What did a GWB Presidency look like?

[Berkut]

I supported the war because I was desperate for any means to end the sanctions which were so devastating to Iraq.

But the war was disastrously mismanaged...naturally.

Knowing some people who participated in that war though, the rank and file infantry thought they were going in to find WMDs and were greatly demoralized and angry when they discovered there were none. So if that was never the casus belli it might have been a good idea to get the army on board with the real reason for their mission.

But that would have required Dubya to be a competent and moral leader.

But even if that war had never happened he was still a horrible President for many other reasons. That was just one thing.

Yup.

He sucked from the standpoint of executing on what he wanted for a variety of reasons.

But what he ACTUALLY wanted (and what the Neo-Cons wanted) was not fundamentally evil. It wasn't because Saddam dissed his dad, or because they wanted the oil, or any of that nonsense that is about 98% the "narrative" because so many people want to just imagine the worst possible motive they can for the "bad guys" so they can feel warm and fuzzy about their outrage.

The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. Understanding that is a lot more useful than moral outrage.

[DGuller]

Can we enumerate some of the good reasons?  I don't think they're obvious to everyone, even the non-nutbars.

[Berkut]

I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!

As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.

I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.

And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).

Is the argument that the US would get militarily involved in Iraq anyway after a "natural" fall of the Saddam regime?

No, the argument is that the fall of the Saddam regime would see a war in Iraq whether the US instigated that fall or not.

I think absent the internal issues with Iraq, the Shrubbery does not start a war.

I think absent the Shrubbery, the internal issue in Iraq result in a war when Saddam is gone anyway.

The key, as I was pointing out, was not the Shrubbery, but broader issues. As is (almost) always the case in these things.

If it's a war where the US doesn't get involved then what would it matter to the US?

There are lots of wars that the US is not involved in. Syria, for example.

It still matters.

And I think Syria is a pretty good model, in fact. A fundamentally unstable mess where violence and conflict might be tamped down with the threat of more violence for some time, but the violence is still there.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Iraqi people are better off now then they were under Saddam (although they are not well off).  Whether that was worth all the bloodshed, $, and the occupation of swaths of the country by ISIS can fairly be asked.

[Berkut]

Can we enumerate some of the good reasons?  I don't think they're obvious to everyone, even the non-nutbars.

"Good" being a rather relative term.

1. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of the ceasefire, and in fact had never really shown any intention of adhering to them in good faith. This meant that the US had already sent in military build ups, he would back down, and then repeat some months later. It was time to quit screwing around and just remove him from power. Absent that option, we would likely have to simply abandon any pretense of having the mandate to restrict Iraqi sovereignty at all, and let him do as he wants.

2. (Neo-con) Iraq is actually a pretty well educated, modern society. Given then chance, it could become a model for Muslim secular governance and success. They have good natural resources, and are a reasonably wealthy country. If we take #1 as a opportunity to remove a dictator and show the region what actual democracy and the rule of law looks like, it will serve as an example to others!

3. Saddam is a loose cannon. He always has been, and he has kept Iraq in a state of constant war because he has to in order to hold onto power. Unless the coalition just constantly plays this game (see #1), he will be a long term threat to the region. Might as well get rid of him now while we have the chance, or else we will be back in 10 years once he is given the chance to start selling oil and rebuilding his military again.

4. The Saddam regime is simply evil, and is incredibly harmful to the Iraqi people who are living under what amounts to state sanctioned internal terrorism. He isn't the only one of course, but he is the only one where there is a pretty clear opportunity to do something about it.

5. While Saddam probably does not ahve a credible WMD program now, we know he has had one in the past, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that absent militarily imposed force, he will attempt to get them in the future. Indeed, his long term security pretty much demands that he do so, therefore his even trivial violations of the agreements represent a clear justification to remove that long term threat of his desire to get WMDs the moment the international community takes his eyes off of him - which they will once he (again) calls our bluff on the threat of force.

Those are just a start. I am sure there are more, and I am sure argument can be made about whether or not they are actually "good" arguments in the first place.

They obviously rely on two things, one of which certainly was true, and one that was assumed to be true:

1. That given the crisis, if the coalition does NOT call Saddams bluff and go to war, the ability to maintain a no fly zone, military pressure, and the general "focus" on keeping Saddam nominally within the bounds of the cease fire agreement would go away. I felt strongly about this - at some point we would need to fish or cut bait. If we were never going to call him on his violations, we should just end the sanctions and go home.

2. That the US and its allies could competently remove Saddam and then manage the aftermath. This turned out to be completely untrue, and IMO, is the real knock on GWB more than his motives.

[The Brain]

I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!

As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.

I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.

And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).

Is the argument that the US would get militarily involved in Iraq anyway after a "natural" fall of the Saddam regime?

No, the argument is that the fall of the Saddam regime would see a war in Iraq whether the US instigated that fall or not.

I think absent the internal issues with Iraq, the Shrubbery does not start a war.

I think absent the Shrubbery, the internal issue in Iraq result in a war when Saddam is gone anyway.

The key, as I was pointing out, was not the Shrubbery, but broader issues. As is (almost) always the case in these things.

If it's a war where the US doesn't get involved then what would it matter to the US?

There are lots of wars that the US is not involved in. Syria, for example.

It still matters.

And I think Syria is a pretty good model, in fact. A fundamentally unstable mess where violence and conflict might be tamped down with the threat of more violence for some time, but the violence is still there.

Isn't the thread about the GWB presidency? The POTUS isn't responsible for all the world's ills.

The years leading up to 2003 witnessed a humanitarian catastrophe of truly epic proportions in the Congo. I don't recall any western government coming under heavy fire for ignoring it, and it certainly isn't what typically comes up when people now evaluate Clinton or W.

[Valmy]

We would have been blamed for whatever happened in Iraq, because of the sanctions.

[grumbler]

I supported the war because I was desperate for any means to end the sanctions which were so devastating to Iraq.

But the war was disastrously mismanaged...naturally.

Knowing some people who participated in that war though, the rank and file infantry thought they were going in to find WMDs and were greatly demoralized and angry when they discovered there were none. So if that was never the casus belli it might have been a good idea to get the army on board with the real reason for their mission.

But that would have required Dubya to be a competent and moral leader.

But even if that war had never happened he was still a horrible President for many other reasons. That was just one thing.

The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.

[Valmy]

The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.

Exactly. Fantasy people.

[crazy canuck]

Are there other factors for that particular war.  No not really.  If the big lie had not been told the US would have had no support from the other allies who entered the war (and particularly the UK) and the chances of the Bush administration pushing ahead alone would have been very remote.

You are overstating the case.  The case is that Bush people manipulated and "sexed up" the intelligence to make it seem stronger and more solid then it was and to add unsupportable claims like an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam, and then took aggressive steps to silence dissenting voices, in at least one case (Plame) crossing the line into criminality.

There was some real intelligence on WMD albeit inconclusive.  It's wrong to say there weren't other factors; not only were there other factors but those factors were the primary motivations for the war; Bush insiders have gone on record saying that the WMD claims were significant for public messaging but not the principal motivation for Bush's neocon-heavy security team. There is no way to no for sure, but it's quite possible that Bush would have gone to war even with less international backing.

So your argument is that some intelligence was then exaggerated to make the claim that the war was justified, but we should ignore the lie that caused the exaggeration.  That is cutting the baloney very thin don't you think.

[grumbler]

The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.

Exactly. Fantasy people.

               

No. Wait.  You actually think that, don't you?

Oh, dear.  It seems like the Trumpeters aren't the only ones with alternate facts. 

You might want to check and see what reliable histories (including contemporary news media) have to say.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are there other factors for that particular war.  No not really.  If the big lie had not been told the US would have had no support from the other allies who entered the war (and particularly the UK) and the chances of the Bush administration pushing ahead alone would have been very remote.

You are overstating the case.  The case is that Bush people manipulated and "sexed up" the intelligence to make it seem stronger and more solid then it was and to add unsupportable claims like an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam, and then took aggressive steps to silence dissenting voices, in at least one case (Plame) crossing the line into criminality.

There was some real intelligence on WMD albeit inconclusive.  It's wrong to say there weren't other factors; not only were there other factors but those factors were the primary motivations for the war; Bush insiders have gone on record saying that the WMD claims were significant for public messaging but not the principal motivation for Bush's neocon-heavy security team. There is no way to no for sure, but it's quite possible that Bush would have gone to war even with less international backing.

So your argument is that some intelligence was then exaggerated to make the claim that the war was justified, but we should ignore the lie that caused the exaggeration.  That is cutting the baloney very thin don't you think.

I'm not making an argument here, I'm stating the facts as I understand them.  I definitely am not making an argument about ignoring a lie,

[viper37]

I think the origin of Trumpism lies in the climate change debate.  The first time Republicans adopted alternate facts.

I think the first foray into alternative facts is telling everyone that decreasing taxes would increase revenue, that dates back to the 80s.

there were/are economics arguments to that effect. It all depends on how it is enacted.  If you reduce the taxes mostly on the very wealthy, it does not matter much, because the increase in disposable income is not specifically spent in needed infrastructure* nor in the country where the taxes are dropped.**

*19th century rich were the plant owners.  Late 20th and early 21st century rich are much more diversified, including actors, entertainment figures and idle rich who don't directly produce more wealth in the coutry.

** Buying an island in the Carribean does not increase wealth in the US, nor does shopping in Dubai for the Thanksgiving week-end.

[Valmy]

The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.

Exactly. Fantasy people.

               

No. Wait.  You actually think that, don't you?

Oh, dear.  It seems like the Trumpeters aren't the only ones with alternate facts. 

You might want to check and see what reliable histories (including contemporary news media) have to say.

No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.

I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.

I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?

Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.

But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.

[mongers]

The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.

Exactly. Fantasy people.

               

No. Wait.  You actually think that, don't you?

Oh, dear.  It seems like the Trumpeters aren't the only ones with alternate facts. 

You might want to check and see what reliable histories (including contemporary news media) have to say.

No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.

I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.

I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?

Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.

But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.

No I think you're wrong there, because if you were making the point that the Iraqi WMD had some significance, he'd be making the counter argument.