Letters to the Editor
MacK..
Published Letters: 491 Editor's Choice: 49
-
Still no rationale
[Read the article: George Tenet, spook for all seasons]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With respect to ruper_c I have to disagree with your analysis and James Levy, I do not think what you stated amounts to a rationale.
Did Saddam Hussein support terrorism – yes, absolutely. Was that specific terrorism a large enough threat to the US that it could justify an invasion – no, not unless for example invading Libya or Saudi Arabia could be justified. Indeed, both Libya at a government level and Saudi Arabia at a Saud-family-princeling level have a much more significant history of backing terrorism against Israel and US than Iraq under Saddam did. Moreover, Saddam was a mortal enemy of: (a) Al Quaeda (as a secular ruler); (b) Iran (for starting a war with them, plus being Sunni); (c) Syria (because of the enmity of the Syrian and Iraqi Baath parties for one another.) More to the point, Hezbollah, etc. are Shia and Iranian backed organisations, and the $20,000 reward per suicide bomber was offered after the suicide bombing started. So overall, as a rationale this does not make sense.
You suggest that Saddam was threatening economic terrorism against the US dollar by asking for Euros -- I would not worry about that, it was simple posturing. Hard convertible currency is hard currency – Saddam would take a € as fast as a $. The big threat to the dollar is the US trade deficit and the concern of solar holders that they will lose money, and especially China not wanting to hold dollars.
Your next argument is the military/industrial complex wanted a war. I think that is hard to support – there is no evidence that they were pushing any sort of war, and anyway if anything this war is demonstrating that the US military balance, 1/3 Air Force, 1/3 Navy, 1/3 Army, with an emphasis on expensive weapons systems is bad and that what matters is money for the poor bloody infantry and army plus training, not carrier air groups and billion dollar bombers (and even the Apache is in trouble as it seems vulnerable to simple bullets.) (By the way, starting with Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August, the military-industrial complex argument for WW I has been fairly demolished, the Arms manufacturers in fact being horrified by the idea of a general European war.)
It would be nice to believe most of your arguments – hell I am perfectly willing to accept the core of Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis that AIPAC lobby is unduly powerful and that its adherents would so to speak, “sell the US’ ass in a parking lot” if they thought it suited Israel’s interests – it’s probably true. But the case that it was the sponsorship of the "Israel lobby,"that caused this war, rather than that it was promoted by a cabal of Neocons, a subset of pro-Israel types, who happened to be close to or part of the Israel lobby is frankly not convincing. Certainly the idea that Israel heavily promoted this war (as opposed to the stupidest man in the world-Feith, [which is unfair because] the Wurmsers [seem stupider], Perle, et al) seems not to be established.
I also generally agree with James Levy’s sampling of 4 factors that may have driven the decision to go to war. But my point is that these do not amount to a rationale, indeed it is not clear that they were part of the rationale. I would also add that his second description – what I call the Clive Cussler/Tom Clancy factor of the US’s self image vis-à-vis foreigners, as a kind of cross between Superman and Dudley Do-Right faced with a bunch of comic opera thugs who just need to be shown how tough and righteous and square-jawed Americans are is also a factor, but again it is not a rationale.
And that I suppose is my point. As a lawyer, I regularly find myself asking clients, why did you do that, what were you thinking. In general, the most diabolical messes I ever find a client in usually gets the response of “it just seemed like a good idea at the time” with no why or wherefore. The Iraq war is one of those messes – no rationale, no solid analysis, a whole lot of lying and indeed self-deception. The other huge danger is underestimating the opponent, or assuming the other guy is stupid or incompetent.
-
Pelosi position is wrong, it contains a logical fallacy
[Read the article: "I'm the commander guy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Nancy Pelosi is trying to push back against George W. Bush's assertion that Congress is substituting its own judgment for that of the commanders on the ground in Iraq by arguing that Congress is, in fact, substituting its judgment for the president's."
The argument presupposes that Bush has judgment to replace. On the evidence, well . . .