Well, spook… in a universe where all things are relative, the big scheme of things is what is important.
According to Doaist notions, the greatest brilliance often appears foolish.
Actually, I don’t think Bush is a genius… I think his approach to the middle east is one of common sense. Sure, he’s screwed up some of the details, but - and I think this is what matters - in the big scheme of things, he appears to have judged correctly the possibilities while those so much smarter than him are grasping now for alternative explanations to what they only recently claimed to be impossible.
[quote=“Youssef M. Ibrahim”][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28948-2005Mar12.html]Listen to the conversations in the cafes on the edge of the creek that runs through this Persian Gulf city, and it is hard to believe that the George W. Bush being praised by Arab diners is the same George W. Bush who has been widely excoriated in these parts ever since he took office.
Yet the balmy breeze blowing along the creek carries murmurs of approval for the devoutly Christian U.S. president, whose persistent calls for democracy in the Middle East are looking less like preaching and more like timely encouragement. [/url][/quote]
No one would disagree that things may be changing for the better save for leftwing ideologues. Naturally, the triumphalism is premature, and dangerous, even. And the accent is on may.
Bush has poked a boil, and I for one agree that it was the right thing to do.
However, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the contempt for the Geneva Convention, the failure to secure weapons sites after the invasion, and the utter lack of any coherent plan following the war are not minor quibbles. Rather, they reveal an administration at sea. They have no idea what the f**k they are doing. And never mind Afghanistan, which is not nearly out of the woods yet. If this all blows up in their faces you can point to any of these problems as possible contributing causes.
Everyone knows that nothing is for certain in war, that you try to stack the deck on your side and hope for the best outcome. So why the feck do they keep shooting themselves in the foot? I just cannot understand it. The only possible reason I can come up with is that they’re wilfully obtuse.
The big issue here is that the media has made war an art of perfection. Any casualties, deaths and setbacks are proof of incompetence, etc.
Yes, these were all mistakes, but I would challenge you to find a war in which abuses did NOT occur. The weapons sites certainly should have been better secured and this pisses me off most of all. There should have been a better plan for the follow up when all the looting occurred, but OVERALL, these have not stopped the path forward and THAT was no where to taking place before so while Bush in the words of the respected Economist has been to a certain degree incompetent, I will take that over the inaction that preceded it.
Far from the story disappearing right after the election, we see that a careful examination of what really happened has gone on. Whereas before the election, when we heard rough accounts from Al Qaqaa, about how Bush administration incompetence allowed all the old UN-identified-and-sealed sites to slip right into looters’ hands, now we see that the looting was very systematic. Looks like Bush still has some ‘splainin’ to do about how he could possibly conduct a war to “protect us from WMDs” that, through his administration’s gross incompetence, led precisely to the looting of all those sites’ material into the international black markets.
Do I feel “safer” after the Iraq war? No.
[quote]American military officials in Baghdad did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the findings. But American officials have said in the past that while they were aware of the importance of some of the installations, there was not enough military personnel to guard all of them during and after the invasion.
White House officials, apprised of the Iraqi account by The New York Times, said it was already well known that many weapons sites had been looted. They had no other comment.
The peak of the organized looting, Dr. Araji estimates, occurred in four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 as teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. That operation was followed by rounds of less discriminating thievery.[/quote]
As far as I’m concerned, the Bush administration went about this war so sloppily and with so little concern for the safety of American society that it is exactly as bad as if they had put these weapons directly into the hands of the terrorists.
Looks like that big rush to the oil ministry was about all the Bushies were concerned about.
First of all, I find it highly ironic that suddenly MFGR is concerned about the wmd equipment that might have been looted. So then there WAS a concern about wmds after all? I thought that since there were no wmds in Iraq, this was not a big deal.
Given past reporting, I would like to know exactly what was lost and when. I also find it very interesting that this was done so professionally, almost as if the looters knew exactly where to go and what to take. This leads me to believe that the “looters” were in fact Iraqi government officials and secret service personnel and where did all this equipment go to? And why was this specifically targeted? To cover something up? To get something out of the country? What?
Yes, I agree with MFGR that there are lots of questions that remain to be asked about this but like the al Qaqaa story we may find that the final results are less shocking than the headlines proclaim. For example, the big al Qaqaa story which we have heard little about since had headlines that screamed 380 tons or was it 350 or was it 250 or was it 50 or was it 5 tons of explosives stolen but no one seems to know just how many tons of explosives were in fact remaining at this site.
As to this constant refrain of the Oil Ministry. MFGR. It was only a building. What is the big deal about taking over the building when we had already secured the oil fields in the north and south? Why would this building be so valuable? The oil industry which we do not in any way control could have been run from ANY building. And I really doubt that there was this mad rush to ONLY the Oil Ministry Building. I believe that there was a mad rush to take Baghdad and then secure the necessary venues from which to administer Iraq. Would you not agree that Saddam’s Republican Palace was really the biggest objective in the takeover of Baghdad?
But as we know, it was all about the Unilocal gas pipeline in Afghanistan (where is it? when are they going to build it?) and now in Iraq it is still all about oil for some people (when will the Americans control it? When will we profit from it? Why spend $300 billion to get maybe $10 billion a year in oil? Which we have not even been able to get or benefit from in two years?)
And yet, the Iraqi people voted in their first real free election despite the threat of harm to them… and the winds of change brought about by Bush’s policies continue to sweep across the middle east…
Let’s take a nice look at this article by Victor Davis Hanson… Several excerpts below. The whole article can be read at the link given.
[quote][url=http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200503110746.asp]I know that things are going pretty well in America’s efforts in the Middle East when Fareed Zakaria, who was a sharp critic over the last two years, now assures us that events are working out in Iraq
I suppose you don’t care about the identified-and-sealed-by-the-UN sites. All those years of weapons inspections, and you figure it’s just as well if these all fall into the hands of the insurgency or neighboring members of the “axis of evil.” Seems like the U.S. simply did not bother to secure the already-identified locations.
Well, not much of a cover up if you figure that many of these sites had already been identified and sealed by the UN weapons inspectors. Basically, a bunch of “secured” sites were made insecure by virtue of the poorly planned invasion. It also looks bad for the Bushies that we know troops were getting to some of these sites in early April, but we didn’t bother to secure them. Thus, they just “passed through” (like Col. Anderson’s unit of the 101st Airborne) WMD sites the UN had sealed.
I provided a link (twice now) to an article in which numerous eyewitnesses came forward to state that the Al Qaqaa site was looted after the U.S. troops passed through. We already have the Bush administration on record lying about the extent of Col. Anderson’s unit’s visit to the site. We also have the DoD (since when were they working for the GOP??) releasing falsely labeled photographs of the Al Qaqaa site. Yes, there are a lot of questions remaining to be asked.
It’s a good example for the sorts of sites that our troops were ordered to secure. They weren’t ordered to secure the UN-identified-and-sealed WMD sites… they didn’t feel it was necessary to maintain order in the streets of Baghdad… but when it came down to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, boy did we have that locked down! We were very limited in our view of the sorts of institutions of Baathist Iraq that we felt were worthwhile preserving. Apparently Abu Ghraib was able to continue operations “under new management” quite rapidly…
Each article and report from Al Qaqaa including the two that MFGR supplied contained different accounts. There were no UN personnel there for a period of time. How do you know that some of this was not removed BEFORE the US got there. All you know is that SOME of it went missing after the US troops invaded.
So again the question: IF this weaponry is worrisome enough to warrant frontpage headlines about its going missing, why does it not warrant Bush’s concern about Saddam’s capabilities before the invasion?
Fred might deny what the articles actually say and might think that all these witnesses and TV cameras, sat photos, etc. are just not enough for him. However, it’s pretty funny that between the UN and the new article just out, one can see that there are more inconsistencies on the Bush administration account of just what on earth they were trying to do.
If the war was about WMDs, one would figure it would make sense to secure the identified (and sealed by UN weapons inspectors) sites. Instead, we did nothing of the kind. Any excuses that there were “too many sites” fall flat because there are way too many generals on the record saying Rumsfeldian notions about troop strength were way off. (But aside from that, just look at the already posted comments by Powell and Bremer on the problems with troop strength and the impact on maintaining order in the streets.)
If you look at where the U.S. forces were directed by their “commander in chief” to expend their effort, one can quite clearly see that they were not being encouraged to maintain order (a key part of the subsequent insurgency, if you ask Bremer) or being directed to secure the key WMD sites (the whole rationale for the war). Meanwhile, we apparently did a great job of securing the Oil Ministry and the Abu Ghraib prison!
Show me a definitive account of how many weapons were at Al Qaqaa when the US troops arrived and how many were definitively missing.
Ironically, we are in agreement here somewhat, not because of the Ministry of Oil or whatever other harebrained theories you have but because I truly believe(d) that Saddam had threatening weapons. These sites should have been better secured and I am very irritated that they were not. My position therefore remains consistent while yours still remains something like this:
Saddam was not a threat. His weapons were not dangerous. We should not have invaded, but also at the same time you are arguing: His weapons were a threat and we should have done more to secure them.
Saddam was not a threat. His weapons were not dangerous. We should not have invaded. However, the UN people found lots of stuff that they sealed up. Sealed up stuff should not have been abandoned to terrorists or left to be carted away by entrepreneurs to neighboring “axis of evil” nations. Furthermore, even if there had been any sites not examined by UN weapons inspectors, we should have secured those as well.
What we have is a fairly consistent picture in which WMD sites located and sealed by the UN were broken into easily and freely by a variety of people. One of the early disturbing reports back in 2003 was the news footage of local unsuspecting Iraqis using big steel drums formerly filled with toxic stuff from a UN-sealed site to cart about milk.
The interesting details about Al Qaqaa are as follows:
In early April a U.S. unit got to the site. They didn’t know it was “important” in any sense and, in the words of the reporter and the commanding officer there, they simply passed through. A “pit stop” was one phrase used.
Later, a bunch more soldiers went through with a different TV crew and shot footage. The footage showed U.S. soldiers breaking into the bunker and, furthermore, showed that the UN seals were still all over the contents of that bunker. The seals were of the sorts used for explosives.
Local workers and residents are interviewed. These witnesses say that the major looting happened when the U.S. troops left that area.
The result is an overall picture far more consistent than the Bush administration story on this site: Troops going through an important site did not know it was worth securing, left the stuff behind (UN seals and all), and it was plundered. This picture appears consistent with both the UN report and the latest article I posted on the failure to secure the WMD-related sites.
It would seem that the U.S. invasion served to allow a wide variety of people to get their hands on everything that the UN teams spent years locating. Seems that the invasion’s results on the overall WMD picture was even worse than suspected.
Yes, but what you do not know is whether these sites were broken into after the UN inspectors left and BEFORE the US troops arrived or whether all of this disappeared AFTER the US troops arrived.
Yes, all true.
[quote]The interesting details about Al Qaqaa are as follows:
In early April a U.S. unit got to the site. They didn’t know it was “important” in any sense and, in the words of the reporter and the commanding officer there, they simply passed through. A “pit stop” was one phrase used. [/quote]
Agree that they should have known that this was an important site.
Yes, SOME of the bunkers had intact seals on them, but did they ALL? No one seems to know.
True, they have given accounts but you still do not know that anything did not leave before the US troops arrived.
Yes, I could see how you arrived at that conclusion but you do not KNOW for sure. You are awfully quick to jump to the conclusion that Bush must be wrong about this and if this is as you say it is then I would agree. BUT you have discredited yourself by not also being just as willing to accept similar evidence for proof that Saddam was out of line. Why then should we suddenly find your concerns worthy of attention?
If you are right, then I would agree and I would like to make sure that we take out Syria to get to the bottom of this once and for all. Let’s take out Syria. It’s part of the whole mess. Did you read my post on the cooperation between Syria, Iraq and Iran before the invasion? What about the involvement of the French, UN and Russians in helping Saddam perhaps dispose or cover up those little goodies? We need to investigate this thoroughly and if Bush has failed to protect these sites I will be pissed but that pales in comparison to my happiness that he did in fact finally act. I am glad that Iraq is not a threat anymore. These weapons could still exist and we need to track them down but at least the whole country has been taken out of the terrorist camp. While they may still be active as they are in Afghanistan, they no longer have any safe havens to run to. We must take Iran and Syria and Lebanon out of the equation next.
Do we have the military resources to do so? To occupy another country? Perhaps it would be better to encourage the Syrians themselves to take into their hands their own freedom. Freedom earned is far better than freedom “given”.
Are you saying that the French, UN and Russians helped spirit away the materials cached at UN-sealed sites? Please provide links.
Bush undercut his stated purpose in going into Iraq (WMDs) greatly by failing to make securing of these sites a major priority. Of course, I’ve been consistently in favor of the “ounce of prevention” sort of common sense that seems to be lacking in this administration. While we’re at it, we’d better make sure those Russian weapons-lab scientists and weapon-stockpile guards are getting regular paychecks. Just an idea. Don’t want weapons getting into the hands of those who desperately want them.
Were they? Saddam Hussein seemed far more interested in self-preservation than in attacking the U.S. His war against Iran was much applauded by the U.S. at the time … and his repressive methods toward his own people was in line with the sort of brutality tolerated by both sides during the Cold War. We had this guy bottled up, with tight security (at Saddam’s expense!) on all these sites. Iraq was, as a secular Baathist regime, also not a hotbed of Islamic radicalism.
Was the whole country ever in the “terrorist camp”? That’s news to anybody who ever reads news. Terrorist activities were not tolerated within Saddam’s Iraq. Now that the U.S. has invaded and “spread the cornflakes about the kitchen”, we have a country with serious terror problems.
