Some Reality: The Origins of the Iraq War

G

gvf

Moderator
So much for Evil George Bush lying about Weapons of MD to start a war against
a dictator done for good with any interest in them:

(Doesn't mean one has to agree with his original policy in Iraq, but also doesn't mean we were an evil-country for the policy we had.)

Agent: Hussein was surprised U.S. invaded


(CNN) -- Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.
art.saddam.jpg

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in an unknown location in Iraq after his capture in 2003.

According to a CBS report, Hussein claimed he didn't anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, agent George Piro said on "60 Minutes," scheduled for Sunday broadcast.

"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro.

During the nearly seven months Piro talked to Hussein, the agent hinted to the Iraqi that he answered directly to President Bush, CBS said in a posting on its Web site.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack," Piro said. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."

"He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" Correspondent Scott Pelley asked.

"No, not initially," Piro answered.


Once it was clear that an invasion was imminent, Hussein asked his generals to hold off the allied forces for two weeks, Piro said. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," the agent said, referring to the insurgency.

But Piro said he was not sure that the insurgency was indeed part of Hussein's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," he said.

Hussein had the ability to restart the weapons program and professed to wanting to do that, Piro said.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program."

Hussein said he was proud he eluded U.S. authorities who searched for him for nine months after the U.S.-led invasion, Piro said.

"What he wanted to really illustrate is ... how he was able to outsmart us," Piro said. "He told me he changed ... the way he traveled. He got rid of his normal vehicles. He got rid of the protective detail that he traveled with, really just to change his signature."
 
Bush did the best job he could with the crap intelligence provided by CIA. He's undoubtedly doing the best he can with the crap intelligence CIA is providing on Iran as well. Not a hopeful picture at all.

Any hope of avoiding a repeat of the Iraq debacle has to start with a serious look at what's wrong with the CIA. Why is there such a pronounced, long term trend of ineptitude there?

With an estimated $45 Billion dollar annual budget, somewhere around 40,000 employees, access to the best satellite data, nearly unlimited funds for the purpose, and over 10 years to get the job done, you'd think that the Central Intelligence Agency could have provided more accurate information to the President on Iraq's WMD programs, an issue of such critical importance to America's national security.
 
I think the US had an interest in Iraq that go well beyond WMD. It involves shoring up US / UK oil supplies. As such it was an illegal invasion.

I mean no disprespect in making this claim to the men and women of the US / UK/ Aust etc who have been in Iraq, they have fulfilled their duty as well as can be expected, my criticism is with the Politicians.

The CIA was until the time of the war still geared for fighting a cold war. It takes a considerable amount of time / expense and effort to develop the human assetts needed for this kind of intelligence. One simply cannot rely on satellite intel.
 
The CIA had more then ample time to develop human intelligence assets in Iraq, from the end of the first Gulf war all through 8 years of the Clinton Administration and the first year of George W. Bush's first term.

George W. Bush certainly takes a measure of blame for the current state of the CIA. He's shown extremely poor judgement as exemplified by leaving Tenet as DCI after 9/11, failing to back up Goss, etc.
 
I think the US had an interest in Iraq that go well beyond WMD. It involves shoring up US / UK oil supplies. As such it was an illegal invasion.
Click to expand...
Nice try. So both major political parties of the US operated cooperatively to start an illegal war for Iraqi oil but 5 years later there's no international charges and we aren't importing the oil? Meanwhile we'll overlook the 12 years of Saddam violating UN resolutions and sanctions. (Not to mention some illegal arms dealing by some major member nations) and Saddam firing at coalition planes, breaking his surrender terms.
 
The fact that both major political parties in America wanted war with Iraq does not remove the illegality of it.

The notion someone posted that "Bush II did the best he could with the intelligence available at the time" apparently doesn't know how often invading Iraq was written about prior to the Bush II election, but Bush advisers. You can read most of it on the PNAC web site.

You'd also have to ignore the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon, who's job it was to cherry pick intelligence on Iraq to support invasion plans, and stove pipe that information as analyzed reports to the White House (to certain reluctant staffers, not to Bush) and to congress. You can read that story here.
 
The notion someone posted that "Bush II did the best he could with the intelligence available at the time" apparently doesn't know how often invading Iraq was written about prior to the Bush II election, but Bush advisers. You can read most of it on the PNAC web site.
Click to expand...

First, the DoD and other agencies essentially "war game" various conflict scenarios all the time. Plans for conflict with China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc. were and are "written about" extensively all the time. It doesn't mean any decision act on the plans has been taken.

More active planning, and the decision to go into Iraq were based on crap intelligence provided by CIA. Crap intelligence that had a broad spectrum of US (and foreign) political leaders convinced that Iraq had an active WMD program post 9/11.

Tenet's "slam dunk" comment is a case in point, despite his later attempts to dodge responsibility in the matter.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of WMD, and I believe that they had it, the war was carried out in a manner that was advised against. General Shinsheki advocated a surge from the beginning. In his retirement speech he said: "Beware of the 12 division solution for the 10 division army." He was prophetic. The whole thing was sloppy and Rumsfeld cherry picked advisors. When a General disagreed with him, he simply ignored him and found one who did.

Second point. Since many of you don't think you need a declaration of war to go to war, the authorization for the use of force defined victory as two things: Removal of Saddam and his ruling party and the enforcement of pertinent UN resolutions (i.e: WMD). Having accomplished both tasks three years ago, I fail to see why we're still there. It smells an awful lot like nation building. Of course- Iraq is a tar baby. We can't leave but we can't stay. If we leave, the Iranians become the superpower of the middle east. If we stay, we continue to drain our treasury at an alarming rate.

This isn't new info. During the first PGW, we were told that the reason we left Saddam in power and even failed to destroy his entire army (something we could have easily accomplished), was that we didn't want a power vacuum that Iran would fill. So now we are watching our currency fall while we pay to keep Iran from doing what we knew they'd do as far back as 1991.

In the mean time, our soldiers are paying the price further than our taxpayers ever could.
 
Second point. Since many of you don't think you need a declaration of war to go to war, the authorization for the use of force defined victory as two things: Removal of Saddam and his ruling party and the enforcement of pertinent UN resolutions (i.e: WMD). Having accomplished both tasks three years ago, I fail to see why we're still there. It smells an awful lot like nation building. Of course- Iraq is a tar baby. We can't leave but we can't stay. If we leave, the Iranians become the superpower of the middle east. If we stay, we continue to drain our treasury at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...
There's no question it could have been done better and more troops would have been a good thing. Since we are fantasizing about the past, if the UN had supported it's own resolutions and sanctions there would have likely been no war. To your other point, the radical Muslims decided it was a battlefront for Islam, leaving now would be foolish, especially since progress is being made and many Muslims are now against the fundamentalists.

This isn't new info. During the first PGW, we were told that the reason we left Saddam in power and even failed to destroy his entire army (something we could have easily accomplished), was that we didn't want a power vacuum that Iran would fill. So now we are watching our currency fall while we pay to keep Iran from doing what we knew they'd do as far back as 1991.
Click to expand...
I don't know who told you that, I never heard that one. The reason we didn't do more was that in order to build the Arabian coalition there were limitations on what could and what couldn't be done. Taking over Iraq wasn't an option.
 
First, the DoD and other agencies essentially "war game" various conflict scenarios all the time. Plans for conflict with China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc. were and are "written about" extensively all the time. It doesn't mean any decision act on the plans has been taken.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about this type of planning.

I'm speaking of direct planning by the civilians in the Bush II regime that had plans to invade Iraq specically without regard to rationale long before the elections in 2000. THOSE are available just where I said they are.

More active planning, and the decision to go into Iraq were based on crap intelligence provided by CIA. Crap intelligence that had a broad spectrum of US (and foreign) political leaders convinced that Iraq had an active WMD program post 9/11.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. Accurate intelligence was available, but short stopped, not by the CIA, but by the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon, just as I said.

In fact, the attempt to lay the blame off on the CIA is a part of the punishment game being played by the Bush regime because the CIA resisted and continues to resist where the Bush regime and the rest of the neoConservatives want to go.

Tenet's "slam dunk" comment is a case in point, despite his later sniveling attempts to dodge responsibility in the matter.
Click to expand...
Tenant was and is a political animal who will say anything he thinks his boss wants to hear. It wasn't based on any intelligence analysis at the CIA.

You may want to catch up on the Sibel Edmonds revelations that are beginning to surface in many media.
 
I'm speaking of direct planning by the civilians in the Bush II regime that had plans to invade Iraq specically without regard to rationale long before the elections in 2000. THOSE are available just where I said they are.
Click to expand...
Typical, an opinion piece written by a disgruntled retired desk jocky. Let us know when you come across something that resembles evidence.
 
Jaser,
I remember very clearly why we were told to stop all actions which by the 3rd day consisted mainly of providing food and medical help to the Shi'a just outside of Al Nasyria. We were told that we could not keep destroying the entire military as Saddam would need that to defend Iraq from possible Iranian intervention. There is an airfield just outside of Nasyria that we did destroy, but if my facts are correct the US military is now back at that airfield using it as a logistics base.

I remember distinctly destroying cargo jets and Hind D helicopters. In fact, that was perhaps the most fun I've ever had in one day. You never forget days like that.

Still- that is what we were told and why we were told to cease our activities that encouraged rebellion among the Shi'a. From then on, the Iraqi Army moved into Nasyria and began the orgy of violence and bloodshed that is still somewhat noteable today. I think about 30,000 people were executed within a month of us leaving that area.

While we weren't special ops or anything, our position being so far North made it possible to do a lot within Iraq. We were A Btry, 1/319th AFAR, 82d Abn. I think there are still maps of where we were, if not what we did.
 
kjm

I'm not sure I understand your point but I think they did underestimate the outcome of the invasion and were relying too heavily on the belief that the people would be so glad to be rid of Saddam they would take advantage of the opportunity.
 
"We were A Btry, 1/319th AFAR, 82d Abn. I think there are still maps of where we were, if not what we did."

When the 82nd came to Saudi, I was the senior Saudi firing range advisor working out of Camp Vinnell. The 82nd ADA (Vulcan) fired on our ranges.

With one month in the states and two changes of employers, I remained there until April, 1992. Have been back numerous times since for a few weeks or months at a time.

The so-called "coalition" put together in 1990-1991 was a total sham. The Egyptians did not fight. Neither did the Syrians. The Saudis have tried to fight one battle since the 1930s. That was Kafji: There the Saudis ran away and left the fighting for the US Marines and US Army.

There is a civilian company that has been training Saudis to fight since 1974. Worked for that company in Saudi and they do a good job. The problem is that the Saudi royal family tells their military that the US will come to their aid and not to train too hard. The Saudi military has one purpose, keep the royals in power at all cost.

According the Saudi history of the first Gulf War, the so-called Arab "coalition" did all the fighting.
 
You know ... I wish I could go back in time and tell a few people how this war would turn out. Don't know if I could change their minds or not, but I'd at least like to go back in time and tell MYSELF how this war would turn out so I wouldn't have been a supporter of it. Hindsight is 20/20, but it makes me feel sick when I remember how I bought into the whole idea that this would be a quick and easy war resulting in a bright and shiny democratic Iraq that would stand as a bastion for freedom and against terrorism in the Mideast.

But ...

An "illegal war." That's an oxymoron. War's are neither legal nor illegal. I mean, who would decide upon legality? The UN? Some UN appointed court with a Syrian judge?

I guess the congress could keep us from going to war, but they didn't. So there's no legal problem within the US either. If Cheny or Bush lied to an extent that they are prosecuted within the US (won't happen) then that would make their statements illegal, but wouldn't affect the status of the war.

A country makes war to expand it's power, protect it's power, protect it's interest, or (if attacked) defend it's people. Although WMD's turned out to be a straw man, either intentionally or unintenntionally, this war still met ALL of those objectives.

1. We need to stabilize the region to protect ourselves (alright ... the war totally failed at that objective, at leat to this point. But just because you start a war to accomplish something doesn't mean you'll succeed).

2. Oil from the mideast, though most of it goes to Europe, is critical for the world economy and our economy and the health of the world overall. I know it's unsavory to "go to war for oil," but if the taps get shut off and unemployment hits 15% and gas is $6 a gallon and you're about to lose your home in the collapsing US economy ... that is a human toll. Financial stability on that scale IS worth fighting for, especially when those who would turn the taps off would do so for no other reason than to do us damage (an economic attack is an attack just as much as a military invasion).

3. The Iraq war has turned Al Qaeda's attention to Iraq, leaving us untouched (thus far) in our country.

Don't get me wrong ... I wish we'd never started this debacle and it may break us financially AND militarily (though only time will tell -- history books may speak of this as the best decision every made, and honor Bush for having the courage to stand up against popular opinion and do the right thing for our nation and our posterity).
 
Everytime I hear the "illegal war" line I sit and wonder how many people actually have read the constitution.

Motives for a war are irrelevant. Whether its just, or merely a war of aggression for spoils doesn't matter. Our constitution only requires congressional approval. They don't require a moral justification or a balancing test (though I suppose thats what congressional approval is for).

While personally I don't think we should go to war unless a valid reason exists, this has nothing to do with legality. Congress signed off on Iraq. As such its perfectly legal under our constitution. I care not a whit what some european 3000 miles away has to say about what we do.
 
First, the DoD and other agencies essentially "war game" various conflict scenarios all the time. Plans for conflict with China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc. were and are "written about" extensively all the time. It doesn't mean any decision act on the plans has been taken.
Click to expand...

Just to add to that. We don't just plan attacks against enemies. Although there are more of them. Invasion plans have been written about Canada, the U.K., France, and others. You never know when those pesky Mounties will attack :rolleyes:

But anyways, I believe that the largest mistake in the run up to the war, wasn't that we did it, but how it was publicized. There was ample reasoning from the dozens of violated U.N. regulations, and the general threatening demeanor of Saddam to justify a war. But since the WMD's were made the main reason, when they failed to materialize, everyone said the war was a mistake. If the administration pursued those violations and forced the U.N. to act on it's own reprimands, and use a "strong possibility" of WMD's as a secondary reason, we wouldn't be there alone right now. And although I do agree that even if we didn't attack back then, we would probably be in a conflict anyways down the road with Iraq, we should have finished up in Afganistan first.

This is why I can't decide whether or not I like Bush. I agree with the endpoints of most of his ideas, but I can't agree with how he got there. We are still in Iraq because of mistakes made later, but that is a different subject.
 
Thallub,
Loved those vulcans. They really sound great when they go off.

As for legal, the only legal you really can count on is what will be enforced. Congress authorized this war up to a point. We have far exceeded the point that was authorized. Beyond that, Congress doesn't have the guts to ask for withdrawal of troops (having accomplished the stated objectives of the original authorization), and Bush doesn't have the guts to ask for a further authorization, so now the President fights every 6 months for more money, Congress blathers on about withdrawal dates, and the soldier is stuck in the middle.

The only one I pity is the soldier.
 
"The only one I pity is the soldier."

Same here. I retired from the Army in 1979. Know a lot of active duty Army guys. I have never seen things this bad for the Army, not even during Viet Nam. NCOs are getting out in droves. They are tired of being run to death. Several Army and Marines folks I know are back in Iraq for their third or fourth time. One former infantry guy who was there twice told me that every one in his original squad are dead or medically retired from wounds. He saw the light and changed his MOS.

When politicians decided to kick off the Iraq war they put Pakistan on the spot. They thought that Pakistan could control their tribal areas that border Afghanistan. The idiots never stopped to think that no government in modern history has ever controlled the tribal areas of Pakistan: Not the Brits, not Musharaff.

The Taliban and al Queda now control about one third of Afghanistan. They have de facto control of major portions of Pakistan's border areas. The Iraq war is a major distraction from the real war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US should have 100,000 more troops in Afghanistan. The White House is reduced to begging NATO countries to send more troops to Afghanistan: They aren't going to send them.
 
I saw that 60 Minutes report on Saddam's interrogator, and it was a ridiculous piece of propaganda. It made it sound as if Saddam had actually tricked the US into invading when in fact he had repeatedly insisted that he had disarmed himself of his WMDs.

The idea that Bush and his staff didn't lie in order to sucker the US population into supporting the Iraq invasion is absurd. I simply cannot believe ANYONE would take that position now. Bush & Co. lied repeatedly about WMDs, Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda, and even implied on several occasions that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. The majority of Americans fell for it like sheeple because they think the US government actually tells them the truth.

935 documented false statements:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

Some of the specific lies:
http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/thelies_of_the_leadership 1.htm

The lies were transparent and obvious to any reasonably aware person even prior to the invasion:

-- Each time Bush et al. presented a bit of "evidence" for Saddam's weapons programs, it would be debunked. Key examples include the aluminum tubes and the Nigerian uranium. Yet each time one of these claims was shown to be false, the Bush administration would move on to the next claim without missing a beat, showing no signs of concern that they were making a mistake. An honest person would have shown that concern.

-- UN inspectors were finding nothing in spite of rigorous, repeated investigations.

-- Documents associated with the PNAC and similar neocon outfits had long spoken of a desire to topple Saddam for the benefit of Israel prior to 9/11. Examples:

http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp141-xs.html
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm (PNAC paper)

-- The key proponents of the war, many of whom were involved in the PNAC noted above, all had strong ties to Israel's Likud party: Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc. I believe some had even been investigated for spying for Israel.

-- Feith's Office of Special Plans was intended to stovepipe intelligence straight to the White House -- i.e., bypassing the regular intelligence community. This was obviously done because the neocon spies feared that true expert analysis would undermine their case for an invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top