SOFA Passes in Iraq

[HueyCobra8151]

But we can't now ignore hindsight in analysing the decision-making process that led to initiating the war. Hindsight tells us that the judgment of those who were in posession of the facts (as they understood them), may not have been up to the standards which we expect of our national leaders. I think that it has been pretty well established that there was a lot of wishful thinking and "liberal" interpretation of raw intelligence data and that, for whatever reasons, the decision to go to war was made first, then a case was cobbled together to justify that decision. That's backwards in my book.

Brett

You aren't saying anything I don't agree with. I was just commenting on the fact that people are discussing a past event without the proper frame of reference.

UN/RES/1441 and the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq simply detail (among other sources as well) WHY we went to Iraq in the first place, which, as I stated before, answers the question of why Iraq and not Darfur.

 

[OUSOONER]

You aren't saying anything I don't agree with. I was just commenting on the fact that people are discussing a past event without the proper frame of reference.

UN/RES/1441 and the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq simply detail (among other sources as well) WHY we went to Iraq in the first place, which, as I stated before, answers the question of why Iraq and not Darfur.

Yes but that resolution would not have been made , had we known what we know now. That document sent us to war under false pretenses. It is not even something that was unavoidable at the time...we (higher echelons of the government...particularly of the executive branch) were just looking to get us there. So fast, I might add, that we had no exit strategy and forgot about that whole Shia/Sunni thing.

Saddam deserved everything he got and more. But once we decided to play Team America World Police...we, in my opinion took on a responsibility then to go liberate every country that is oppressed by their government.

If we can't handle that, we shouldn't have even started.

I'm all for going after every asshole in the world. But give me the resources to go do it...a good plan with accurate intel, and backing from the rest of the free World. We had none of those.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Saddam deserved everything he got and more. But once we decided to play Team America World Police...we, in my opinion took on a responsibility then to go liberate every country that is oppressed by their government.

The point I am making is that whether or not they panned out, at the time there were real tangible reasons for going to Iraq. Not just "that guy is an asshole" or "those Iraqis sure are suffering."

In retrospect we say: Wow, the administration really screwed the pooch on that one. But it doesn't somehow obligate us to every other country out there to play "World Police."

You have to remember that one of Rumsfeld's major reasons for Iraq was to put an end to and avoid the same type of quagmire as there is in the Balkans. His thinking was that we should NOT be playing world police by enforcing no-fly zones in Iraq and sending inspectors to Baghdad every few months and the fastest way to get out of that would be to crush Saddam, let the Iraqi's cheer for a few months, then tell them to use their oil money to reconstruct the country. We pull out, high-fives all around, and it's all good. (Obviously that didn't happen - but hey, everyone loves high-fives)

Either way, I don't think we should be heading off to Sudan et al, next because of some precedent that was supposedly set by an invasion of Iraq...

 

[Brett327]

Yes but that resolution would not have been made , had we known what we know now. That document sent us to war under false pretenses. It is not even something that was unavoidable at the time...we (higher echelons of the government...particularly of the executive branch) were just looking to get us there. So fast, I might add, that we had no exit strategy and forgot about that whole Shia/Sunni thing.

Saddam deserved everything he got and more. But once we decided to play Team America World Police...we, in my opinion took on a responsibility then to go liberate every country that is oppressed by their government.

If we can't handle that, we shouldn't have even started.

I'm all for going after every asshole in the world. But give me the resources to go do it...a good plan with accurate intel, and backing from the rest of the free World. We had none of those.

I, for one, don't buy your notion that going after one bad guy obligates us to go after all of them. Each case is different and should be evaluated on its individual merits. A thing to be avoided in general, if recent history has taught us anything. I'm a fan of the Weinberger and Powell doctrines, generally speaking.

@ Huey: I appreciate your point and understand the original premise under which we went after Saddam, but UNSCRs and other self-legitimizing rhetoric were a by-product of a flawed decision-making process. Perhaps I'm overstating my point, but some of the posters are still caught up in the, "...but we got rid of Saddam and that justifies all" mindset, which doesn't fully appreciate the magnitude of the dysfunctional thinking within the executive branch.

Brett

 

[Clux4]

At least Bevo can make a point that makes sense.

Brett

Why do my points need to make sense. That is just overrated!:sleep_125

With respect to WMD, something you should think about is this; absence of proof is not proof of absence.

 

[eddie]

Why do my points need to make sense. That is just overrated!:sleep_125

With respect to WMD, something you should think about is this; absence of proof is not proof of absence.

This isn't a religious argument. Absence of proof is just that; it has nothing to do with anything because it cannot be ascertained.

 

[Brett327]

Why do my points need to make sense. That is just overrated!:sleep_125

With respect to WMD, something you should think about is this; absence of proof is not proof of absence.

At least you're living up to your own standard. Are you asserting that there are undiscovered stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq?

Brett

 

[Clux4]

At least you're living up to your own standard. Are you asserting that there are undiscovered stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq?

Brett

Why would I not live up to my standards?:icon_tong

Because we could not find WMD in Iraq does not mean Saddam did not have WMD.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Ignoring the artillery shells that were found for purposes of this discussion, we know that Saddam had chemical weapons in 1993, because he used them on the Kurds. They provided no record of the destruction of any chemical weapons.

Three possibilities:
1) He could have used up everything on the Kurds. This seems unlikely.

2) He could have destroyed his remaining inventory.
From a military/cowing his neighbors and the restive portions of his populace perspective, this seems unlikely, because it would take away a (presumably) significant deterrent from his arsenal.

From an international diplomacy perspective, he would stand to gain from this. However, he provided no evidence to support destruction, even when he had significant reason to do so.

So on the whole, this seems unlikely.

3) The weapons did exist. They either remained in Iraq, which seems unlikely at this point, or were taken elsewhere, which seems the most likely scenario. The likeliest destination would seem to be Syria, considering the significant amount of traffic going between Iraq and Syria prior to the invasion.

 

[OUSOONER]

^--- Well then, if it can be proven that Syria has WMD...and we certainly know they are terrorist friendly. Would we not look like hypocrites if we didn't go after Syria next?

According to the Powell and Weinberger doctrines, wouldn't that be a threat to our national security? If the WMD in Syria scenario is "most likely", then why are we not doing more to recover these weapons or pressure Syria to comply.

This is why I think that Saddam disposed of his weapons just prior to our invasion or did not have them for a long while. There are smart people in Washington (believe it or not) and it would seem like our current administration would have called out Syria. I have not really heard anything about them in the media, besides when Israel conducted an air raid.

 

[exhelodrvr]

^
Actions against Syria probably could be justified.

However, they have been trying the "nice" approach to Syria, thus the minimal response to Syrian actions in Lebanon, Syrian involvement in Iraq (at least as a way point on the foreign terrorist pipeline), and possible Syrian involvement with WMD. IMO, this is because
1) There are limits to what can be done with current resources.
2) General lack of domestic and international support
3) More specfically, the effect that actions against Syria would have on cooperation from other Arab and Muslim countries in the struggle against the Islamists.

Had Saddam destroyed of his weapons, I think that that point would have been raised at his trial.

I strongly suspect that if WMD were sent to Syria, Syria would have destroyed them by now. They would have too much to lose if that were found out.

 

[Flash]

Because we could not find WMD in Iraq does not mean Saddam did not have WMD.

Yeah, because two negatives make a positive in your world. :icon_roll

Ignoring the artillery shells that were found for purposes of this discussion, we know that Saddam had chemical weapons in 1993, because he used them on the Kurds.

They should be ignored. A handful of forgotten, severely degraded and unusable shells and rockets. Out of hundreds of weapons stockpiles around Iraq you are bound to have a few surprises.

And I am pretty certain the last time Saddam used chemical weapons was before the Gulf War, not 1993.

2) He could have destroyed his remaining inventory.

3) The weapons did exist. They either remained in Iraq, which seems unlikely at this point, or were taken elsewhere, which seems the most likely scenario. The likeliest destination would seem to be Syria, considering the significant amount of traffic going between Iraq and Syria prior to the invasion.

Believe it or not, number 2 is the likeliest scenario. There is little to no evidence that Syria took possession of any chemical weapons from Iraq. Why should they anyways? Take a look at it from a common sense perspective. You don't think they have a stockpile of their own? Why should they take some of unknown composition, reliability, quality and even type? It makes little sense, especially when Saddam was deluded enough to think that we wouldn't take him down in the first place.

 

[OUSOONER]

Believe it or not, number 2 is the likeliest scenario. There is little to no evidence that Syria took possession of any chemical weapons from Iraq. Why should they anyways? Take a look at it from a common sense perspective. You don't think they have a stockpile of their own? Why should they take some of unknown composition, reliability, quality and even type? It makes little sense, especially when Saddam was deluded enough to think that we wouldn't take him down in the first place.

This is how I viewed it also. I pictured the WMD like it was hot-potato, nobody would want to take hold of it...when the music stopped playing, whoever got caught with it got a TLAM in the face courtesy of the United States of America.

 

[exhelodrvr]

^^
After doing a little research, I was wrong about the timeframe on the gassing of the Kurds.

I still disagree, though, that Saddam was likely to have destroyed his inventory, I think had he done so, he would have pulled that fact out at some point in the pre-war buildup or in his trial.

Why would Syria take it? Baath buddies, for one reason.

 

[Flash]

I still disagree, though, that Saddam was likely to have destroyed his inventory, I think had he done so, he would have pulled that fact out at some point in the pre-war buildup or in his trial.

Why would Syria take it? Baath buddies, for one reason.

There are a couple of leaps of logic that you have to make in order to assume that Iraq would ship to Syria, or that Syria would take Iraqi cehmical weapons.

1- Why take used goods when you probably have plenty of your own? Especially something that is; A: Not all that hard to make on your own, B: Not the most transport-friendly of munitions, C: As already noted, of unknown effectiveness, age and compostion, D: Bulky.

2- Why get rid of them in the first place? Just to prove the US wrong? If they thought they were going to use, what help would it have been? Why go through so much trouble?

3- If you thought you might lose, why would chemical weapons be one of the few things you would ship out? I have heard of people pointing to 'increased vehicle activity' on the border, there must be something sinister in them! Well, there may have been, but I would bet it was personal goods more than anything else. Think back to the Gulf War and the 'Highway of Death'. The guys fleeing were taking some miltiary stuff back but a lot of it was loot. When the chips are down basic survival instincts kick in, and if I was a Saddam crony and saw the writing on the wall I would ship out my wife, kids, mistress and all the goods I could get my hands on, not Saddam's WMD.

4- Syria may be ruled by the Baath party but Saddam and Asad hated each other. Think of the Chinese and Soviet communists, after 1960 they almost went to war a few times because the hatred was so deep (there were a few border clashes). The Baath party was merely a label anyways, Hussien was a thug, not a politician. And once anything crossed the border it was Syria's to keep, jsut like the Iraqi jets that fled to Iran in 1991. Iraq did not get any of them back, so why make the same mistake again?

There is just no credible evidence that chemical weapons went from IRaq to Syria, people are just grasping at straws when they claim that the very slim circumstantial evidence points to such a conclusion. And that is on top of the several leaps of faith that you have take in order to make a convincing argument for the Iraqis to do it in the first place. Syria is already a bad guy, they didn't need any Iraqi help getting there.