Centerfield

But the inspection process was not "playing out". For the last 15 years, the only time Saddam allowed inspectors real access to the country, the kind of real access which would allow them to make definitive determinations, was when we were on the brink of invasion. Before final U.N. votes on tougher sanctions or supporting military action, he would finally remove many of the restrictions he had placed on the inspectors and submit many (but hardly all) of the reports he was required to submit. But the moment intense international public scrutiny shifted away (perhaps with help from Russia, France, Germany, or other nations making a fortune under Oil-for-Food), Saddam reverted to his typical attitude towards inspectors, delaying their access to critical facilities, listing industrial sites as "Presidental Palaces", so that diplomatic-minded U.N. inspectors wouldn't examine them too closely, and moving around mass amounts of material to keep the inspectors from finding it.

Inspections were not working and would not have ever worked to be able to reasonably assure us and the world that Saddam did not have WMD.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 12, 2006 09:34 AM

I certainly think this gets the Democrats who voted to give President Bush war powers off the hook. The onus remains on Bush for having given the "go" signals when he should have delayed the invasion.

LOL. So President Bush should have believed that Hussien had WMD but not have invaded, even though the Dems see the same information and come to the oppisite conclusion. That's insane.

Posted by: Cylinder at March 12, 2006 10:19 AM

An interesting lesson/quandry: How do you respond to dangerous/crazy dictator? I don't see any easy answers. I am struck by one question. If those close to Saddam beleived he had WMD (and were thus deceived) how many also beleived as he did that the greatest threat was/in not the US but the Shiites? And how much does that belief drive the present Iraqi situation?

Posted by: c3 at March 12, 2006 10:42 AM

Cylinder, I'm not aware of any opposition to the Iraq War (at the time of the Congressional resolution authorizing it) who opposed it on the grounds that Saddam did not have WMD. Even France and Germany believed Saddam had WMD. The difference was only over what to do about it, not whether he had them or not.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 12, 2006 11:50 AM

Well, I said at the time that he either had WMD's or had worked really hard to convince everyone he did as a deterrent. Looks like it was #2. He bluffed, his bluff was believed--and called anyway.

There's still a lot of evidence out there that suggests he followed the Russian advice of maintaining some essential infrastructure and expertise for future WMD production, then shuffled much of it out of the country as it became obvious that the Coalition WOULD invade. It may be years before we know what really happened for sure. If ever.

Posted by: Tully at March 12, 2006 12:28 PM

"In hindsight, we should have let the inspection process play out, and we would have eventually learned the truth."

Well, I think in real-time, we should have known enough to do this. This dirt-simple idea was what kept the UN security-council from voting to authorize the invasion. It seemed a fair point to me at the time and I'm still bewildered to this day that that some sense of reason did not prevail in this country in the run-up to the war.

We can talk all we want about bad intel but the fact remains that that quote above from Pat was the least that the WH could have done considering that there was plenty of intel that cast doubt over the veracity of WMD's.

I'm not one to come out and say Bush lied about WMD's. But I will say that they wanted to invade Iraq as part of an article faith to a larger neo-conservative Middle East policy held by the PNAC and this simple inclination to invade clouded the judgement of many people in terms of how much weigh they put on certain pieces of intel.

IMO, the intel was cloudy and varied enough that an administration that didn't ascribe to this agressive general policy fashioned by the PNAC would not have invaded simply because giving equal consideration to strong intel that undermined the perceived need for an immediate invasion would have pushed caution and restrained that president from acting so quickly thus keeping him in agreement with the majority position of the security council...which was, to paraphrase Pat's quote:

"we should let the inspection process play out, and learn the truth."

Posted by: John at March 12, 2006 04:06 PM

CORRECTION:

That was Rick's quote, not Pat's. Sorry.

Posted by: John at March 12, 2006 04:19 PM

Pat and Cylinder,

Pat,

Inspections WERE working. To say otherwise is to believe the OPINION of the administration.

The rest of the security council (not to mention many here) did not say with any certainty or even imply the inspections were not working. That's why they wanted to let Blix and Co. continue their work. These simple points mattered at the time...everywhere but in the majority of those in power here in America it seems.

The oil for food thing is a distraction from the larger issue, which was: SHOULD WE INVADE NOW OR WAIT FOR INSPECTIONS TO FINISH. The oil for food scandal was wide-spread and only used to attmept to disqualify the judgement of nations opposing an invasion without finishing inspections.

Cylinder,

Not just the dems but none of Congress has access to all the same official intel as the WH and cabinet. It's an assertion that cannot be truly backed up because it's not true. But definitely a lack of scrutiny and diligence on Congress's part was a contributing factor. They definitely weren't very demanding.

Posted by: John at March 12, 2006 04:33 PM

Hindsight ratiocination isn't really helpful in determining the President's motivations at the time of his decision. In 2002, a highly-respected European intelligence organization reported that Iraq had reconstituted its stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. That was also the view of some European country-level intelligence agencies. In 2002, a number (but not all) of the UN weapons inspectors opined publicly that without military escorts, there could not be effective inspections, because the inspectors were being turned away from critical sites. If you were President, these opinions may or may not have impelled you to bypass the Security Council (two of whose permanent members were locked into most-favored-nation long-term petroleum supply agreements with Iraq and either of whom could have, and based on their behavior at the time seemingly both would have, vetoed military action against Iraq) and relied on military action to remove the threat of chemical or bioloigical weapons moving from Iraq to terrorist groups. You may or may not have, a lttle more than a year after 9/11, believed that erring on the side of caution in the face of conflicitng intelligence was wiser than erring on the side of UN diplomacy. But one thing's for sure: you wouldn't have had the benefit of hindsight.

Posted by: kumaka at March 12, 2006 05:34 PM

Well, John, we elect Presidents to form the best OPINION possible based on all the information available to them and their assessments of the likelihood of various future possible outcomes of differentt possible actions. I'm happy with this President's opinions so far.

Inspections were not, in fact, working. And the only reason they even looked like they were working for a very brief period of time was because the U.S. was ratcheting up the pressure and threatening military action. Every time pressure went up, Saddam would throw the inspectors a bone, let them do a little work. Then when the pressure went back down, Saddam would return to his old tricks that he had been using to keep inspectors out for 7 or 8 years... including, as I noted, labelling dozens of sites "Presidential Palaces", so that inspectors would give them only cursory inspections, if any at all. Blix was, of necessity, a diplomat first and foremost and an inspector second. Real inspections don't work that way.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 12, 2006 05:50 PM

Saddam worked very hard to give the impression he retained WMD stockpiles, apparently as both an internal and external deterrent, and he DID retain the infrastructure and knowledge and equipment and scientists to quickly reconsitute WMD programs. See the Iraq Survey Group report and addenda.

If his own people were shocked to find out he didn't have stockpiles, how exactly were heavily-chaperoned and highly-contained UN inspectors supposed to verify he didn't, in a country the size of California? Heh. Not bloody likely.

A fairly broad overview of the whole mess can be found at Wikipedia.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Posted by: Tully at March 12, 2006 06:23 PM

Saddam's “own people” were subjected to constant loyalty tests and death threats from Saddam. Not exactly the kind of group that's going to go poking around for the truth. Those three monkeys come to mind: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 12, 2006 06:55 PM

What difference does that make to our foreign policy or intelligence analysis, Bob? Say our intelligence programs pick up conversations between 2 top generals discussing a meeting in which Saddam told them how well the biological weapons program was going. We can't very well disregard that just because they have to be "yes men" for Saddam.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 12, 2006 07:46 PM

Not just the dems but none of Congress has access to all the same official intel as the WH and cabinet. It's an assertion that cannot be truly backed up because it's not true. But definitely a lack of scrutiny and diligence on Congress's part was a contributing factor. They definitely weren't very demanding.

That's not the argument set forth in the article. There's a lot to be said about what the intelligence committees should have known and when they should have known it, but that's not the question that confronts us here.

I want to know why this information exonerates the Congresspersons with a D after their name but not the President.

Posted by: Cylinder at March 12, 2006 08:02 PM

By the by, we might look again at U.N. Resolution 1441 (2002) which, among other things, required Saddam's Iraq to cooperate "immediately, unconditionally, and actively" with UNMOVIC. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC at the time, issued a report to the Security Council on March 7, 2003, 2 weeks before the coalition forces invaded Iraq.

The report, while it tried to paint the best possible picture of inspections working, is notable for what it is forced to admit. When pressed to directly answer the question whether Iraq was in full compliance with Resolution 1441, Blix had this to say:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

Recall also that, as Blix notes at the beginning of his report, Saddam had banished the inspectors imposed by the U.N. after the invasion of Kuwait and did not allow them back in until Nov. 27, 2002, a development which "may well be due to the strong outside pressure."

Saddam never responded to U.N. resolutions except when there was real threat of military action against him. Even then, he generally lied and behaved beligerently. If anybody really believes that Saddam would have remained open and accomodating to U.N. inspections after credible threats of American military action dissipated, I've got a bridge to sell you....

Posted by: PatHMV at March 12, 2006 08:06 PM

My support for the war was only vaguely relevant to WMDs at the time. I felt that it would be a big mistake to let him go because when sanctions inevitably expired, does anbody doubt he would've restarted his nuclear program? Now, he was at the same time regularly ordering firing at Coalition aircraft, and broke every cease-fire provision available to him. Would we have wanted a man who clearly felt himself to be at war with us to have nuclear weapons? Would he have tried to evade MAD by handing nuclear weapons to terror groups?

Posted by: Jon Kay at March 12, 2006 08:54 PM

cylinder,

I'll grant you, I do no agree with that statement that says only congressmen with a D are pardonned.

My charge is much more broad. They all failed in this matter...the WH being first on the list for pushing this war and using select intelligence and public approval (fear from 9/11). IMO, congress as a whole gets less heat from me because they didn't have access to all the info that was privee to the WH.

Posted by: John at March 12, 2006 10:12 PM

John, do you really believe that Saddam would have allowed the inspections to continue without the immediate pressure of American military action? If so, why do you think he threw inspectors out in 1998 only to let them back in in 2002? And even when he did let them in, why didn't he provide "immediate, unconditional" cooperation with the inspections, as Hans Blix noted?

Posted by: PatHMV at March 12, 2006 10:24 PM

That doesn't mean we had to go to war. In hindsight, we should have let the inspection process play out, and we would have eventually learned the truth

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I was never in it because I thought he had weapons of mass destruction. As far as WMD were concerned, I had the same attitude as Tully: he either has them or he's doing a good job of pretending he does at a time when it'd be a really good idea to deny it. But I didn't care. I wasn't concerned about it; in fact, in retrospect, I was positively, and unwisely, cavalier about it, insofar as I assumed that if he had them, they were no threat to us, ignoring the prospect of transfer to terrorists. But in any instance, I didn't support liberation because I thought Saddam was hiding WMD, I supported it because he was a monstrous dictator who could only be taken out by direct military intervervention.

For this reason, I disagree with Rick's assesment, quoted above. If we had been blessed with foresight to know that there were no WMDs, it may never have been possible to convince the President to go into Iraq, it may never have been possible to convince the Congress to go along, and the net result would be that Saddam would still be in power today. There have been mistakes, and plenty of them, but I maintain it was still absolutely the right thing to do, and we will succeed.

Posted by: Simon at March 12, 2006 10:56 PM

Pat,

"John, do you really believe that Saddam would have allowed the inspections to continue without the immediate pressure of American military action?"

No, I don't. That's why I liked the fact that Bush was putting pressure on Saddam. But Bush didn't need to invade. His threat was working just fine. And the inspectors were doing their job. When Bush stopped everything that his pressure was yielding so he could invade anyway and defy the legitimacy of the very organization whose orders he was claiming to uphold, it looked bad to the world, to me and most importantly, to muslims.

All that aside, I, personally, had even less sympathy for Bush's cause and even less faith in his intentiions because I knew that that the Osama/9-11 and Saddam connection was total BS. It made me very angry.

Posted by: John at March 12, 2006 11:36 PM

As a supporter of the war then, and a cautious supporter now, I knew that there was a case for removing Saddam beyond WMDs, although the existence of WMDs was crucial. I for one never thought Bush lied, only that he really believed that he had them, and wasn't as interested in being exact as he should've been, before going to war.

A lot of people thought he had them, including the FRench, but we weren't sure. Even with a slam dunk, there's a case to be made that we should have planned better for the aftermath regardless.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at March 12, 2006 11:43 PM

John, the most intense pressure possible yielded only grudging support, as even Blix noted. The threat of military force, particularly given statements by France and Germany that they would NEVER support military force to unseat Saddam, would disappear very quickly. At most, the President could have maintained a credible threat of war for 6 to 9 months. And those 6 to 9 months would be full of more reports like Blix's: "well, it's certainly not perfect or everything the U.N. Security Counsel demanded, but it's a start and maybe it'll get better." And Germany and France would say "look, see, we've gotten some documents and they've inspected a few places, it's working". And our threats of force would evaporate, and we would still not be sure whether he had or could quickly develop WMD.

Plus, the sanctions would either have continued (causing great suffering among the Iraqis since Saddam mostly used the money coming in for his own benefit... but for which the U.S. was mostly blamed) or would have been lifted. There was great pressure to lift the sanctions before 9/11, and it would have picked up again, soon.

Frankly, among those paying attention at all, it seems that it was mostly the left who thought that President Bush was trying to connect Saddam to 9/11. What he actually said was that, in the aftermath of 9/11, we must interpret and react to risks differently than we did before 9/11. We can not wait, he said, for threats to become "imminent". I never understood him to be asserting a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Rafique, I agree we should have planned better for the aftermath. But I attribute that mostly to institutional failures on the Army's part rather than decisions made by the President and Secretary Rumsfeld. As I have said before, I think the Army had so institutionally embraced the "Powell Doctrine" that it refused to prepare for the kind of "peacekeeping" missions which the civilian leadership, under both the current President and President Clinton, wanted it to undertake. Our regular contributor Bobby frequently makes a similar point.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 13, 2006 12:04 AM

We didn't know one way or the other for very sure, and we were afraid to wait. THAT is what the facts are. It's precisely what Bush meant when he said that we couldn't afford to wait for the final proof, which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Anyone who's studied the history knows that SH had a long history of using the UN inspections process to jerk us around over and over, time and time again. Did the inspections "work?" Well, they never gave us anything like a 100% verifiable assesmment of the weapons situation. So in that sense, no they didn't work. But did they prevent Iraq from developing a WMD program that bore fruit? Apparently.

People seeking guarantees and cures found the sanctions/inspections Hussein mulberry bush routine deeply unsatisfying. Those people who counseled an invasion to enforce regime change got their way. Call 'em neocons (not all pro-invasion Americans were, but still.). At the time, critics warned neocons to be careful what they wished for, were worried about the price of such a tack, and were concerned that ultimately an invasion would bear bitter fruit.

So now about 3 years laters, the cost has been high. Probably higher than many Americans had expected, based on what they were told. That's debatable, of course. Bush's defenders always point out that Bush counseled that the road would be long and tough. Ok , but he never exactly highlighted that, did he? It's more like the half hour infomercial where you have to watch for 20 minutes before they tell you the price. Most of the rest is spent telling you how great the product is, and leaving out any info that might make you less likely to buy said product.

Defend Bush all you want if that's your bag, but over half of Americans believes they were sold a bill of goods.

And after 3 years, the outcome is still uncertain. With sectarian violence becoming more common, a growing majority of Americans expects civil war, and anyone who says that's not a pretty possible development today is whistling through the graveyard.

Posted by: bk at March 13, 2006 09:54 AM

With sectarian violence becoming more common, a growing majority of Americans expects civil war, and anyone who says that's not a pretty possible development today is whistling through the graveyard.

Always been a possible development. Was before the war, and was apparently Saddam's greatest fear, being squeezed between the Kurds and the Shia. Right now the insurgency, having failed to drive us out, having failed to stop the vote on the Constitution, having failed to stop the vote on a government, is trying to foment sectarian violence and promote a civil war. They're failing at that as well. Scarborough has some relevant thoughts over at MSNBC.

Or if you'd prefer things from a little closer to the source, the press briefings at CENTCOM are usually informative. MUCH more so than the sensationalist media chatter.

The insurgents have increasingly been targeting civilians. Attacks on Coalition troops continue to decline. Overall attacks continue to decline. The Iraqis themselves are taking a much larger role, and doing pretty well. Civil war is not looming, despite the media drumbeat. What is being seen are attempts to get one going, and some Mahdi Army and Baathist factions doing some score-settling and gang-banging under cover of that.

But the "civil war" scenario is much over-touted. The media's been playing it up since well before the invasion, yet it becomes less likely with each passing month.

Posted by: Tully at March 13, 2006 10:35 AM

Re: Being sold a bill of goods

Reconstruction will be paid for primarily from Iraqi oil revenues.

Posted by: WHQ at March 13, 2006 10:52 AM

Ok , but he never exactly highlighted that, did he?

bk, yes he did. Review his speech the night he announced the war. He said it was going to be long. What do want? Him to do backflips and scream like Dean? He could be defended in court if it came to that.
And no, I never voted for him and was against the war UNTIL those Dems in the Senate voted for it. And this discovery does NOT excuse them. They wanted to be part of the winners - unlike their opposition in the first Gulf War and THAT one was controversial from the beginning.
And what about Clinton's attack on Iraq around the time of his "impeachment" trials? Was that the beginning of deja vu all over again?
The Dems have just as much blood on their hands as the W. and the Reps as far as I'm concerned. If they think they don't they are delusional.

Posted by: Rachel at March 13, 2006 10:53 AM

Rachel, I often disagree with you on substantive matters, but I must admit that you are an equal-opportunity skewer-er and intellectually honest. Good post.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 13, 2006 11:04 AM

Rachel, I wouldn't be so foolish as to suggest the democrats have less blood on their hands. I've been very critical of the democrats in all of this. However, I must quarrel with your claim that the potential costs were "highlighted." I know that they were mentioned. IMO, mentioning is an awful lot less than than highlighting. I assume you are just being glib in asking if I expected backflips. What I would expect from an honest and serious leader is that he wouldn't conceal the costs and be overly sanguine.

Did he ask for sacrifice? Did he suggest we choose from some menu of tax hikes, war bonds, and specific program cuts to finance the substantial extra costs to the treasury of financing the effort? I don't recall that. My impression instead is that while the meter has been running, the pain to the people in ultimately shouldering these costs has been largely concealed for the sake of keeping support high.

Tully, I hope you are right in implying that Iraqi civil war is less of a possibility today than it was 6 months or a year ago. My concerns lies in my impression of the volatility of human nature. That means that a couple of ugly incidents and patterns can quickly overshadow an everyday prosaic trend of gradual progress such as you describe.

All it takes is one or two occurences in a high-stress situation and suddenly 9 out of 10 people feel a certain way about something regardless of whether they are right to feel that way. Centcom briefing are nice, but I'd like to know what Iraqis themselves are thinking and feeling these days.

Posted by: bk at March 13, 2006 11:35 AM

I agree it would be nice to hear what the Iraqis themselves have to say. And you can find it around the blogosphere generally. Unfortunately, the news media, which considers only negative actions to be "news", won't bother reporting the opinions of Iraqis, because they are largely upbeat and much more in favor of the American presence than is "proper" in polite circles.

Consider this letter from the mayor of Tal Afar, a town used by Abu Al Zarqawi. Consider all the evidence that Tully has repeatedly cited showing the actions taken by Iraqis leaders of all stripes to CALM passions rather than inflame them. That some evil people are trying to incite a civil war is not itself evidence that a civil war will come or that most Iraqis want or would tolerate a civil war.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 13, 2006 11:58 AM

What I'd like to see is regular poll results on a variety of questions.

Anecdotal accounts are worth viewing as positive signs, but I'm reluctant to accept them as persuasive evidence of what the trend is in public attitudes.

Posted by: bk at March 13, 2006 12:34 PM

I think we all need to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for both support of and oppostion to this war effort. Not everyone who supports it is a blind neo-con idealogue, and not everyone who opposes it is a Bush-hating flower child. And I think that no matter where you stand, you have to admit that some serious mistakes were made, as most people on this site are willing to do.

One of the problems with the perception of what is actually happening is that it is entirely too easy to focus on certain aspects of what is going on and to magnify them to distort the picture. This is a large effort, and some small portion of it can be made to appear as representing the whole. The media have their share of whores who care for nothing but ratings and readership.

There's also a problem on the selling of the war that goes beyond the actual words used. There is an intended reaction based on what people will or will not hear or remember. It's marketing. You can put enough cautionary language into a speech that can later be referenced as being up front, but the political truth of what was said and the indented effect can be a bit different.

Posted by: WHQ at March 13, 2006 01:05 PM

Tully, I hope you are right in implying that Iraqi civil war is less of a possibility today than it was 6 months or a year ago.

Tell me what the odds were six months or a year ago (real numbers) and we'd have a basis for such a call. I didn't really imply anything of the sort. I said that the civil war scenario has been much over-touted, which says nothing about the odds, either now or then. It was being hysterically touted before the invasion, hysterically touted during the invasion, hysterically touted after the invasion, hysterically touted before the first vote, hysterically touted before the next vote, etc. It's still being touted, and there is still no civil war. The dog keeps not barking in the nighttime.

Though I do believe (on subjective evidence) that it's much less of a threat now than a year ago. The Sunni leadership has given every indication that they can do simple math, and have noticed that they're seriously outnumbered by both the Kurds and the Shia, much less the two put together. And the evidence continues to pile up that the Sunnis have undertaken to drive out the worst of the jihadis in their areas, with or without the help of the government. Killing Sunnis to try and incite them to violence has worked, just not the way the jihadis desired. Now the Sunnis want to kill foreign jihadis, and many of their tribal leaders have signed on.

There will be ongoing violent conflict between factions for a generation, at least. Sectarian violence is about as likely to cease quickly in Iraq as it is in Israel or Lebanon or Egypt. But that's not civil war, any more than it was in Northern Ireland, or in Europe and America during the 60's and 70's.

Posted by: Tully at March 13, 2006 01:43 PM

Brian, then why are you so ready to take anecdotal reports of bad things to heart?

Posted by: PatHMV at March 13, 2006 01:45 PM

Pat, I don't pretend to know what's going on in toto, which is why I wish there were some sort of regular poll used for taking the temperature.

I've known for some time that devolution into Iraqi civil war was a possibility. Over the past couple years, I saw what looked like a reasonable trend, progress towards establishing instutional democracy. And as I said, I knew that any sort of violent provocation could upset whatever tenuous trends had begun to establish themselves. Abu Ghraib was one of those incidents. I took it as a positive that relative calm was maintained then, despite what could have been a catalyst for violence.

The mosque bombing is another such instance. Prominent provocative events carry outsized risk, and there's been violence in the aftermath that suggests escalation may result. I don't class that as anecdote. I haven't simply assumed that media reports of sectarian violence in fact indicate that the violence is either especially widespread or escalating. I simply worry that something might have been triggered.

Now perhaps as Tully suggests Iraq is indeed MORE settled down now than it was 6 months or a year ago. I remain skeptical that this is indeed so. And I suspect that the mosque bombing has made many Iraqis much more tense than they had been before the bombing. But I still hope that Iraq responds in a way that affirms the nascent civil culture. If another couple weeks or a month goes by without obvious devolution, that'll make me happy.

Posted by: bk at March 13, 2006 03:04 PM

I think we all need to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for both support of and oppostion to this war effort. Not everyone who supports it is a blind neo-con idealogue

Well, the problem with this comment is that it suggests that support for the war which stems from a neoconservative paradigm (see, e.g., Kristol & Kagan, National Interest & Global Responsibility, in THE NEOCON READER (I. Stelzer, ed.) at pp.57-77) is illegitimate, and I just don't buy that. Once one gets past the use of "neocon" as an epithet, and gets used to the idea that it stands for a set of ideas about how the world works, the idea that it is an illegitimate reason for action becomes nonsensical. The prevailing neoconservative paradigm on foreign policy - that the world is densely interconnected, that our national interests to not stop at our borders, and that pre-emptive defense is a valid - may be debatable, but it is certainly not by any means an illegitimate theory, and by extension, it is not an illegitimate reason to support going to war.

More and more, I think people delude themselves into believing that there is not only such a thing as "common sense," but a singular "common sense," a brooding omnipresence in the sky, and if only these idealogues would quit being ideologues and get on board with the search to discover what that singular common sense is. But this is ridiculous; to be sure, there is such a thing as common sense, but it is paradigm-dependent. To the people who believed in the Ptolemaic system, the idea that the sun revolved around the earth was common sense - to say otherwise was absurd within that paradigm. Likewise, I don't think that it's illegitimate to analyze a situation within a certain intellectual paradigm and reach conclusions that stem from that process - and frankly, I seriously doubt that it is POSSIBLE to reach a conclusion free of any underlying precepts.

Posted by: Simon at March 13, 2006 04:00 PM

Very well said, Simon.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 13, 2006 04:07 PM

Did he ask for sacrifice? Did he suggest we choose from some menu of tax hikes, war bonds, and specific program cuts to finance the substantial extra costs to the treasury of financing the effort? I don't recall that. My impression instead is that while the meter has been running, the pain to the people in ultimately shouldering these costs has been largely concealed for the sake of keeping support high.

Brian; Help me with the reasoning here. Is it better to plead for US troops to go to Darfur to maintain peace and preserve life but not ask for specific tax increases or other sacrifices or is it better to "go for it" and figure out the costs later? What will the American public "buy" in foreign policy? Posted by: C3 at March 13, 2006 04:51 PM

Simon, you're reading way too much into what I wrote. I simply chose a characterization typical of those bandied about by some who oppose the war with regard to those who support it. Please also note the use of the word "blind." My point is, you don't have to be frothing at the mouth to support or oppose this war. There are valid reasons for either position.

Posted by: WHQ at March 13, 2006 05:00 PM

Rachel, I often disagree with you on substantive matters, but I must admit that you are an equal-opportunity skewer-er and intellectually honest. Good post.

Thanks, Pat. I just try to write what I remember.

Posted by: Rachel at March 13, 2006 07:34 PM

I'm getting some reports from back-door sources that the four hanged men found in Sadr City were captured and summarily executed by the Mahdi Army after being caught with mortar tubes and explosives during the attacks on Shia areas the other night. Other more open-source reports indicate that at least one of them was a Syrian associated with AQ. Jihadis trying to push the Shia majority into attacking Sunnis.

Apparently al-Sadr and company aren't buying the bullshit. Al-Sadr issued a public statement today absolving the Sunnis of the attacks, proclaiming that Al Qaeda was the guilty party.

Yep, attempts to promote civil war will continue, but it seems the bigger players aren't taking the bait for now. And they're biting back.

Posted by: Tully at March 13, 2006 07:40 PM

Brian; Help me with the reasoning here. Is it better to plead for US troops to go to Darfur to maintain peace and preserve life but not ask for specific tax increases or other sacrifices or is it better to "go for it" and figure out the costs later? What will the American public "buy" in foreign policy?

C'mon, Chris, we're all familiar with how to respond in the case of an emergency. In the short term, I don't have any quarrel with responding first and letting the consequences slide. But I do have a problem with letting the meter run for as long as it takes without having a good plan to deal with it, and without calling the cost to the people's attention. The war's 3 years old, it's apparently costing us a lot of money, to say nothing of the opportunity costs of engaging significant personnel and financial resources in Iraq that can't be deployed elsewhere.

Most rational Americans like to know the cost of something in deciding whether the purchase is worth it. Our resources are finite. There's no free lunch. I insist that our leaders do the math, Period. My impression is that Bush, at least by his actions, feels that the best way to keep support for the war high is to help average Americans avoid facing the price. That troubles me.

Posted by: bk at March 14, 2006 10:17 AM