN inspections were proceeding, and finding that there was no clear and present threat from Iraq. There were items of concern, but those were being addressed and there was every reason to believe the inspection teams would have resolved the issues. I also believe that the presence of massed military forces near Iraq "inspired" the willingness of Iraq to comply with the inspections. I believe the forces had served their purpose.

(2) I further believe that since the commencement of hostilities there has been no evidence that Iraq posed a treat to the US.

(3) It is my opinion that the top Bush Administration officials (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice)) mislead the American people, and the world with regard to the threat posed by Iraq. I believe they made overstated, and unjustified claims in order to promote a war that Bush was determined to have regardless of it's justification. I believe the heaviest use of misleading/overstated claims were made leading up to the congressional vote on the Iraq war resolution. Bad Intel can account for SOME of this, but not all.

Links supporting my opinions - Above links and the following -

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf PDF

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Iraq_Summary_Tables.pdf PDF

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16382&proj=znpp

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf PDF

Had he again defied the inspectors, I would have had little problem with the attack.
SNIP


Yeah. Right.

It's nice to see that you know my thoughts well enough to determine what I really mean! I see this as having the potential to save me a lot of time and effort. I'll just send you a PM asking how I feel, and what I think about current events as they arise, and you can post my thoughts for me!

It might help you in determining my thoughts if I give a bit of background.

While I have considered myself to be independent politically, I've always voted Republican for presidents (before the last election that is). Not just because they were Republicans! But because they tended to better support my views on a strong military and limited government. In the lower level races, I've tried to vote on the person, not the party. I've tried to judge what they have done and said, and determine from that if they were the right person for the job. I've had hits and misses, but I still like the basic idea.

I fully supported our going into Afghanistan. I believed there was a clear threat to the US by the Talaban's protecting of known terrorist. Since they refused to give them up, I felt going in for them was the correct course of action. The only question I've had is over whether a regime change was the correct course. But I have been content to leave that as an issue best answered by those conducting the war. My main concern is for the safety of our troops, and the completion of the mission. I feel that the regime change most likely did aid in those two objectives.

Right up to the point of the UN inspectors being pulled from Iraq, I fully supported Bush. At that point, based on what the inspectors were saying, I began to have doubts. When we invaded, I quit standing up for Bush.

Hopefully this will aid you when determining what I think/feel about matters of interest.
And his Liberal buddy Blair's, too?

I'll let the Brit's speak for Blair's actions/remarks.

Congress in on it?

As noted in my remarks, and the links above, the Bush Administration made misleading/overstated claims, which peaked in number, leading up to the Congressional vote. the link to - democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord- above, gives more information on that. There is room to debate on who is most at fault, our "Intel" or the Administration. I think they both get a share of the blame. But Congress voted on what amounted to bad information.

"Vast Unified Right/Left Wing Conspiracy"?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Certainly a majority, but hardly unified.

This is getting downright funny.......................

I thought my sense of humor was strange :)

[gumboot]

I just wanted to point out that Vietnam was not only America's war. Vietnam was divided by the United Nations, and Vietnam was fought by the members of SEATO.

Without going into specifics, I strongly align with the sentiments of Kennedy's speech. To my mind, his sentiment is that the basic values the USA has (and values shared by the western world) are good and right, and furthermore that all humanity should promote and spread these values. More importantly, efforts to spread these values should not be discarded because there may be a cost involved.

The problem is the western world cannot follow through on its ideals. Our quaint notions of free society and people living in harmony led us to divide up unstable territory after WW2. Yet when one of these territories we divided up gets threatened we sit back and watch it fall apart.

Even to this day it leads to the pontificating done by the UN. Yet so rarely does the west actually shoulder the burden of reflecting these noble declarations with real action.

This makes the worst type of craven coward; a person whose deeds do not reflect their words.

The United Nations (self-proclaimed champions of a free secure humanity) has the finances, the resources, and the armed muscle to go into every single conflict on the entire planet and stop the atrocities and suffering of millions in its tracks.

We could do it. We say we want to. We make grand declarations to each other.

And yet we do nothing.

And the sad thing is, if we did it just once, we'd never have to do it again. Imagine if an armed force comprising substantial numbers from each of the permanent Security Council members deployed to Darfur or a similar place, eliminated all the opposition, and set to rebuilding the place. After a show of force like that you'd have to be insane to ignore any of their resolutions.

And the thing is, if all of the permanent members actually did this, it would be pathetically easy.

I mean, look at the 5 members... you have a total combined GDP of US$27.1 trillion and a total active duty armed force of over 5 million personnel.

-Gumboot

[Huntster]

I just wanted to point out that Vietnam was not only America's war. Vietnam was divided by the United Nations, and Vietnam was fought by the members of SEATO....

Ditto Korea, the first UN military action. The US still has thousands of troops there.

The "Coalition of the Willing" was mostly "willing" by US troops.

Nobody else seems to want to get involved, at least in a significant way.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
When trying to understand what happened in March 2003?

You're damned right. Later information (aka "hindsight", which is commonly described as being quite acute) didn't do Bush and Blair any good then.

Of course, it's used extensively as political weapons now by propagandists..........

The Blix report link I provided before was presented to the Security Council on Feb 14, roughly a month BEFORE the commencement of Hostilities.

Yup. The February address.

If you read the WIKI link I provided before you would have seen the following -

In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."[32]

In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's "bizarre turnaround" in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made.[33] In 2000, Ritter produced a film that portrayed Iraq as fully disarmed. The film was funded by an Iraqi-American businessman who had received Oil-for-Food coupons from Saddam Hussein that he sold for $400,000.[34][35] During the 2002–2003 build-up to war Ritter criticized the Bush administration and maintained that it had provided no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a significant WMD capability. In an interview with Time in September 2002 Ritter said there were attempts to use UNSCOM for spying on Iraq.[36]

Bolding mine.

All of that is true.

Bolding was unnecessary (at least for me).

Let's cut to the chase here.

(1) I am of the opinion that we should not have attacked Iraq. My opinion is that in the months leading up to the invasion UN inspections were proceeding, and finding that there was no clear and present threat from Iraq. There were items of concern, but those were being addressed and there was every reason to believe the inspection teams would have resolved the issues. I also believe that the presence of massed military forces near Iraq "inspired" the willingness of Iraq to comply with the inspections. I believe the forces had served their purpose.

I think all you write is correct and wise.

However, at the time, I didn't trust Saddam, I trusted the intelligence, and I was damned tired of him.

(2) I further believe that since the commencement of hostilities there has been no evidence that Iraq posed a treat to the US.

Yup. I agree.

(3) It is my opinion that the top Bush Administration officials (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice)) mislead the American people, and the world with regard to the threat posed by Iraq.

I disagree.

I believe they made overstated, and unjustified claims in order to promote a war that Bush was determined to have regardless of it's justification. I believe the heaviest use of misleading/overstated claims were made leading up to the congressional vote on the Iraq war resolution. Bad Intel can account for SOME of this, but not all.

I don't dispute that. I'm sure the President wanted to invade and collect Saddam up, especially after the Afghanistan campaign.

And I had no problem with it.

Quote:
Had he again defied the inspectors, I would have had little problem with the attack.

Why do I doubt that?

It's nice to see that you know my thoughts well enough to determine what I really mean! I see this as having the potential to save me a lot of time and effort. I'll just send you a PM asking how I feel, and what I think about current events as they arise, and you can post my thoughts for me!

I've lost my permission to be skeptical of the claims of others?

It might help you in determining my thoughts if I give a bit of background.

While I have considered myself to be independent politically, I've always voted Republican for presidents (before the last election that is). Not just because they were Republicans! But because they tended to better support my views on a strong military and limited government. In the lower level races, I've tried to vote on the person, not the party. I've tried to judge what they have done and said, and determine from that if they were the right person for the job. I've had hits and misses, but I still like the basic idea.

Funny. I seem to vote likewise.

I fully supported our going into Afghanistan. I believed there was a clear threat to the US by the Talaban's protecting of known terrorist. Since they refused to give them up, I felt going in for them was the correct course of action. The only question I've had is over whether a regime change was the correct course. But I have been content to leave that as an issue best answered by those conducting the war.

Me, too!

But I never had any concerns about regime change. I figured that was a given, and it was wise.

I also have always deferred the warmaking decisions to my superiors.

My main concern is for the safety of our troops, and the completion of the mission. I feel that the regime change most likely did aid in those two objectives.

I agree.

Right up to the point of the UN inspectors being pulled from Iraq, I fully supported Bush. At that point, based on what the inspectors were saying, I began to have doubts. When we invaded, I quit standing up for Bush.

This is where we differ substantially.

I wanted Saddam to face trial back in 1991. I was damned disappointed that George HW Bush didn't allow the Coalition to march into Baghdad in 1991 anc collect up the Baathists then.

But, knowing that wasn't what was negotiated with other nations then, I respected the administration's restraint.

By the time 2003 rolled around (well after 9/11), I didn't have any patience left for Saddam.

Nor do I have any for a number of other regimes.

I have little respect now for the soft-gloved "diplomacy" common today. I think the time for some real ass whipping is a bit overdue.

Hopefully this will aid you when determining what I think/feel about matters of interest.

Thanks for the clarification.

I hope I was as clear.

Quote:
And his Liberal buddy Blair's, too?

I'll let the Brit's speak for Blair's actions/remarks.

I wish Bush's opponents (Left? Right?) there would be as accommodating.

Quote:
Congress in on it?

As noted in my remarks, and the links above, the Bush Administration made misleading/overstated claims, which peaked in number, leading up to the Congressional vote. the link to - democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord- above, gives more information on that. There is room to debate on who is most at fault, our "Intel" or the Administration. I think they both get a share of the blame. But Congress voted on what amounted to bad information.

Giving the intelligence committees an up-front pass?

It's always Congressional oversight from the rear?

[a_unique_person]

However, at the time, I didn't trust Saddam, I trusted the intelligence, and I was damned tired of him.


What if the intelligence was compromised for political reasons? The war was going ahead, they just needed a reason that the people of America, and, hopefully, the rest of the world, would accept. It was assumed by even the doubters in the intelligence world that something would be lying around, even if the there was no reliable intelligence before hand.



Similarly, Bush claimed (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) in an October 7, 2002, speech, "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." On the March 16, 2003, broadcast (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605110003#20060522) of NBC's Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney said of Saddam: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (Cheney later said he "misspoke" and had intended to say "weapons capability" rather than "weapons.")
Though Powell and the rest of the administration did not say so, the State Department's own Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) disputed (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf#page=12) the claim -- advanced by the majority of intelligence agencies in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) -- that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.
As Media Matters has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605110003#20060522-2), Tyler Drumheller -- a 26-year CIA veteran who served as chief of the agency's European operations during the lead-up to the Iraq war -- said on the April 23 broadcast (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml) of CBS' 60 Minutes that by the fall of 2002, the CIA had recruited an Iraqi official in the "inner circle of Saddam Hussein" to provide intelligence on Saddam's weapons programs. Drumheller said that the Bush administration "stopped being interested in the intelligence" when the CIA reported that the Iraqi official -- whom 60 Minutes identified as then-foreign minister Naji Sabri -- revealed that Iraq "had no active weapons of mass destruction program."



http://mediamatters.org/items/200605220003

[This Guy]

Giving the intelligence committees an up-front pass?

It's always Congressional oversight from the rear?

I snipped the rest because we seem to agree on enough of the important points.

I don't understand exactly what you mean here though.

As for the other stuff, I agree that it would have been nice if Daddy Bush had gone to Baghdad and relieved Saddam of command. But, as you noted, the coalition would not have gone for that.

I hate Saddam as much as anyone. I'm not sorry he's been dethroned. Far as I'm concerned, they can do the execution via beheading, with a dull sword. One that requires 20 - 30 wacks to get the job done. He deserves worse than that IMHO. My problem is that I didn't see it as our job, within the bounds of our Constitution. But that can be argued (though I won't argue it :-).

Maybe now this thread can get back on subject... Whatever that was :boggled: