In response to my skepticism about President Obama’s justification for the surge of troops in Afghanistan, Heather Hurlburt explained on Bloggingheads that the U.S. needs to stabilize the Afghanistan-Pakistan border not only to keep extremists in Pakistan out of Afghanistan, but (more important) to keep extremists in Afghanistan out of Pakistan. If the Pakistani regime comes crashing down, then nuclear weapons might be sold or given to Al Qaeda, which might then use them against the United States. Does this sound familiar? Sounds like the latest version of the one percent doctrine to me. Just as the Bush administration claimed it had to invade Iraq in order to prevent Saddam Hussein from handing over nukes to Al Qaeda, the Obama administration says it has to expand the war in Afghanistan in order to prevent Pakistan from handing over nukes to Al Qaeda. Okay, 5 percent for Obama, 1 percent for Bush. Reread the speech: the frequent reference to Pakistan, starting with the title of the speech, lends plausibility to Heather’s theory.
In his willingness to use military force to counter remote but potentially significant threats, Obama does not seem so different from his predecessors. What about his emphasis on multilateralism, which Heather makes much of? In fact, no one really supports America’s war in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Not the European governments, whose token forces are deeply resented by European publics. Not the frequently forgotten rest of the world—places like China, Russia, and India. For all his eloquence, Obama is constrained by events, and reaches for the same tool that American presidents have used for decades—military force, with other nations if possible, but without them if necessary.
neurodoc says:
I don’t think yours is a fair summary. It was believed at the time, whether you think on sound or not so sound grounds, that Saddam had WMD or was working toward acquiring them. (He, of course, did have and use poison gas and had been pursuing biologic weapons when he invaded Kuwait, a venture that proved ill-advised for him and his WMD ambitions.) We weren’t the only ones to think he had re-acquired WMD, the intelligence services of our allies though that to be the case too. And of course, Saddam tried to make it look as though he in fact did, so as to intimidate others, most especially Iran. There might have been speculation as to whether he would share such weapons with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, but that was not an important part of the case for a pre-emptive strike against him.
December 18, 2009, 12:05 amRequired says:
Posner likewise ignores the fact the the invasion of Iraq was (arguably) sanctioned by the UN as part of the disarmament of Iraq agreed to at the end of the 1991 war while Afghanistan is justified under a variation of the self-defence doctrine. Cheney’s famous one percent doctrine also was primarily directed at Pakistan’s arming of Al Queda and had little to with Iraq.
As for the actual thesis of the post, yes the Obama speech does sound a lot like some of the justifications for Afghanistan& Pakistan policy of the Bush administration. Not as much reference to keeping Pakistan stable as would have been during the Bush administration, but the same arguments.
It is not surprising that two intelligent groups of people (the Obama and Bush administrations) can start at the same points and reach the same conclusions. The big problems come, as we see with Posner’s & neurodoc’s comments about the war in Iraq, when people are not starting at the same point.
December 18, 2009, 12:27 amRalphe says:
“In fact, no one really supports America’s war in Afghanistan/Pakistan.”
I don’t have to like it but I do support it. At least until someone can come up with a better way of keeping the U.S. and Europe’s interests from suffering more than by doing nothing. We need to consider what the world might look like in another 10 or 15 years if we pull out of Afghanistan now.
December 18, 2009, 12:40 amPeter Shalen says:
Um, let’s see. A little over eight years ago the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan and giving safe haven to al Qaeda. At that time al Qaeda staged a vicious attack on our country, and we responded by invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban from power. Now the Taliban is gaining strength again, and further military action is needed to prevent it from returning to power, so that we can avoid a recurrence of the horrors of eight years ago.
I realize that’s not as sophisticated as Mr. Posner’s—well, as whatever it is that Mr. Posner wrote. I have to admit that I can’t understand it even well enough to give a name to it. But what I’ve said seems like a straightforward and compelling reason for winning the war. If I’m missing something, I’m sure one of you smart folks will let me know.
December 18, 2009, 12:52 amSaddam Hussien says:
Unlike Pakistan, I had no nukes and no history of collaboration with Al Qaeda.
December 18, 2009, 2:43 amSaddam Hussien says:
but then again, i lie a lot, and it wasn’t for lack of trying on the nuke thing….
/those damn Jews…. why can’t they go quietly?
December 18, 2009, 3:04 amSaddam Hussien says:
PS:
my neck hurts too… can a get a couple Aleve here, and maybe a massage?
December 18, 2009, 3:06 amBob Sykes says:
Multilateralism??!! Obama is the most unilateral President in a long, long time.
As for Afghanistan, his policy is worthy of Moloch: send in a bunch more troops to up the killing, and then go away without accomplishing anything other than the blood sacrifice.
December 18, 2009, 7:33 amShag from Brookline says:
America’s “One Percent Doctrine” may accommodate some nation-states to come up with more variations on “The Mouse That Roared” theme to attract attention and funds. One percent here, one percent there, can soon add up to serious money for the military-industrial complex.
December 18, 2009, 8:03 amlgm says:
Please recognize that the 1% doctrine was a red herring when Cheney raised it. In his mind there was a 1% chance his fabrications about Iraqi nukes could be true. The reality is that nations don’t put troops in harm’s way on 1% whims. They do it for greater purposes. Bush/Cheney did not invade Iraq because of the 1% chance of nukes. They did it because of the 99% chance of Saddam being there, whom they hated, and for other reasons.
December 18, 2009, 8:30 amrbj says:
Please give us a citation for this proposition. I did and do support the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, but at no time did I ever think that Saddam was working with AQ. Further I do not remember anyone from the Bush administration saying they were. The Czechs did have some information that there were contacts between the two.
The Bush doctrine in part, as far as I understand it — it did change over time — was that if we (USA) have information that America’s enemy #A and America’s enemy #B have contacts, well then we are not going to take the chance that they are not working together. Thus, as Saddam was a proven threat, there was some indications of contacts between the two, we just aren’t going to take a chance that they aren’t working together. We are not going to wait until there is an imminent threat, rather suspicious behavior is going to be taken as a threat. No one can disagree with this as a good policy, but do not mischaracterize it.
I do support America’s war in Afghanistan/Pakistan. The problem is that this is not a state to state war with both sides having uniformed soldiers under command where one can negotiate a treaty or march soldiers down a defeated enemy’s capitol. Nor is AQ a domestic terrorist group such as the Weather Underground, KKK, Red Army, Red Brigade, that can be handled through a civil criminal justice system. Nor are they even comparable to ye olde tyme pirates, who were motivated by money. It is a transnational loose affiliation of like minded folk who want to use violence to affect political (& religious) change. It is a sui generis situation. And international law does not yet have an appropriate mechanism to deal with it.
(Now there were other reasons to take out Saddam, such as him being a proven threat to other nations — Iran, Kuwait; his previous attempts at getting & using WMD; attempted assassination of a former president of the USA; acts of genocide against Kurds and marsh Arabs.)
December 18, 2009, 8:37 amrpt says:
The UK hearings and other disclosures have demonstrated that those at the highest levels knew that there were no SH-AQ contacts and that SH had no WMD’s. Representations otherwise were fabricated, but unfortunately convincing to or offering useful cover for voting with the war to avoid Chambliss type slanders.
December 18, 2009, 8:51 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The One Percent Doctrine Revisited -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: The One Percent Doctrine Revisited: In response to my skepticism about President Obama’s justification for the .. http://bit.ly/6WqclH [...]
December 18, 2009, 8:53 amThe One Percent Doctrine Revisited | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] posted here: The One Percent Doctrine Revisited Share this [...]
December 18, 2009, 9:18 amjukeboxgrad says:
neurodoc:
rbj:
Amnesia is rampant. Bush said this:
Bush also said this:
Bush also said this:
And Bush made those statements even though “CIA Learned in ’02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties.”
And Cheney said this:
And Weekly Standard reported that Feith issued a memo saying that “Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship.”
Also see Cheney’s statement documented here.
And Powell spoke at length on this topic, at the UN. This included claiming that “Iraq [offered] chemical or biological weapons training for two al Qaeda associates.”
Everyone seems to accept that AQ was behind 9/11. If one claims that Saddam and AQ “work in concert,” and have an “established relationship,” and an “operational relationship,” and that Saddam has “aided … operatives of al Qaeda,” how is that materially different from claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11? Answer: it’s not. Bush blamed 9/11 on Saddam.
The chief marketing message for the war was WMD+terrorism, i.e., WMD in the hands of terrorists (and this was reflected, among other places, in Bush’s major speeches promoting the war, as I have cited above). These two elements went hand in hand. We were told the WMDs were dangerous because they were going to end up in the hands of terrorists, and we were told terrorists were dangerous because they were going to end up equipped with WMDs. And many false statements were made, by Powell and others, supporting that concept by claiming current cooperation. More such statements can be found here (pdf, p. 21).
It’s quite remarkable that people who are ostensibly well-informed and honest can make statements so contrary to reality. And I’m not talking about the lies used to sell the war. I’m talking about the statements in this thread which attempt to rewrite the history of the war.
December 18, 2009, 9:37 amDavid McCourt says:
Professor Posner, your derisory reference to “token forces” being committed to Afghanistan by the Europeans does a deep disservice to our British allies, who have had around 10,000 troops in the country, almost all of them engaged in the last several years in operations in Afghanistan’s “hottest corner,” Helmand province.
British combat deaths in Afghanistan have been higher, proportionately, than American. Britain has about 1/5th the population of the U.S. (61,000,000 vs. 308,000,000), but has sustained 208 KIA vs. 660 U.S KIA. The U.S. would have to sustain another 400+ combat deaths to pass that grim milepost. By the way, the Canadians, in Kandahar province, have also suffered disproportionate casualties: 132 KIA for a country with about 1/9th the US population; again almost double the U.S. rate.
Your attitude to these allies does reflect that of the current White House, which kept the British shut out of the interminable college seminar being conducted while Obama “deliberated” for three months this autumn about whether actually to carry out the strategy he had adopted, after thorough review and with much fanfare, only last March. This dithering and drift led to Obama being publicly criticized several weeks ago by the British Defense Minister for lack of leadership; front page news in Britain, but little reported in U.S.
December 18, 2009, 9:51 amRichard Aubrey says:
rpt
The Brit documents describe senior officers concerned about the effects of WMD on invading troops. Clearly, somebody thought SH had them.
Wretchard has an interesting post up about the restraints on what he calls “Westphalian states” which do not apply to failed or failing states.
To presume that every state which has borders on a map is a rational actor is–he cites current difficulties in Pakistan–not a rational position.
During the interregnum–the last one, from 1989 to 2001–there were a bunch of crummy novels called, generically, militarytechnothrillers. Got to have our war adventures. Sir John Hackett was the first, iirc.
December 18, 2009, 9:57 amWhile the writing was usually abysmal and the weapons had more character than the characters, one part of each book was usually very well done. That was how we got from where we were (peace) to a situation where the author got to let off his guns.
It was logical, reasonable, believable, and led seamlessly into the rest of the book.
Problem was, when you look at them, they were all different from the real world. The wars started for logical if not moral reasons based on generally accepted facts.
There was no room for Moltke lacking the moral courage to tell the Kaiser they couldn’t do it, or the rat fight of Nork politics starting the invasion in 1950, or Hitler convincing his buddies, all veterans of a lost war, that they could beat the same guys this time, or Mussoline convincing the Italians to take the side of the guys who lost the last time.
The presumptions about what SH was doing, would do, could be expected to do, are all based on the presumption he was a rational actor and the constraints placed on him did not force him–the real SH, not some putative rational actor–to do things others might have thought would be a bad idea.
Wretchard’s question is how do you do diplomacy with a failed state?
Yet there are those, some on VC, who can’t see the problem, clear as it is.
Xanthippas says:
I’m with you. Seems like you can’t justify a war these days without citing to the most improbable outcome. It’s a terrible argument, given that we have perfectly legitimate reasons for being in Afghanistan. And it’s the kind of argument that adds to the possibility of a war going on well past the point at which any success is possible, because the alternative is always so hyperbolically horrible.
No, they most certainly were not. The presumption was once Hussein somehow magically acquired WMDs, he’d immediately give them to terrorists or use them himself and thus bring about his own destruction. We presumed he would behave in the most irrational manner. Had we done otherwise, we would have seen that he was behaving most rationally, by creating uncertainty about capabilities he didn’t have so as to keep his enemies wary of him. And we wouldn’t have invaded. This is also the same nonsense argument used by those who think we need to bomb Iran, because it’s entirely logical to presume that if they get nukes they’ll immediately use them and thus kill themselves.
December 18, 2009, 10:11 amjukeboxgrad says:
rbj:
Bush et al did make many statements claiming “that Saddam was working with AQ.” I’ve tried to post a comment with a bunch of relevant citations, but for some reason the comment doesn’t appear. So let’s see if this one does.
December 18, 2009, 10:20 amRichard Aubrey says:
x.
December 18, 2009, 10:33 amI should have been clearer. Those opposing the invasion of Iraq considered SH a rational actor.
His invasion of Iran, his invasion of Kuwait, were both irrational acts, unless you consider that he was justified in thinking he might win at modest cost. But that would be an irrational conclusion. Unless you consider the outcomes to have been so unlikely that no rational actor would have believed they might happen.
They were both wars for oil, which, in other circumstances, is considered a Very Bad Thing.
There were so many reasonable justifications for invading Iraq that Bush was taunted for being unable to make up his mind. To take one and pretend there was nothing to it beforehand is not only absurd but transparently absurd.
Richard Aubrey says:
x.
December 18, 2009, 10:43 amWRT Iran. Some of the big shooters there have said that the loss of twenty million Iranians, which, given their public view of death might include themselves, is a good price to pay for destroying Israel.
You are presuming they are ratiional actors.
Japan in the Thirties and right up to December of 1941 could have been considered a rational actor. If you presume they had every reasonable grounds to believe they could beat us and, after the raid on Pearl Harbor, buffalo us, what they did was rational. But they didn’t guess the response correctly. Was what they did rational or not? They managed to get a lot of themselves killed.
Hitler was a rational actor if you think he was right in believing nobody would or could resist him and that the outcome, including the resistance by the Allies was so unlikely as to not be a factor to a rational actor.
Your presumption about Iran is that they actually believe 1, that the west, or somebody, will nuke them to cinders, and, 2, that they don’t want to pay that price for what they want.
I would say it’s an even bet that you would oppose nuking Iran, or even taking very strong conventional action against them if they nuked Israel, or, if after months of painstaking forensic work, a nuke on our soil was traced back via isotope ratios to Iran. The question is what Iran thinks we would do. And, considering the power of the combination of wishful thinking and ignorance, I have no confidence that they think we’d waste their asses. Proving them wrong in the event would be unfortunate.
jakecollins says:
Shorter Eric Posner: Obama is just like Bush because the Afghan escalation is in no way different from the initiation of the Iraq War. Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
December 18, 2009, 10:58 amegd says:
Do you have a link?
December 18, 2009, 12:20 pmSaddam Hussein says:
Unlike other Saddam Husseins, I know how to spell my own name. I know, I know, Hussein a pretty strange name for a world leader but just remember, “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after gassing thousands of Kurds!”
I crack myself up.
December 18, 2009, 12:28 pmMalvolio says:
The Iranians are crazy, but they aren’t stupid. They are pursuing a high-risk, high-reward strategy. Their bet (which seems to be paying off so far) is that the Western powers will content them with posturing and making indignant demands for enough time that Iran can arm itself with nuclear IRBMs, after which a direct attack on Iran would become infeasible.
They (Iran’s dictatorial classes) will at that point be seated on a throne of bayonets. They cannot be attacked by neighbors or by Western force, but the risk of coup, internal subversion, or (and this would be good for us but bad for them) a genuine democratic revolution would increase dramatically.
December 18, 2009, 12:36 pmabc says:
Obama’s base told him to add 0 troops, his generals told him to add 60K. He mysteriously did nothing for a few months, and after “digesting all the information”, decided on 30K with the caveat that they will all be gone by the time he is in any elections. I don’t think anyone knows how this decision was struck upon, Obama certainly didn’t supply any convincing reason, and the 1% theory is as plausible as any.
What is striking about this post is it’s intended effect, which is to pierce through the Obama euphoria and show that his posture of being a different kind of leader is an empty facade. But at this point in his presidency, I don’t think this is even an issue anymore. The Left is utterly disillusioned and in semi-revolt, the Right obviously hates him, and the Center seems vaguely aware the the modus operandi from now on is- (a) give a rousing speech; (b) muddle through.
December 18, 2009, 12:39 pmSarcastro says:
Good points! Until Obama is transparent about the military intelligence he receives, I’ll be forced to add 2K to his generals’ numbers to make some kind of man-child narrative!
Also, no other President has ever been unpopular before! This is proof Obama’s a failure!!
December 18, 2009, 12:46 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
As to Europe supporting Afghan/Pakistan, there is usually a split between eastern and western Europe on popular support. I have not followed if there is any change over the last few months. Do y’all know something new?
It is always fascinating that certain subjects seem to attract the “recapture-the-narrative” crowd, repeating arguments without regard to what has been written in reply to them many times. It almost seems as if they are not even pretending to listen politely.
If anyone’s wondering whether it’s them I’m referring to, check your previous posts for places where you were really proud of how cleverly you delivered an insult. It’s often a sign of someone who has collected all the shells on one narrow section of the beach and is defending that territory.
December 18, 2009, 1:38 pmRichard Aubrey says:
egt
December 18, 2009, 1:49 pmCouldn’t figure it out.
It’s Richard Fernandez’ Belmont Club at Pajamas Media.
Always a good read.
Spittle level among the commenters is the lowest I’ve encountered anywhere.
Richard Aubrey says:
Malvolio
December 18, 2009, 1:52 pmI agree that the possibility of a coup in Iran, or a revolution, may be increasing.
From your construction, you seem to think it will increase because of the regime’s possession of nukes.
Is it correct that you see a connection instead of a couple of indepedent issues?
Twirip says:
It’s not difficult to explain for people who have some understanding of what words mean, and who don’t have a political axe to grind.
But you fail at least one of those criteria and very probably both.
Germany and Japan had an “operational relationship” in WWII. It does not follow that Japan invaded Burma on Hitler’s orders.
December 18, 2009, 2:27 pmTwirip says:
What’s all this “we” stuff, jukeboxgrad? I had not realised that Canadians were now part of “we”.
December 18, 2009, 2:33 pmMalvolio says:
Perhaps not a tight connection, but there is certainly more to be gained by taking over (through fair means or foul) a nuclear-armed power than some flea-bitten Third World camelstan.
And just the fact that the government is taking a high-risk path makes both the average Tehran college student and the average Iranian Air Force general think, “These guys are nuts. I better take over.”
December 18, 2009, 2:46 pmRichard Aubrey says:
malvolio
December 18, 2009, 3:24 pmRichard Aubrey says:
What is it with this thing?
December 18, 2009, 3:32 pmMalvolio. I suppose you could let the current regime do the work and take over afterwards.
But if the work is going forward institutionally, and you take over the headshed in Teheran…the work goes forward and eventually you have a bomb.
In the meantime, you’ve forestalled Ahmenwhosit’s suicidal determination to nuke Tel Aviv.
As I said earlier, the question involves what the folks currently in charge, and their likely replacements, think of the most likely western response to one or another major provocation.
You can be rational, logical, and perfectly reasonable concluding something from your premises. But if your premises are whacked, your conclusion will be whacked.
What if Hitler had read too much into Wodehouse, followed the Oxford Union resolution of 1933, and Bertrand Russell, and put too much faith in Gandhi’s ability to tie down the Brits in India? His conclusion (“I win.”) would be perfectly rational.
If the powers that be in Iran think the US is a weak horse, a fraidy cat, whose shiny toys are never going to be used, whose president has an Arab middle name, whose people secretly hate Israel–see Pat Buchanan–, who are sick of war and fear death unlike the Persians who revere death….
They might start something we both regret.
But, given their premises, it would be perfectly rational.
jukeboxgrad says:
twirip:
Who said anything about “orders?” You’re raising a straw-man argument. And to the extent that they (Germany and Japan) did have an “operational relationship,” then they indeed shared responsibility for the acts of the other, even if those acts were not based on “orders” from one party to the other.
Anyway, Bush et al didn’t merely make the vague statement that Saddam and AQ had an “operational relationship.” Bush personally said, more than once, that Saddam was aiding AQ. This isn’t the same thing as saying that 9/11 was done on Saddam’s “orders,” but it’s sufficient to make Saddam complicit in 9/11 (if it were true). By falsely claiming that Saddam was helping AQ, Bush was asserting that Saddam shared the blame for 9/11.
And this is what lots of people (like rbj, above) would like to deny. He said “I do not remember anyone from the Bush administration saying … that Saddam was working with AQ.” rbj obviously has memory issues.
I had not realized that anyone reading what I said would be thick enough to think that I was saying anything about Canadians.
December 18, 2009, 3:53 pmRichard Aubrey says:
jbg.
December 18, 2009, 4:02 pmUnfortunately for your argument, “helping” can be pretty broad. That means any support, including diplomatic noise, or a training base, or a shipment of old AKs counts as “helping”.
It would be odd if the pro-”helping” side couldn’t find something like that.
When you think about it, how do you “help” a non-state terror bunch? Give them money, give them stuff, give them a place to work, give their big shots some R&R. And you don’t have to do it frequently, or even more than once.
Since there were not a whole lot of guys involved, “help” wouldn’t stress SH’s coffee fund.
You don’t even have to give them something that, were it not forthcoming, would stop the whole thing.
I don’t expect you to take this advice, but the “helping” argument you make can be overcome by finding an insignificant arrangement of a minor bit of material support.
You’d have to fall back to “it’s not an important aid”, which would no doubt convince you you’d convinced others. But you’d be wrong.
subpatre says:
The link Richard Aubrey wants is:
Richard Fernandez’ Belmont Club
Posting as Wretchard, Fernandez is an old hand in insurgency and (later) counter-insurgency. His trench experience and location also gives him unique insight into Islamic issues that are prominent today. His articles are always worth reading, although the comments S/N ratio is worse than Aubrey represents.
December 18, 2009, 4:07 pmJames T. Carrington says:
You definitely have a great point here – look at how Sudan ‘helped’ Bin Laden by leaving him alone until the Saudis and US put more pressure on the govt to kick him out. He bought businesses, upped his rep, and made lots of operational contacts before being forced into Afghanistan – all without much cooperation with the Sudanese beyond “leave us alone and we do likewise”.
So to me it’s a little more depressing at just how thin that contact was btw SH and AQ – wasn’t the end result something like 2 AQ agents contacting 2 SH govt military people once or twice and that was it? And with all of the intelligence assets we’ve had focused on Iraq for at least a decade, you’d think more of those accidental or innocuous connections would have shown up somewhere… But I agree with your point about helping.
December 18, 2009, 4:25 pmjukeboxgrad says:
aubrey:
I realize you’d like to turn this into a discussion about the meaning of “is,” but the plain fact is that neurodoc and rbj made false claims. They are both pretending that Bush didn’t say what he actually said. According to rbj, Bush never said that “Saddam was working with AQ.” Trouble is, Bush did say that Saddam was working with AQ.
You just need to tell us about the magic GOP dictionary which explains how the words “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda” mean something other than “Saddam was working with AQ.”
You’re mixing up two different issues. One issue is this: the nature of the relationship, if any, between Saddam and AQ. Another issue is this: Bush’s statements regarding that relationship. I have been making a point mostly regarding the latter issue, but I realize you’d like to change the subject.
But let’s humor you and turn to the former issue. Keep hope alive. Let us know what you’ve been “finding,” and how it compares with what was found by the Senate Intelligence Committee (when it was still controlled by Republicans). They concluded this (pdf):
And this:
So your point about “finding an insignificant arrangement of a minor bit of material support” is all of the following: pedantic, irrelevant and divorced from reality. Because according to a GOP-controlled committee, Saddam’s support for AQ did not even rise to the level of “an insignificant arrangement of a minor bit of material support.” But as I said, keep hope alive. Any day now we’ll find the missing WMD that Saddam hid in his basement, along with his love letters to OBL.
December 18, 2009, 4:42 pmTwirip says:
I’m raising a straw-man argument? You said that Bush claimed that Saddam was “behind” 9/11. If you meant that in some sense other than “arranged 9/11″ are “was responsible for 9/11″ or “commanded that 9/11 happen” or “ordered 9/11″ then I’d like to hear about it.
Unless you’ve changed your citizenship or are a different “jukeboxgrad” than I’m thinking of, you are a Canadian.
December 18, 2009, 5:11 pmTwirip says:
You’re the one mxing up two different issues. One issue is what the intel was on Iraq prior to 2003. The other issue is what the intel was on Iraq on 2005. You’re making a big deal out of the fact that these two things are different to try to carry your “Bush lied” lie. When in reality they are different because in the latter case we had the chance to read Saddams personal papers.
December 18, 2009, 5:16 pmTwirip says:
Postwar findings. Post war findings.
December 18, 2009, 5:18 pmTwirip says:
I think you have to put yourself in Bush’s shoes at the time, and not in 2005. As he said:
Given the situation at the time and what he knew at the time, was this unreasonable?
December 18, 2009, 5:24 pmRyan Waxx says:
Exactly. The only ironic part is that this applies to YOU, not the people you criticize. Al-queda did indeed have a faction in Iraq, and it’s pretty clear that at the very least, Saddam was propping up that faction. I remind you that Al-queda is a organization of several terrorist groups.
One quibble: I wouldn’t mischaracterize you as “ostensibly well-informed and honest”.
December 18, 2009, 5:59 pmjukeboxgrad says:
twirip:
Bush said that Saddam helped AQ. If that accusation had been true, then Saddam would indeed have shared responsibility for 9/11. And the key point is that people who should know better are claiming that Bush didn’t say what he said.
And for some strange reason they haven’t found the time to reappear in this thread and take responsibility for their false claims.
I’m really intrigued to discover what makes you think you know my nationality, since you’re wrong.
Feel free to continue to ignore what I already cited: “CIA Learned in ’02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties.”
Bush et al lied to us about “what he knew at the time.” He claimed to be sure that Saddam had WMD. Expressions like “absolute certainty” and “no doubt” were used on many occasions (some relevant quotes are summarized here). Various other parties thought there were probably WMD, but no one else claimed to know for sure.
That’s the core problem: Bush et al expressed “absolute certainty,” even though the underlying intel was very far from absolutely certain. In other words, they lied. When you pretend to know something you don’t actually know, here’s what you are: a liar.
December 18, 2009, 6:00 pmjukeboxgrad says:
waxx:
Feel free to not notice that you’re making a claim, backed by no support at all, that is directly contradicted by the findings of a GOP-controlled committee. Findings which I already cited.
After all, why should we believe what a bunch of GOP Senators said, when instead we can believe an unsupported claim by some guy on a blog?
It’s not just that you’ve adopted this position; it’s that you’ve adopted the belief that everyone you’re addressing has also adopted that position. How remarkable. Maybe you should consider the possibility that not everyone is ignoring the facts that you’re choosing to ignore.
December 18, 2009, 6:16 pmKieth says:
OK, let’s say Obama’s “surge” works, we liberate Afghanistan so that it can return to doing what it does best. Al Queda is forced to relocate to Somalia or maybe Yemen. We celebrate this victory and cheerfully promise aid to Afghanistan till it becomes self-sustaining militarily and economically (forever). Al Queda, meanwhile, has to build new networks and add to existing ones in whichever chaotic regions are most promising and can benefit the most from the generous help from our friends the Saudis. Pretty tough for Al Queda (I am being ironic).
Do the articulate, knowledgeable commenters here think the above scenario is unlikely? do they think the road to salvation is for us to slog through the world battling this curse? well, some do and some don’t I suppose but shouldn’t there at least be some discussion of how we could increase our security efforts in North America, including trimming some fourth amendment rights, instituting national identity cards and abandonment of the “privacy” illusion. Is it not true that there is likely to be a tradeoff? if we give up some of our constitutional rights then maybe we can reduce the expenditure of blood and treasure all over the most wretched parts of the world? this is probably the last place in the blogesphere where that discussion is likely to take place but I think it should.
I think Robert Kagan has made mention of choice like this but, as far as I know, it is publicly an unspeakable option and it should not be.
December 18, 2009, 8:47 pmTwirip says:
I don’t know about that. I think you’re just grinding your own axe here. That quote I gave you above?
I wasn’t entirely upfront with you. This was actually Bill Clinton in 1998. And he sure sounds pretty certain of himself.
This is the problem with people like you. You are trying to rewrite history so it suits you. The reality is that this business about Saddam, WMD, and terrorists was the conventional wisdom right up until the invasion ended. All the worlds intel people believed this, including the CIA under Clinton. But you want to pretend the whole thing was cooked up by Cheney and Bush over beers sometime in early 2002.
Feel free to ignore what you already cited. It reads in part:
You somehow missed that part.
I recall you from way back.
You’re linking to yourself. It’s pretty clear that you regard yourself as an authoritative source.
December 18, 2009, 9:14 pmTwirip says:
Iraq was in further breach of its obligations. The Blix report spelled that out in some detail.
December 18, 2009, 9:19 pmRichard Aubrey says:
wrt pre-war intel in Iraq:
December 18, 2009, 10:31 pmMight be relevant. I recall a CIA guy explaining to Congress that, under the Church rules never to contract with a bad guy, they could infiltrate the Baghdad PTO. Sounds like he’s never been in the PTO.
He also described an intel op–not much for Bible study–about a couple of Joshua’s agents who used a house of horizontal refreshment as a safe house. CIA couldn’t do that, either.
Problem with this is that, in a regime like SH’s, only the really bad guys know anything worth knowing.
So, if he’s right, CIA can only get humint inside dope by breaking the rules.I presume…crap for the backspacing and spelling and crap, who’d have a laptop?…that the CIA guys figured Bush had their back on this. But not necessarily the Congress, including guys like Ron Dellums (D. Cuba) and Leaky Leahy and Bernie Sanders. Phillip Agee is one of their heroes.
And we would want the CIA to follow the law, wouldn’t we? Even if it meant they missed something?
Mark Field says:
You just wrecked your own point. First, Clinton’s statement doesn’t specify a time frame; from all we can see, he may have been referring to SH in the 1980s or during the Gulf War. Second, it’s logically possible that what Clinton said in 1998 could have been true then but was not true in 2002/3.
December 18, 2009, 11:01 pmElCid says:
Professor Posner, I’m with you on the rhetoric. But I have to quibble with your percentages… The causal mechanism Obama puts forward is much more reasonable than Bush’s. The disintegration of Pakistan leading to nukes falling into the wrong hands? Unlikely, but perfectly plausible. Saddam Hussein, leader of a secular dictatorship, handing over nuclear weapons to al Qaeda, his avowed enemies? Very, very, *very* unlikely.
December 18, 2009, 11:08 pmjukeboxgrad says:
twirip:
If you “don’t know about that,” then you are obviously doing this. Because I already cited proof.
I know. So what? Who cares? How is it relevant? Clinton didn’t tell us he was absolutely certain Saddam had WMD. Bush did. Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. Bush did.
Aside from that, 1998 is not 2002 (as Mark pointed out). Things changed. That’s reflected in what Powell and Rice said in 2001.
Subsequent to Operation Desert Fox, we became confident that Saddam was not much of a threat. This is what Powell said (2/24/01): “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” (video, text).
On 5/15/01, Powell said that Saddam had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years.” Powell said we had succeeded in keeping Saddam “in a box.”
And this is what Rice said (7/29/01): “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
And even Cheney said essentially the same thing, in a moment of uncharacteristic honesty: “the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein’s bottled up, at this point.”
It’s pretty clear that Bush is in a lot of trouble when the best you can do to defend him is say what boils down to this: Clinton’s people thought Saddam was a serious threat in 1998, so it was OK for Bush to exaggerate the threat in 2002, even though his own people knew Saddam had become significantly weaker, not stronger, since 1998.
I’ll be waiting patiently while you collect numerous examples of people other than Bush et al making the claim that Bush et al did: that we knew with “absolute certainty” that Saddam had WMD. So far you’ve presented this many such examples: zero.
How shocking that a GOP-controlled committee would make that claim. After all, why would they have an incentive to shift blame away from the White House and onto the CIA?
Anyway, for some strange reason you seem to have not noticed this part:
The CIA explained why it didn’t make a big deal about reporting that OBL had no Iraq ties: it was something everyone already knew.
By the way, did you notice that Bush gave Tenet a medal? That’s because Tenet always told Bush what Bush wanted to hear. Yes, Tenet earned that medal.
Why are you dodging the question? What is your basis for asserting that you know my nationality?
I have linked to other comments I’ve posted where those comments have links to authoritative sources. Or have quotes that can be easily verified. It’s pretty clear that you don’t grasp the concept of following links and verifying sources.
Blix said this (1/27/03):
That’s why Bush had to chase the inspectors out. They were in the process of finding out that there was no need for a war over WMD, because there were no WMD. That’s why they were being allowed to check “all sites.”
And this is what Bush said on 7/14/03:
A glaring example of Bush telling an outright lie.
And anyway, Bush didn’t sell the war by telling us “Iraq was in further breach of its obligations.” Bush sold the war by telling us that Saddam had WMD, and was helping AQ. Trouble is, both of those claims were false.
====================
aubrey:
You’re being even more incoherent than usual. And that’s saying a lot.
Let us know if you ever figure out why rbj said Bush never said what Bush actually said.
December 18, 2009, 11:12 pmneurodoc says:
jbg, our reading skills are not what they should be. What I said was…
Was it ever asserted by Bush, Cheney, or others around them that Saddam had shared WMD? If so, I missed it and wait for one of your links to prove me wrong on that. I do think the case for going after Saddam relied much more on “direct” arguments than “indirect” ones. Now, feel free to disagree with me that the “speculation as to whether he would share such weapons with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups” was not as important as the other justifications that were advanced for undertaking a pre-emptive war, but put the “the plain fact is neurodoc…made false claims” stuff back up that hidden-from-the-sun place you plucked it from.
December 19, 2009, 1:33 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I have highlighted an important word.
What you are saying now is not what you were saying earlier. For some strange reason you seem to be attempting to relocate the goalposts. Please consider these two statements:
A) We need to invade Iraq because Saddam has shared WMD with AQ.
B) We need to invade Iraq because Saddam might share WMD with AQ.
A and B are not the same. What is most relevant at the moment is B, because Bush did indeed say B, and this is what you denied in your earlier statement, which was this:
I highlighted another important word. It seems that you are hoping that no one will notice that you have shifted from future tense to past tense.
As I demonstrated here, it was indeed the case that “speculation as to whether he would share such weapons with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups” was “an important part of the case for a pre-emptive strike against him.” (In particular, pay attention to Bush’s 2003 SOTU, which is obviously a major example of making the case for war. Probably the most major example.)
So your earlier assertion, that B was not an important part of marketing the war, was false. Now you’re trying to erase B and replace it with A. But what’s funny is that when you do that, you’re still essentially wrong. Because Bush didn’t just say B. He also said something very close to A, when he sent Powell to the UN to falsely claim that “Iraq [offered] chemical or biological weapons training for two al Qaeda associates.” Bush did indeed claim (via Powell) that Saddam had shared WMD training with AQ, which is tantamount to saying “that Saddam had shared WMD.”
The one with poor reading skills is you. If you had read this carefully you would have understood that even your backpedaling would not be enough to get you onto safe ground.
The link regarding what Powell said has already been provided. Yes, you missed it. But it’s secondary, because that pertains to A, and your original statement pertains to B.
The idea that Saddam might share weapons with AQ was important enough to appear in Bush’s SOTU. If it was important enough to be articulated personally by Bush in such a major address, then it is false to claim that it was “not an important part of the case for a pre-emptive strike.” But that’s what you claimed.
And this is another instance of you attempting to backpedal. You didn’t claim (originally) that it “was not as important as the other justifications that were advanced.” You made a stronger statement; you said flatly that it was “not an important part of the case.” Trouble is, it was an important part of the case. And even your weaker statement (“not as important”) is something you have not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate. Because it was indeed as important as any other argument that was presented. If fact, it was the central argument: that we should be afraid of Saddam’s (alleged) WMD in the hands of his (alleged) terrorist allies.
December 19, 2009, 5:27 pmjukeboxgrad says:
If you are, unaccountably, still in doubt about the gross falsity of your earlier claim (that “whether Saddam would share [WMD] with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups … was not an important part of the case for a pre-emptive strike against him”) then you should consider what Cheney said on 6/6/02:
And what Cheney said on 7/19/02:
And what Bush said on 9/12/02:
And what Rumsfeld said on 9/18/02:
And what Rumsfeld said on 9/19/02:
And what Rice said on 9/25/02:
And what Rumsfeld said on 9/26/02:
And what Bush said on 9/28/02:
And what Bush said on 10/7/02:
And what Powell said on 10/30/02:
And what Bush said on 11/4/02:
And what Bush said on 11/4/02 (yes, he essentially repeated himself verbatim later that same day):
And what Bush said on 11/7/02:
And what Rumsfeld said on 11/14/02:
And what Cheney said on 12/2/02:
And what Powell said on 1/26/03:
And what Cheney said on 1/30/03:
And what Powell said on 2/5/03:
And what Rice said on 2/5/03:
And what Bush said on 2/6/03:
And what Bush said on 2/8/03 (yes, he repeated himself verbatim):
And what Rice said on 2/16/03:
And what Rice said on 3/9/03:
And what Cheney said on 3/16/03:
And what Bush said on 3/17/03:
And what Rumsfeld said on 3/20/03:
These statements are easy to find in many places. One good reference is here. Another is here. Another is here. Another is here.
This is far from a complete list. And all this is in addition to several other important statements that I already cited above.
One more time: your claim is utterly false. And your attempt to pretend otherwise is transparent, shameful and pathetic.
Why are so many Republicans afflicted with amnesia? When are you going to take responsibility for your false claim?
I will do so as soon as you explain away the evidence I have presented. And if you cannot do so, then you should apologize.
December 20, 2009, 9:55 amjukeboxgrad says:
One more thing, in case this still isn’t clear enough. Consider these three statements:
A) Saddam has WMD
B) Saddam has ties with AQ
C) We should be worried about AQ getting WMD from Saddam
What I cited above are dozens of examples of Bush et al explicitly claiming C. I have not bothered including literally hundreds of times when they said A and/or B, without explicitly saying C. Trouble is, C is strongly implied by A and B. When they said A and B, it was hardly necessary for them to explicitly say C, because it’s such an obvious implication of A and B. And when Bush et al weren’t selling the war by claiming C, they were selling the war by claiming A and/or B. Any other argument used to sell the war (like a desire to promote democracy) was given far less emphasis.
Bush understood that either A or B alone would not be nearly as impressive as those two things together. Why? Because together they add up to C. And that’s why both A and B were given extreme emphasis, and that’s why there was a coordinated effort to present a pretense of certainty, even though the underlying intel (with regard to both A and B) was highly questionable and uncertain, at best.
So your claim isn’t just false. It’s the exact opposite of the truth. C (expressed both explicitly and implicitly) was the primary argument used to sell the war.
December 20, 2009, 12:35 pmRichard Aubrey says:
jbg.
December 21, 2009, 2:40 pmI believe I heard something about not waiting until something became imminent.
So, as neuro says and you so prolifically demonstrated, it was all about an uncertain future.
Problem is that there were other cases made.
That SH was a bad guy.
That he might start something else–as he had with Kuwait and Iran.
That it was costing us money and manpower to maintain the no-fly zones.
That his OFF grifting and crumbling sanctions made a breakout point inevitable.
That we needed a strategic presence in the region vis a vis Afghanistan.
The folks you quoted said other things as well. Leaving out the other things in order to provide a bogus impression isn’t hard to spot.
jukeboxgrad says:
Yes, that idea came up, but rarely. The message that was typically conveyed was that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat (proof, proof).
Now you tell us. What Bush et al said at the time was that they had no uncertainty at all regarding their two key claims: that Saddam had WMD, and that Saddam had ties to AQ. And the problem is not just that those claims were false. The problem is that the underlying intel was highly uncertain, and all those who pretended otherwise (that is, conducted a pretense of certainty) were doing this: lying.
Problem is that while many arguments were used, certain arguments were used much more than others. And the argument that was used most of all was this: that Saddam’s WMD might end up in the hands of AQ.
Those “other things” were given relatively little emphasis, especially prewar. We mostly heard about them later, after the earlier arguments (about AQ and WMD) fell apart.
I’ve provided citations to the key documents, like Bush’s major addresses. Go read them and see what he emphasized. The things you are now making a fuss about are things he barely mentioned. And when he did mention them, they were secondary to his core argument.
If you can demonstrate otherwise, there’s no time like the present. What are you waiting for? As usual, your claims are pure wind.
December 21, 2009, 3:54 pmRichard Aubrey says:
jbg.
December 21, 2009, 4:51 pmI don’t tell you this stuff because I think you don’t know it.
I tell you this because you obviously think we don’t know it.
I think I’ve counseled you on that before.
If I were to think about my views on the subject, I’d have been concerned about the SH/WMD/Terrs if Bush & Co. had never said a word, although I’d have been concerned if they had not.
I’d also have been, was, extremely interested in having a strategic presence vis a vis Afghanistan.
However, I followed it at the time, not just by selective research, and I figured about four main themes, one of which was SH and WMD and Terrs.
As neuro said, changing the verb tense was a bad thing.
neurodoc says:
That deposing SH would open the way to democracy in Iraq, which would then prove an unstoppable political force and spread throughout the Middle East, producing a better, more secure future for all. Some people actually believed that too.
December 21, 2009, 10:48 pmjukeboxgrad says:
aubrey:
Your “views on the subject” are not particularly important or interesting. What’s important is what Bush et al actually said, and the way their apologists pretend that Bush et al didn’t actually say what they actually said.
Who cares? So what? The issue is not what you “figured.” The issue is what Bush said. And if you’re disputing my claim about what Bush said, it’s about time you showed some evidence. But I realize you prefer bare declarations backed by nothing but wind.
As usual, you’re confused. The person who changed the verb tense was neuro, and the person who pointed out that “changing the verb tense was a bad thing” was me (and he still hasn’t taken responsibility for changing the verb tense, but that’s par for his course). I realize there are lots of different commenters here, but maybe you could do a better job of telling one from the other.
=================
neurodoc:
Roughly half the pre-war SOTU is about terrorism, WMD, and Iraq. There are at least 15 scary paragraphs (over 1000 words) describing how dangerous Saddam is, how he allegedly has accumulated large stockpiles of horrible weapons, and how essential it is that we move quickly to disarm him. The word “weapon” (or close variants of that word) appears in the speech almost 30 times.
It takes a very, very close look at the speech to find any rationale for war, aside from WMD, and the fear of terrorists obtaining them. The idea of the war as a way to spread democracy in the region is not mentioned at all (there is a comment about a “democratic Palestine,” but there is no attempt in the speech to connect this idea with the idea of disarming Saddam).
The idea of bringing “freedom” or “liberation” to the Iraqi people is mentioned, but barely. This idea comes up in passing, no more than 2 or perhaps 3 times, and almost literally as a footnote, after the WMD case is hammered home. By word count, the “freedom/liberation” rationale is given roughly 1% the weight of the WMD rationale.
If a desire to help democracy “spread throughout the Middle East” was one of the main arguments for the war, why did’t Bush mention it? You cannot read the SOTU address fairly and conclude that there was any serious attempt to argue for the war on any basis other than WMD, and the fear of terrorists obtaining them.
A very, very similar analysis applies regarding Bush’s famous pre-war address. It also focused mostly on WMD, with barely a few words of lip-service regarding the “power of freedom.”
All this started with PNAC, of course. And this seminal PNAC (neocon) document says exactly nothing about freedom or democracy, and simply talks about the threat of Iraqi WMD.
If you look at those very visible and widely-circulated statements (and many other similar statements, such as those documented in this pdf), you see virtually nothing aside from a whole lot of focus on WMD.
It would be good if you paid attention to what was actually said, rather than your fantasy of what you wish had been said.
It’s interesting to recall what “some people actually believed” about the realities of deposing Saddam:
Also here (audio):
(Emphasis added.) What “some people actually believed” was that spreading democracy by force is a fantasy and an oxymoron (‘you can have any system of government you like, as long as it’s the one we tell you you’re supposed to have’), and that the reality would be a quagmire. Whole lot of quagmire talk going on back then. And this particular person’s evident knowledge of the situation tends to create the impression that the mess he subsequently helped create was created intentionally. After all, certain people did make a killing (link, link, link, link), and the profits were proportional to the size and duration of the mess. His prediction of a quagmire was correct, and the quagmire ended up being good business.
When are you going to take responsibility for making a false claim? If concern about Saddam sharing WMD with AQ “was not an important part of the case for a pre-emptive strike against him” (and that’s what you said), then why did Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice raise that exact issue on dozens of occasions? Why would you think that anyone would take you seriously when you demonstrate that you are willing to a) falsify history and b) pretend otherwise even after you’ve been caught?
December 22, 2009, 2:05 amjukeboxgrad says:
Really? Achieving our goals in Iraq was going to require a substantial commitment with a duration of more than, say, six years (which is roughly the amount of time that Bush was in charge of the war)? Now you tell us. Before the war, Bush et al told it would be quick and cheap. Rumsfeld told us that after six months only a “residual number” of troops would be needed (link, link).
Thanks for giving us yet another terrific example of GOP amnesia and revisionism.
December 22, 2009, 2:07 pm