Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez I think its remarkable anyone could question the righteous leadership Bush exemplifies in this effort in Iraq.

I keep waiting for a :WINK:WINK: here. Are you actually saying this with a straight face?


.

[rmnunez]

Yes I am, I think it was very necessary to invade Iraq. I start with a reasonable assessment of the predicament we were in before; genocidical, human-rights repressing, dissent-intolerant, UN-flouting, militarily agressive, tyrant suspected of dabbling in weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties, whose oil-endowed regime is immune to economic sanctions and who has withstood a military pummeling already -cannot be long endured and must be removed militarily if need be.

This isn't a close call folks, its not like the degree of technology, time from acquiring it, level of terrorist contact, range of the missiles, magnitude of the destructive power, degree of threat perceived or any other consideration -would change the outcome. Saddam had to be removed and the only strategic decicion here was "when". Post-911 concerns made ousting Saddam more attractive.

Regime change was necessary, and couldn't conceivably be accomplished by other means. Saddam wasn't about to stand down, he had been issued dozens of negative Security Council Resolutions condeming and forbiding his acts, imposing sanctions to coerce his compliance and even foreign military forces were arrayed to curtail his own.

It is fortunate Bush was there to make this decision, a Democrat likely would have hesitated longer, probably never attack unless the French were 100% on board too. But given Saddam's inherent features, by now we would be in a worse situation.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Yes I am, I think it was very necessary to invade Iraq. I start with a reasonable assessment of the predicament we were in before; genocidical, human-rights repressing, dissent-intolerant, UN-flouting, militarily agressive, tyrant suspected of dabbling in weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties, whose oil-endowed regime is immune to economic sanctions and who has withstood a militarily pummeling already - cannot be endured nor removed by any other means.

This is just utter nonsense...

"genocidical, human-rights repressing, dissent-intolerant,"

You've just described half the 3rd world and, the question of "genocidical" aside, many of our allies!

"UN-flouting,"

Not to any point that demanded invasion, and much of his 'flouting' was more posturing than actual failure to comply.

"militarily agressive,"

Saddam's military was a toothless shambles, and whatever saber-rattling Saddam did was simply desperate rhetoric to keep Iran off his neck... and out of his Shiite communities. A fact that George H.W. Bush, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft explained in detail when they warned, after Desert Storm, that Iraq should not be left so militarily crushed that they can't defend themselves from Iran.

"suspected of dabbling in weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties"

Both proven false. Whatever Saddam may have been lusting to do in the future, you don't invade sovereign nations for what we think they may be dreaming of doing... someday... maybe. God forbid we invade a country for reasons that didn't exist... ooops, too late.

"cannot be endured nor removed by any other means."

Sure it could... especially when your own senior military and combined intelligence warn you that invading and occupying Iraq would be an invitation to a hopeless quagmire... a massive exercise in cutting off our nose to spite our face.

By every logical standard, the decision to invade Iraq was a foolish and unmitigated disaster that will cost us for generations to come.

.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Some, not "much" and all the time or in the same levels. Saddam was shunned most of the time as he put Iraq in the the Soviet orbit.

Well, dictators and other leaders don't always enjoy foreign support "in the same levels." It doesn't mean they aren't getting support. The US supported lunatic warlords in
Afghanistan and in Iraq, predictably citing concerns about "the Soviet orbit."

As for the tendency of sanctions to harm general populations, that's an argument against them, not for them. Similarly, the fact of death and destruction in war is an argument against war.

Quote by: rmnunez That Iraqis protested to secure a democratic process for their government bears absolutely no relationship to earlier US plans for their government.

This is simply absurd. Obviously these people were protesting conditions as they existed. Just put two and two together.

And, as it turns out, Iraqis still have no shortage of things to protest about. Pick a group and you'll find some disturbing development.

Here's another example:
Are Iraqi Hospitals Hunting Grounds?, Top Shiite Officials Accused Of Using State-Run Facilities To Systematically Kidnap And Kill - CBS News

In a makeshift Baghdad clinic, all of the patients are Sunnis. The patients say they are too frightened to go to hospitals run by the Ministry of Health because those have been infested by Shiite death squads, reports CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey.... The charge sheet will accuse a former deputy Health Minister and his security chief of turning hospitals into hunting grounds. Ambulances were used to transport weapons, morgue workers were pressured to falsify death certificates and cover up executions and Sunni patients were dragged from hospital beds and murdered... "There are chilling accounts of savage beatings of Sunnis in the basement of the Ministry of Health headquarters, and Hakim actually ordering their killing," said Martins [Col. Mark Martins, senior military lawyer in Iraq].

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart . This is just utter nonsense... "genocidical, human-rights repressing, dissent-intolerant," You've just described half the 3rd world and, the question of "genocidical" aside, many of our allies!

Sometimes I wonder just what in the hell nunez is talking about. The US has, since its inception, utilized
"genocidical, human-rights repressing, dissent-intolerant" methods of social control. In fact, that's what warfare itself generally implies.

Unfortunately, Americans are given a rosier picture of events by many parents and many high schools as well.

Grandpa h.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Keith The US has, since its inception, utilized "genocidical.....

To refer to anything that the United States has EVER done as "genocidal" is an outrageous insult to actual acts of genocide. This is dishonest, disingenuous and insulting to every victim of TRUE genocidal attempts that have been launched throughout human history.

You would cast yourself in a better light if you were to retract that part of your statement. The rest of that statement may be arguable to a certain point. The use of the word "genocidal" is improper.

[thx1138]

To refer to anything that the United States has EVER done as "genocidal" is an outrageous insult to actual acts of genocide.

You should read up a little more on "How the West was Won".

[rmnunez]

Though half the third world leaders might fit under the rubric of "genocidical, human-rights repressing, dissent-intolerant", only a few sit atop such a vital strategic resource and is so close to more vulnerable similiarly situateds. Flouting the UN Security Council may not merit invasion, but in this case it was a ceasefire resolution and technically resumption of hostilities is the default answer to ceasefire breach.

Saddan’s military was seriously degraded with heavy loses to Iran, but recovered well enough to invade Kuwait. They got walloped in Desert Storm, but that was more than 15 years ago. On the eve of intervention it was suspected Saddam was investing in long-range rocketry, nuclear enrichment reactors, and sophiticated bacteriological warfare research. Before intervention, Saddam had the largest military force in the region, more jets, ships, tanks, helicopters, men under arms and weapons of all sorts than any of their neighbors.

Lusting for anything seems hardly actionable, we don’t have ‘thought’ crimes, but when it’s a head of state and national economies can be mobilized behind the effort, the slightest suggestion of an interest has a much stronger impact. I'd agree any one of Saddam's negative features -on its own- would not merit an ouster, but having so many harmful characteristics makes him the best candidate for removal.

If all the foregoing wasn't compelling enough to you, add the post-911 paradigm shift with focus on terrorism and take into account its provenance, plus success in Afghanistan, and it should be obvious there was no better answer.

[ruksak]

Quote by: thx1138 You should read up a little more on "How the West was Won".

How far ya wanna go back to remain pertinent to anything close to modern day politics? People that invoke the slaughter of Indians are just simply trying to hard.

I will omit that that was a concerted genocidal attempt. OK, other than that....

[xyzer]

I'm amused that we keep reading the redundant nonsense about what 'used to be' in foreign policy. The tired indirect consequences argument. Durn it, our policy, and any nations, results from current events and threats.
There was a threat in the early 2000s from several entities. Internatonal Islamic terrorism(the attacks were increasing, the shifting control of a vital energy source(due to environmentalism) to rogue nations like Venezuela..Iran, and middle eastern countries, adoption and countenancing of terrorist groups by countries in the middle east and other oil rich regions, the assumption of terrorist control in Afghanistan(Al Qaida) and so on. Environmentalist in the US had pretty much curbed efforts at oil self sufficiency. We couldn't continue to exist in isolation amid threats from terrorist groups?

The result was a need to put rogue nations and terrorist organizations on notice that the west would not lie down and give up in face of the growing threat..threat to energy prices and physical threats to non Islamic nations and people. Saddam Hussein was deliberately avoiding his treaty requirements after Desert Storm and deliberately attacking US aircraft. What was a western world leader supposed to do? Talk and parlay with savages?
Give us an answer you antiwar zealots?

[rmnunez]

Yes, what else could be done? Iraq was completely embargoed, and even critics of the sanctions and restrictions recognize the population suffered, but this wasn't persuasive, it didn't induce policy change from Saddam. Economic sanctions and trade embargoes didn't work because Iraq is an oil producing country.

The diplomatic alternative is the most desired, but by kickoff this had been exhausted, Blix couldn't continue to delay the inevitable. Regime change was the goal -not WMD removal. I think WMD removal as a goal was only a device to enhance perceptions of a need to intervene.

There were several of these good reasons to want to intervene and we all can range them along our scale of priorities; removing a reckless rival armed force poised over vital oil wells and trade routes might be among the top 3, but Saddam had shot his load in Kuwait and his force was decimated in '91.

Genocide is another very compelling reason to intervene and the US would naturally be compelled to intervene against such practices, as it has in the past. There is definitely evidence of genocide by Saddam, but it calls for a sacrifice and US lives will be lost, and this is over there, not harming people of the US directly. What businesses is it for united statians to rescue minorities, couldn't this cloak ulterior motives? Maybe not enough genocide, no serious displacement?

In any case they hit on WMDs as a good reason to itervene, it could combine things like the Ceasefire armaments restrictions for missile range and payload with oil-for-food import/export licenses issued by Swiss firms. There were all sorts of indications Saddam was in pursuit of WMDs. He had nuclear reactors, did use toxic gases, purchased the technology. It wasn't at the level anticipated or evidence disappeared.

There are other good reasons to intervene, some more compelling than others, delaying this would only have made it more difficult later. Some measure of all these justifications, plus things like terrorism support, territorial disputes, and challenging enforcement, all make Saddam the target and ripe.

[jose]

Nearly doubling its current troop presence in the occupation of Iraq, Moldova's government has announced that it is increasing from 11 to 20 the sixth group of soldiers that it is sending to the troubled country.

Moldova nearly doubles Iraq troop presence

[rmnunez]

Moldovans are twice as committed and deserve praise for their contribution. Thank you Moldova.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Moldovans are twice as committed and deserve praise for their contribution. Thank you Moldova.

And what great soldiers they must be, since Moldava hasn't lost a single man in Iraq. Imagine, fighting right up there on the front lines with U.S. troops to give real credence to the term "coalition", and yet not suffering a single casualty! I'm sure the U.S. military has much to learn from these fine soldiers.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ruksak To refer to anything that the United States has EVER done as "genocidal" is an outrageous insult to actual acts of genocide. This is dishonest, disingenuous and insulting to every victim of TRUE genocidal attempts that have been launched throughout human history.

First of all, you quoted me as "Keith" for some reason. That's error number one.

Second, you assume the US was not founded upon genocide and slavery, which many modern historians would disagree with, as would plenty of "Native Americans" and "African Americans." Were they not victims of the US system? Are there still not efforts to undermine some of their basic interests?

Keep in mind, the war against "Indians" wasn't just an event, but an institutionalized system, as was slavery. They even tried forced labor with "Indians," and had re-education camps. A lot of them died, and not just through unintentional smallpox epidemics.

Anyway, these are reasons to seriously challenge our current political system. If it was responsible for terrible things in the past, we know it may be so today. It's totally relevant, and a pretty common sense approach to the issues.
Anti-Nazi people living in Germany would be utter fools to pretend the past is irrelevant.
However, it's like when I call American politicians "war mongers" and some people seem baffled. But who ever thought Don Rumsfeld was a "man of peace?" You may view him as one of the "true heroes of the world," or however you wish to term it, but he's obviously been a modern day warlord and people have died at his command.
That alone is reason to despise him.


Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Nunez, you keep shrugging off the sanctions as if to say "what else could the US have done?" Well, it could have never supported Saddam Hussein, for one thing. It could have not supported the sanctions, etc. etc. It's fairly self-explanatory.

Grandpa h.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Yes, what else could be done? Iraq was completely embargoed, and even critics of the sanctions and restrictions recognize the population suffered, but this wasn't persuasive, it didn't induce policy change from Saddam. Economic sanctions and trade embargoes didn't work because Iraq is an oil producing country. The diplomatic alternative is the most desired, but by kickoff this had been exhausted, Blix couldn't continue to delay the inevitable. Regime change was the goal -not WMD removal. I think WMD removal as a goal was only a device to enhance perceptions of a need to intervene. There were several of these good reasons to want to intervene and we all can range them along our scale of priorities; removing a reckless rival armed force poised over vital oil wells and trade routes might be among the top 3, but Saddam had shot his load in Kuwait and his force was decimated in '91. Genocide is another very compelling reason to intervene and the US would naturally be compelled to intervene against such practices, as it has in the past. There is definitely evidence of genocide by Saddam, but it calls for a sacrifice and US lives will be lost, and this is over there, not harming people of the US directly. What businesses is it for united statians to rescue minorities, couldn't this cloak ulterior motives? Maybe not enough genocide, no serious displacement? In any case they hit on WMDs as a good reason to itervene, it could combine things like the Ceasefire armaments restrictions for missile range and payload with oil-for-food import/export licenses issued by Swiss firms. There were all sorts of indications Saddam was in pursuit of WMDs. He had nuclear reactors, did use toxic gases, purchased the technology. It wasn't at the level anticipated or evidence disappeared. There are other good reasons to intervene, some more compelling than others, delaying this would only have made it more difficult later. Some measure of all these justifications, plus things like terrorism support, territorial disputes, and challenging enforcement, all make Saddam the target and ripe.

Total, utter, absolute nonsense, as usual. You're completely ignoring the fact that the UN had inspectors on the ground in Iraq right up until bush invaded. saddam couldn't have accomplished any of your nonsensical activities as long as the inspectors were getting unfettered access to any site the U.S. was directing them to. And if you're going to claim that they were being denied access to sites, please back that up with some evidence.

[rmnunez]

You think a bit more time with the inspections would have done it, I don't. I think Saddam was more secretive than we realize, that there is an element of deceit on his part, that Blix and his boys were getting a runaround, that the restrictions regime wasn't very well enforced, that bribes and corruption vitiated the effort.

Perhaps two ot three more weeks, a couple of months more would have yielded conclusive evidence there were no WMDs. Okay, so then what? Do we endure the genocide, shooting at no-fly enforcers, tolerate the supression of dissent and continue to ignore any terrorist connections hoping he doesn't get into any of this too deeply? All the while as Saddam accrues resources from rising oil and invest them in rebuilding his military? Why, what advantage is there in that?

And if he could be removed and the plight of Iraq alleviated? How about if in the process the US could secure an enduring military presence with massive rapid-deployment capabilities from permament bases that could reach across a region rife with Islamic fundamentalist-inspired international terrorists? How about if this also allowed the establishment of a genuinely representative system of government with periodically renewed democratically elected leadership that could serve as a model for neighbors?

Well the cookies haven't quite crumbled as expected, but a lot was accomplished and still can be done.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez You think a bit more time with the inspections would have done it, I don't.

A bit more time?? The inspectors that were in Iraq were under no time restrictions. They would still be there if it weren't for the fact that bush invaded.

Quote by: rmnunez I think Saddam was more secretive than we realize, that there is an element of deceit on his part, that Blix and his boys were getting a runaround, that the restrictions regime wasn't very well enforced, that bribes and corruption vitiated the effort.

How about providing some evidence of that?

Quote by: rmnunez Perhaps two ot three more weeks, a couple of months more would have yielded conclusive evidence there were no WMDs. Okay, so then what?

Well, since bush told us WMD's were the rationale for invasion, there would be no need for his war, would there?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ruksak To refer to anything that the United States has EVER done as "genocidal" is an outrageous insult to actual acts of genocide. This is dishonest, disingenuous and insulting to every victim of TRUE genocidal attempts that have been launched throughout human history.

You're being a tad kind to ourselves. Wiping out 90% of the Native American population is as close to pure genocide as anyone else has come, and it's a fact. We can forgive ourselves for what happened in the past, but we can't forget.

Quote by: rmnunez Though half the third world leaders might fit under the rubric of "genocidical, human-rights repressing, dissent-intolerant", only a few sit atop such a vital strategic resource and is so close to more vulnerable similiarly situateds.

Nor do we invade sovereign nations to steal their resources. At least not MY America.

Quote by: rmnunez Before intervention, Saddam had the largest military force in the region, more jets, ships, tanks, helicopters, men under arms and weapons of all sorts than any of their neighbors.

I assume by "before intervention" you mean before Desert Storm, because after Desert Storm none of these things was true. They were certainly less well armed than the America supplied Saudis.

Quote by: xyzer The result was a need to put rogue nations and terrorist organizations on notice that the west would not lie down and give up in face of the growing threat..threat to energy prices and physical threats to non Islamic nations and people. Saddam Hussein was deliberately avoiding his treaty requirements after Desert Storm and deliberately attacking US aircraft.

The U.S. No-Fly Zones were NOT part of the UN peace agreement and were therefore violations of Iraqi airspace. We enforced them simply because we could, and not one U.S. aircraft was ever brought down by such attacks. The only harm ever done was to the poor, dumb Iraqi sunsabitches ordered to fire on U.S. aircraft, since they usually had a HARM promptly fired down their throats.

The rest is pure nonsense. Saddam was attacking no one, threatening to attack no one and was not a threat to us in the least. At the very worst he was an annoying nuisance and a regional pain in the ass.

Quote by: rmnunez Yes, what else could be done? Iraq was completely embargoed, and even critics of the sanctions and restrictions recognize the population suffered, but this wasn't persuasive, it didn't induce policy change from Saddam. Economic sanctions and trade embargoes didn't work because Iraq is an oil producing country.

Barely... Saddam had let his oil industry deteriorate to the point of near collapse, as we saw after invading. The sanctions had left Saddam toothless and, his mule headed unwillingness to play nice aside, a threat to no one.

Quote by: rmnunez You think a bit more time with the inspections would have done it, I don't.

The inspections were proving exactly what we would find out after the invasion... that Saddam had no weapons, no programs, no ties to al-Qaeda and was no threat to anyone.

Quote by: rmnunez I think Saddam was more secretive than we realize, that there is an element of deceit on his part, that Blix and his boys were getting a runaround, that the restrictions regime wasn't very well enforced, that bribes and corruption vitiated the effort.

Pure speculation on your part and speculation we already know is false. Every analysis, including from Saddam's inner staff itself, is that Saddam was desperately trying to maintain an unteneble position... trying to assure us as best he could that he had no weapons while simultaneously trying to make Iran believe that he did.

Quote by: rmnunez Do we endure the genocide,

Why not? We endure it everywhere else.

Quote by: rmnunez shooting at no-fly enforcers,

Again, our No-Fly Zones were a unilateral U.S. decision, not part of the coalition peace agreement. We enforced it because we could and never lost an aircraft. Saddam had every legal right to defend his airspace.

Quote by: rmnunez continue to ignore any terrorist connections hoping he doesn't get into any of this too deeply?

He had no terror connections. At best he had old terror acquaintances.

.