How likely is it that the US re-activated the Gulf War and held Iraq accountable for its breaches of the GW1 armistice without carefully considering the ways to wring the last drop of strategic advantage from the situation, especially in relation to Iran? That is just not how governments work.

MarkL, you appear to share this view with some left-wing conspiracists who perceive the Bush administration to have been populated by evil geniuses.

On the other hand, my view on the matter, and the one that is more borne out by experience is that there was some very poor and flawed thinking on these matters inside the Bush administration. Rather than evil geniuses, the folks involved were naughty idiots.

2.

So what? That legally the US might not consider itself at war is irrelevant as the US is hardly in the business of randomly setting off bombs in railway networks or deliberately aiming to expunge any particular religion (let alone all of them).

If you go back and look at the genesis of this thread, you’ll perceive that my point about the constitutionality of the war is the central issue because the declaration of war made thereby explains the legal reason for requiring Americans to spend blood and treasure on the venture. Any other motive or objective represents an illegal hidden agenda. A comparison of the aims of the US government and of various islamist groups is beside the point.

3.

You have mistakenly inverted my point in your final sentence. I do not allege that the US is engaged in “the Long War” against islamism at all – it is an historic fact that islam is engaged in “The Long War” against all other religions, civilisations and cultures.

No, not all of Islam, only some Islamists. The biggest mistake of the Bush administration has been to allow Islamists to persuade many more Muslims than was sensible to enlist in Islamist ventures. These numbers are still small, although troublesome. The Bush administration has been the author of many of its difficulties and of difficulties that the Bush administration has bequeathed to the world.

But that’s what naughty idiots are wont to do.

“…such conversion is done by endless wars of unprovoked aggression, according to the historical record of the last 1400 years.”

Good grief! They’re certainly taking their sweet time, aren’t they? I mean for the first eleven centuries the US wasn’t even around to hold them back!!!

1. “A bit beside the point.” It isn’t beside the point … Ex poste facto any justification for any bellicose action can be cobbled together if you accept that provoking the rise of a resistance force is justification for being there in the first place in order to suppress resistance.

Katz, you are correct in that such post-facto justifications can be made: they DO have to be watched for, because they can distort perceptions of the strategic reality. This has occurred here: your assumption here is that all the strategic issues here were post-facto, and that is demonstrably not correct. Few governments act that way, even the ‘insane’ National Socialist government of Germany acted rationally in response to their own framework of strategic drivers (see Gotz Aly, ‘Hitler’s Beneficiaries’ for examples on the economic side). How likely is it that the US re-activated the Gulf War and held Iraq accountable for its breaches of the GW1 armistice without carefully considering the ways to wring the last drop of strategic advantage from the situation, especially in relation to Iran? That is just not how governments work.

2. “The long war is an historical reality.” Under the US constitution it is a reality only if it is acknowledged to be a reality and is incorporated into a formal declaration of war aims. Otherwise, under US law it is extra-legal and therefore potentially impeachable.

So what? That legally the US might not consider itself at war is irrelevant as the US is hardly in the business of randomly setting off bombs in railway networks or deliberately aiming to expunge any particular religion (let alone all of them). Similarly, Spain does not consider itself at war. Not relevant. What matters is that islamists consider themselves to be at war with the US, Australia, Canada, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Thailand, India, China, Russia… and all the rest of us. And they demonstrably DO randomly set off bombs in our railway networks and deliberately aim to expunge all other religions. So, we have to respond. But yes, it’s a shadowy war, and the public will not see most of it.

3. “Islamist? Or Islamic? The Iranian totalitarian state is Islamist.” There are many unattractive aspects of the Iranian regime, but being totalitarian isn’t one of them. This trope, which is an artifact of Nazism and Stalinism, doesn’t apply to Iran.

“Islamist” isn’t a quality of totalitarianism. Rather, it is a label that identifies the ambitions of a regime: that is to convert the world to Islam. There is nothing in the constitution or identifiable ambitions of Iraq’s Islamic Dawa Party that distinguishes it from their sponsors in Iran in regard to this ambition. Thus, if the political classes of Teheran can be designated as Islamist, so can their clients in Baghdad. The irony of the regime in Baghdad is that it is funded by the US, who you allege is engaged in a “long war” against Islamism.

Quite a good point on semantics: “expansionist islamic fascism” or “islamic conquest ideology’ are then perhaps better descriptors. ‘Totalitarian’ is insufficiently accurate.

You have mistakenly inverted my point in your final sentence. I do not allege that the US is engaged in “the Long War” against islamism at all – it is an historic fact that islam is engaged in “The Long War” against all other religions, civilisations and cultures. You yourself openly acknowledge this above: “it is a label that identifies the ambitions of a regime: that is to convert the world to Islam. “. And such conversion is done by endless wars of unprovoked aggression, according to the historical record of the last 1400 years.

I take it from this very limited engagement on a very small range of points within my strategic argument that you do not find it terribly divergent from your own views?

It is regrettable that Robert lacks the time to discuss this issue offline. I have just noted that he will not be able to contact me via my old email. Robert, should you want to discuss this matter, I will set up a blind account so that we may.

MarkL
Canberra

But enough about that ute fiasco….

One can understand why many citizens of the CoW are subconsciously reluctant to admit to the enormity of the consequences of the crimes committed in their name. Nevertheless the affair was significantly enabled by their moral and ethical blindness. It might be true that there are no stupid children, only stupid questions, but I don’t believe we should adopt a convention that there are no bad people, only bad arguments.

But don’t you think calling the “cheer-leaders” was…. maybe… a bit harsh. They’re the real victims after all.

Katz would, of course, … point out that such an order would have been certain grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

You would be incorrect, again. For better or for worse, there is nothing illegal under US law in Clinton’s use of the CIA for the stated purpose.

There are many introductory texts on the US Constitution. Most of them would be informative for you.

However, it was true that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives were successful in having Clinton impeached for lying about his sexual dalliances. Impeachment is a political process. It would therefore have been quite in character for the 1990s Republicans to impeach Clinton for not breaching US law.

So, accidentally, GregM, you may be correct.

However these third party AQ-Iraq links and fellow passenger stuff were never enough to tie Saddam to AQ directly in respect of 9/11. It was always a stretch of the US’s credibility esp. at that time and the use of dodgy intelligence was just pathetic. Nor should any of this outweigh whether it was the best strategic move to invade Iraq at that time or ever, and it should go without saying without building a proper case and putting in the hard yards to gain a resolution. Besides having a plan for what happens after Shock & Awe.

“We were chronically under-staffed,” said Bremer. “Pre-war planning had not anticipated the difficulty of the job we faced,” he said. “I think pre-war planning was inadequate,” Bremer repeated.

The incompetence, lack of planning & execution post invasion and their dodgy contracting etc only really became evident to the US public when the winds of Katrina blew apart their wink, wink, nudge, nudge style of administration.

MarkL btw. referred to the Malaysian AQ meeting just prior to 9/11:

… [Hijacker Khalid al-]Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir’s identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar. See CIA briefing by CTC specialists (June 22, 2004); Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen, “Al Qaeda Link to Iraq May Be Confusion over Names,” Washington Post, June 22, 2004,

Although it is possible that Iraqi national Shakir who was at the meeting could have been relaying to Saddam foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks; we’ll never really know now and even if the Iraqi Govt knew and possibly other Govts – does this mean they were complict, after all they were bitter enemies of the US. Otoh, Saddam was a great survivor and directly attacking the US homeland would mean the end for him. And it did regardless of Iraqi Govt invovlement.

Kingsley can you post links to the sort of things you’ve been reading, I’m relying on reports from the Pentagon under Bush 2. I managed to get through 2 volumes of the captured documents and ‘banality of evil’ is a precise description of the mostly IIS documents.

Most of the documents are related to missions and plots undertaken by their own security forces mostly internal, some external included a failed bombing attempt in 93/94 against external American interests (US embassy in the Philippines). Support & reports for internal Islamist groups undertaking missions against the Kurds and/or Iran. Reports on IIS or internal groups undertaking internal missions against UN personnel, aid workers. Support and funding of Palestinian terror missions, some intelligence reports on what anti-Kuwaiti Govt and anti-Saudi/Yemeni Govt anti-US groups with links to AG were up to and over a longish period of time….. but no smoking gun as the exec summary states.

That said, it does amaze me that there is any surprise that Saddam and crew would not have had operatives, spies and paid informers working assiduously internally and eternally with links to all sorts of organisations, isn’t that the very definition of a repressive regime with a huge operational security apparatus?

Things have moved on considerably since 2003, and now a new Administration has to deal with any blowback from the previous administration as all do, and hopefully build on any achievements (even if gained at the expense of innocent lives.) So we’ll see again if diplomacy and negotiation rather than the use of force only can progress the interests of citizens in many countries and sponsor good governance and provide justice etc. But if or when force is required, then hopefully there will be the willingness to put in the hard yards to build global alliances, to obtain UN resolutions, plan and most importantly provide evidence and the moral case by transparent and accountable means.

Anyway that’s way more than enough from me on the subject, I have a gigantic pile of housework to do.