What I thought an important NYT op-ed this morning – Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: How Saddam Failed the Yeltsin Test” href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/opinion/21sest.html?ex=1248148800&en=594c17bb11299754&38;ei=5090&38;partner=rssuserland”> How Saddam Failed the Yeltsin Test – by Stephen Sestanovich (now of the Council of Foreign Relations, ambassador at large to the former Soviet Union under Clinton) – comes to this conclusion:
A decision on war is almost never based simply on what we know, or think we know. Intelligence is always disputed. Instead, we respond to what the other guy does. This is how we went to war in Iraq. The next time we face such a choice, whether our intelligence has improved or not, we’ll almost surely decide in the very same way.
Worth considering amidst all the intelligence debates…. (hat tip: Franco Aleman)
How did that op-ed sneak past the editorial board of the NYT?
No matter. Very good piece. A nice, succinct explanation of why it was perfectly reasonable to go to war in Iraq even if the whole issue of Iraq is cut out from other, larger issues.
Then they could refresh the public about the entire UN resolutions and WMD inspections and the terms under which hostilities were ceased in ’91 and violations of those cease-fire terms and that would explain that even if we just consider the Iraq war from the perspective of the ’91 war it makes sense.
Then the NYT could easily make the case for how war in Iraq makes sense even if we only consider the WoT case as a whole, and Iraq’s place within that specifically, that would add another piece of the pie.
Then they could have yet another op-ed explaining why it made sense even if we only consider the issue surrounding humanitarian concerns and the corruption of the sanctions scheme and the various “costs” of maintaining no-fly and enforcing sanctions (not just money and military wear and tear, but also providing a lab environment for Friends of Saddam to “inspect” our military technology in action), we’d have yet another piece of the pie.
And then somebody could do an op-ed tying all the pieces together and then, maybe, just maybe, even the moonbats would be left scratching their heads wondering why we didn’t finish the job properly in ’91 or at any convenient point thereafter prior to now and… gee, what did France and Germany and Belgium and Russia and Canada and the UN have against this action again – it makes such overwhelming sense?
Wishful thinking I suppose.
Excellent opinion piece printed in a completely unexpected place; the NYT, that is.
Implicit in this argument is the idea that the President – who is responsible for defending the safety and security of the United States and its citizens – when presented with the long developed and broadly held intelligence that Saddam possessed WMD and was a threat to use them against us, was obligated to act, even if the intelligence available was uncertain. In fact, to not act would amount to dereliction of duty.
But I don’t expect to hear that argument in the NYT anytime soon either.
too many steves,
I think Safire’s been saying the same stuff all along in the NYT. For example, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/opinion/21safi.html
He belongs to the Council of Foreign Relations?
Not for long.
Or, I might be thinking of another group.
People think intelligence is knowledge. It is not. It is little more than informed speculation. Sometimes the speculation is closer to truth then other times. Even if you have and inside source say an Oleg Penkovsky, who was our mole in the Kremlin during the missile crisis, you don’t have ground truth. A decision made can be unmade. A source could be manipulated and fed false information. We need to get away from the movie/fictional view of intelligence, i.e., a deux ex machina that makes you get it right 100% of the time. I recommend reading John Keegan’s Intelligence in War as cautionary tale.
Also found this little quiz in Tech Central Station that appears to be relevant:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/072104G.html
My fear is that the “pre-emption” doctrine is already dead, regardless of who wins the election. The tireless work of the MSM has created a situation in which the standard for going too war is impossibly high. Even if Bush wins, they won’t allow Bush to do anything unless it’s a true “slam-dunk” scenario. Kerry is pretty much running on the promise not to do anything that’s the slighest bit risky or bold. The war-on-terror in the future may just be a series of one-off engagements. We’re attacked. Then we invade only the country where the terrorists who attacked us are based. If we live that long.
Eric,
If Bush wins (and he will), the threat of pre-emption may be as good as the real thing.
There’s nothing more conducive to behavioral modification than a warrior reelected.
“My fear is that the ‘pre-emption’ doctrine is already dead, regardless of who wins the election. The tireless work of the MSM has created a situation in which the standard for going too war is impossibly high.”
Actually, the President is supposed to confer with Congress before going to war. It has nothing to do with MSM. It’s in the Consitution. We seem to have forgotten this since the days when LBJ had to get the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed by Congress.
I agree about behavorial modification techniques and not rewarding bad behavior. But that only appears to work against other nations that are identifiable, not against free ranging consortia of terrorists.
hollywood:
The congress votes based upon public opinion which is driven by the media.
Eric,
The President acts (with or without the approval of Congress) based on public opinion polls.
hollywood:
If the president’s name is Clinton, that’s a somewhat accurate assessment.
(I’m going to now opt-out of this Crossfire/Hardball type nonsense.)
Hollywood:
“I agree about behavorial modification techniques and not rewarding bad behavior. But that only appears to work against other nations that are identifiable, not against free ranging consortia of terrorists.”
And how is that a problem for you? It’s intended to work against “identifiable” nations that harbor andiad “consortia” of terrorists.
What nonsense.
Sorry, “and aid”
JB,
If we follow that logic then the terrorists would want to continue with Bush since instead of attacking nations (other than Afghanistan) that harbor and aid terrorists, he attacked Iraq which really didn’t (before the war). He could have picked…what? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Pakistan? Further, by pulling most of the troops out of Afghanistan, the message sent was fleeting and contradictory. If we are going to rely on behavior modification as an anti-terror technique, we have to apply consistency and immediacy. Bush was inconsistent.
“The President acts (with or without the approval of Congress) based on public opinion polls.”
Now there’s an “original (?)” thought. I note the poster calls him/herself “hollywood.” Sounds like he/she’s from the remake division of Tinseltown
It’s long past time some hint of this common sense seeped into the public square. As jerry points out and others clearly appreciate, intelligence is not certain or detailed knowledge, and decisions on national security matters aren’t clean mathematical exercises like designing a bridge abutment.
It’s too bad that the last year has not been used by anyone in the administration or Congress to educate the public and place the discussion on a realistic basis. Instead, things get even dumber (the Wilson affair — the “substance” such as it was, not the collateral personal or legal stuff).
Unfortunately the eminently sensible David Kay, after quitting the Iraq Survey Group post, articulated a precisely backward description of intel and pre-emption, saying that pre-emption depended on better intelligence. The unavoidable imprecision of intel is exactly what puts pre-emption on the table in an era of possible mass casualty terror strikes.
In a related way, note Kerry’s and his — uh, erstwhile “informal advisor’s” — statements on the subject. They vow they would indeed consider pre-emption …. uh, if the intel were good enough. Exactly the wrong instinct. In the reality of office, weighing the prospect of thousands of dead Americans vs. acting on less-than-perfect intel, these people would be unlikely to run the risks of following the course they now advocate. But that “unlikely” is a flimsy hook on which to hang the security of the civilized world.
Without going into a long historical digression, yes: Congress is vested with the power to declare war; reality: Ever since the undeclared Naval War with France in the late 1790s American presidents have gone to war without a declaration. Would that a Congressional Declaration of War still be required; however, I prefer to rely on the judgment of presidents, rather than Congress, to protect the republic.
RogerA:
I think a declaration of war would work well in the present circumstances…No Habeas Corpus, Michael Moore in prison for treason, Muslim non-citizens interned or [preferably] deported. Also we get a unified Intelligence Community under the SECDEF. Lets go for it…
There is no question, except perhaps by the foolish, that Iran must be dissuaded from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran with nukes presents a very difficult problem. It means that if a nuke goes off in a US city, we don’t know where it came from. It increases significantly the odds of that happening. It means that a nuclear power, extremely hostile to Israel, will be able to destroy Israel without warning (depending on scenarios – Israeli Arrow and PAC-3 missile success, smuggled weapons, etc). It also means that anti-proliferation has failed again (after Pakistan and North Korea), encouraging others to develop or buy weapons. It allows Iran to threaten all of our forces in the area of great strategic interest, both in the war on terrorism and for oil supplies.
On top of this, consider China’s interest – the China whose weapons plans ended up in Libya, still in Chinese, and may be in Iran. China has five interests in the region:
1) Oil – their oil demands are rising rapidly and they will be competing with us and India in that regard.
2) Distract the US – China wants to engulf Taiwan, the US opposes this. China may seek to distract us during that time. An Islamic nuke going off in one of our cities, with no ties to China, might be felt sufficient to do the job.
3) Counter India – India is the primary local challenge to Chinese hegemony in east Asia, and is countered by Pakistan (which is why China gave Pakistan the bomb).
4) Muslim rebels in far western China.
5) US Forces in Pakistan and Uzbekistan – close to China.
How these balance out with regard to Iran is hard to forecast. Given that Pakistan has little oil, and Iran has lots of oil, cooperation might be expected. Indeed, the Reuters reports that China is continuing to send nuclear equipment to Iran in exchange for oil.
The two primary challenges in anti-proliferation today are Iran and North Korea, who are cooperating very closely. So far, there have been no reported results from the US policy of trying to use China to shut down the North Korean activities.
Because of hostile powers in the region, especially China and North Korea, Japan is now seeking to amend its constitution> to allow it to develop significant military power – enough to counter China. It has not renounced the use of nuclear weapons, and presumbly has the ability to produce nuclear weapons by refining its very large plutonium stocks. The United States is essentially encouraging this effort:
A State Department official told United Press International Tuesday that the official U.S. position was that “any change in the constitution is a sovereign matter for the Japanese people,” and that the United States as an ally would respect that.
In addition, the US is continuing with arms sales to Taiwan in the face of strong Chinese objections, tying the arms sales to Chinese missile buildups aimed at Taiwan, and more notablu, to China’s failure to stop North Korean activities:
“We asked them to make clear to North Korea that time was a factor and that we didn’t have forever,
John,
I am sure you will get a pass for thread-hijacking – I aint complaining – it wasnt really going anywhere.
I find it hard to believe that Iran is not going to get nukes. Pakistan to their east has ‘em, Russia to their north has ‘em, Israel has ‘em, and the superpower that expresses great hostility has 140K troops right next door. Any responsible Iranian leader would try to get nukes ASAP.
Short of war, what do you think could possibly forestall that?
When the American Civil War began the first large battle was Manassas. People drove buggies down from Washington to have a picnic and watch the short war. A year later the casualty figures from Shiloh stunned the nation.
We are in the picnic stage of the War on Terror. The inevitable chemical, biological or nuclear terrorist attack will be this war’s Shiloh.
All the rules will then change.
ambisinistral
I like your analogy. I see the only way to prevent the Shiloh is by keeping the full court press against radical Islam (i.e. using force in a preemptive manner). Bush seems to have taken a break from this policy. There is a chance he will reinstitute this after the election. And it probably has no chance of happening again if Kerry is elected. Then it will be hunker down and get ready.
ambisinistral and sammy small
I agree wholeheartedly with the general tenor of your remarks.
A couple of caveats though. I think that regardless of what any president does or who gets elected, it’s time to hunker down, because as open as our society currently is, there’s no way to stop it.
Second, I don’t think the attack, when it comes, is going to be the “Shiloh”. I did once, but observing the quality of the “loyal opposition” these days has led me to change my mind. Ask yourself what it will take to convince Tano, for example, that there’s a threat other than Republicans. For many people, maybe 40% of the population, the nuking of DC (or New York) will be seen as some sort of divine retribution for Bush’s actions in Iraq. It’s all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, don’t you know.
I’m not convinced we’re even to the Manassas stage yet. At least at that point the Union realized something was seriously wrong somewhere.
jerry,
I enjoyed this fantasy…………
ah! well, back to the world as is.
Ambisinistral,
I am afraid you are right. It is my sad observation that at least half the country is in denial of the obvious fact that we are at war, regardless of who is president, and that the only outcome is either total destruction of Western Civilization, or we fight them and defeat them.
Michael Moore and Linda Ronsadt donít know this, but many do. I hope this election is where the country comes together and decides to fight the war as a nation rather than the next massacre of Americans being the thing that brings the nation together.
Hollywood,
Click on my link. Would Iraqi Intelligence Services suffice as a terrorist group in your mind?
“Further, by pulling most of the troops out of Afghanistan, the message sent was fleeting and contradictory. If we are going to rely on behavior modification as an anti-terror technique, we have to apply consistency and immediacy. Bush was inconsistent.”
You guys (The Taliban, Saddam) are no longer in power seems to be a pretty unambiguous, permanent and consistent message to me.
But we may be using differing systems of logic.
If Iraq had not been invaded surely the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would have made certain that Saddam Hussein also acquired nuclears weapons.These are available off the shelf and missiles are not the only means of delivery,the international container trade is clossal and not easily policed.Since Iraq fooled the IAEA the first time round there is no guarantee that it couldn’t be done again.
Ralph Wiggum,
Are you trying to argue that it was the inspectors that stopped the inspections in 1998?
Then I see why you didnt continue the quote you gave:
“Since then Iraq has not been ready to accept inspections. They have not declared readiness to accept [Security Council] resolution 1284″
And you are wrong.
BBC:“31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
United nations:
“5 Nov 1998: Security Council resolution 1205 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq?s actions and demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally its decisions of 31 October and 5 August.”
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution1205.htm
You are using Hans Blix as your sole source. Hans Blix was not appointed as head of UNMOVIC until 2000. The inspections at the time was done by UNSCOM, headed by Richard Butler, and previously by Rolf Ekeus.
Hans Blix had no inside knowledge at the time, which makes your link useless, by your own standards. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Hans Blix is a liberal, he was even foreign minister for the Liberal party. He has a way of changing opinion (not unheard of for that party). On April 6 last year he is on the record as saying that Iraq had (informally) confirmed to him, personally, that they had WMDs, and that he believed that the WMDs would be found once the war was over. Not exactly what he wrote in his book later, but then he *is* a liberal…
Hmm, something happened there, now my post doesn’t make much sense… Sorry about that, I thought I was answering someone…
Erik,
I think history has shown that Saddam was bluffing. Stupid, maybe, but bluffing.
JB,
Congrats. Thanks for the invite.
Isn’t Iraqi intelligence an oxymoron? Seriously, we could have had bin Laden if we’d put our forces to work in Afghanistan instead of redirecting them to Iraq.