Iraq > Iran

[CountDeMoney]

I cannot believe you are getting your panties twisted up over the idea that someone might find your "They tried to kill daddy!" mtivation for why the US went to war with Iraq less than compelling.

I can't believe you don't think that was just icing on the cupcake for the neo-con planning for an Iraq strategy the moment they took office.  It wasn't the prime mover, but it sure helped move things along.

[The Minsky Moment]

I agree that oil was not the reason for going to war the second time around.  Even the neocons weren't that clueless.  However, some war hawks (Perle, Wolfowitz) were happy to sell the war by arguing that the costs would be minimal because Iraq's oil resources would allow the war to "pay for itself".

[Berkut]

-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East

Do you agree with this, Berkut?

In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.

The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.

The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.

The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.

He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.

I'd think that the WMD argument went under the "willingness to lie" seeing as there were no significant WMD and evidence was misrepresented if not outright manufactured.

I think that is mostly accurate, although I do think there are ways to interpret it more or less egregiously. Meaning that I suspect that the administration really did believe Saddam had a WMD program of some sort, they just couldn't prove it, and so were willing to lie about it - after all, they were pretty sure they would find them after the fact, so thought it safe to fib a bit prior.

But yes, I do think the entire WMD angle was part of selling the war, not the primary reason for war.

I'd also think that it's fair to say that lack of compliance to Security Council directions is not a reason for the war but rather part of manoeuvring for position.

No argument from me, although that doesn't mean it wasn't a valid issue.

But fair enough, the primary reason for the war was an attempt to execute on the neo-Conservative agenda to create allies if not democracy through the use of force. So BB's third point was the general reason for a war, while the second point (Saddam was a danger) and variations thereof (some of them lies, some of them true) provided the specifics for going to war with Iraq as opposed to anyone else.

Yep. Iraq was a target of opportunity for the neo-con agenda.

Now whether the variations on the second point included bits about Saddam trying to kill Bush Sr as CdM alleges, or any number of conspiracies about oil and private companies is a bit more muddy, but I think you're right that the primary argument in favour of the war inside the Bush administration was the neo-Con "use force to spread Democracy and gain allies".

Exactly.

What I find frustrating is that I think there is actually a very important discussion that needs to be had about GF2, what went wrong, what went right, and what we should learn from it - but mostly is is lost in partisan crap like "Dubya just went to war because they tried to kill his daddy!" which people seem to just swallow, regardless of how ludicrous it is.

I guess it is still to soon.

[Berkut]

I agree that oil was not the reason for going to war the second time around.  Even the neocons weren't that clueless.  However, some war hawks (Perle, Wolfowitz) were happy to sell the war by arguing that the costs would be minimal because Iraq's oil resources would allow the war to "pay for itself".

Certainly true. That argument was definitely made.

IN retrospect, it is pretty ludicrous - but on the other hand, I don't think anyone had any idea what the cost was going to be - even the hawkiest hawk would have blanched (I think) if the actual cost had been known ahead of time.

And THAT of course raises the next question - Did it have to cost that much?

Was the incredible cost inevitable, or the result of the incredibly inept execution?

[Berkut]

-Weapons of mass destruction in the immediate post 9/11 atmosphere
-Saddam was a regional threat, having invaded 2 separate countries in the last 20 years
-Saddam was not in compliance with a number of UN and Security Counsel directives
-attempt to spread democracy in the Middle East

Do you agree with this, Berkut?

In general, yes, I think that was the basic neo-con argument for war.

The last being the primary motivator - the basic idea being that the best way to combat terrorism is to stabilize those nations that are or can potentially support Islamic terrorism, and provide an alternative outlook or example in the Middle East to radicalism.

The basic idea being simply that even crappy democracies (by Western standards) like Turkey and Egypt are vastly superior to the alternatives.

The idea that Iraq II was motivated by either oil or any feeling by the Shrubbery that he had to finish what his father started is easily dismissed by noting that prior to 9/11, Bush strongly opposed "nation building" and going after Iraq. Obviously, if he was motivated by either of those things, he would have been pushing for war - instead the Neo-cons were blasting him for being a chump because he was NOT supporting their push for a more hard line stance against Saddam.

He changed as a result of 9/11 and the institution of the preemptive Bush doctrine.

So how's the campaign to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia going ?

LOL, you know, I had a rahter long post prepped about exactly that - how GF1 was really much more a cynical, economically driven war than GF2, and used the example that we pretty much fought GF1 to protect two human rights abusing monarchies from a dictatorship in order to secure oil supplies.

But I ditched it because I didn't think it would evoke much useful discussion.

Of course, the more on point response is that the neo-con position would be that the campaign to bring democracy to SA is going nicely - they have a nominally democratic neighbor, and that will inevitably force them to move towarsd more democracy themselves.

Cue comments about how the Arab Spring was driven by the example of free elections in Iraq, etc., etc.

[Admiral Yi]

I'd think that the WMD argument went under the "willingness to lie" seeing as there were no significant WMD and evidence was misrepresented if not outright manufactured.

Disagree.  Iraq had impeded the first UN mission at every turn, to the point that they were eventually limited to inspecting their own hotel rooms for WMD.  Iraq then continued to impede the Blix mission.  It was a reasonable inference that these were the actions of a country trying to prevent discovery of their illegal WMD stockpiles and/or programs.  It was certainly not the logical reaction of a country with nothing to hide.

US troops (I'm guessing British as well) invaded Iraq with the expectation that Saddam could use WMD against them.  Forcing your own troops to wear bulky, hot NBC suits that impair combat efficiency is a pretty elaborate ruse to perpetuate a hoax.

[The Minsky Moment]

IN retrospect, it is pretty ludicrous - but on the other hand, I don't think anyone had any idea what the cost was going to be - even the hawkiest hawk would have blanched (I think) if the actual cost had been known ahead of time.

And THAT of course raises the next question - Did it have to cost that much?

Was the incredible cost inevitable, or the result of the incredibly inept execution?

War is rarely cheap.
The First Gulf War cost the US about $100 billion in 2011 dollars.  A lot of that was offset by financial contributions from allies who didn't send troops but of course we had to know we weren't going to get much of that the second time around.

Given: (1)  the mission the second time around was much broader and included the need for reconstruction and singificant post-war presence of some kind, (2) given the US component of the military force was going to be much higher proportion of the total force and (3)  the First Gulf War was a remarkably efficient operation, I would think that any cost estimate under $250 billion would have been unreasonable.  Of course, the actual cost was multiples of that still. 

Regardless of the predictability of the cost, the notion of paying for that cost (whatever the number) with Iraqi oil revenue was at best extremely naive.  After Gulf 1, there could be no illusions about what Saddam would do to the oil production infrastructue if we came hard to take him out.  And the experience of Gulf I was that it took about 6 years to get production above 1/5 of the prewar peak level.  True that was with partial sanctions, but also with a native regime with dictatorial powers.

[Admiral Yi]

As a quibble Joan, I believe Wolfowitz talked about paying for reconstruction costs out of oil revenues, not the costs of troop deployments.

[The Minsky Moment]

As a quibble Joan, I believe Wolfowitz talked about paying for reconstruction costs out of oil revenues, not the costs of troop deployments.

The point is that oil revenues couldn't reasonably pay for the cost of reconstructing just the oil wells and pipelines themselves, much less anything else.  That was knowable in advance.

[Berkut]

It wasn't the prime mover, but it sure helped move things along.

Neither a necessary or sufficient condition.

[CountDeMoney]

It wasn't the prime mover, but it sure helped move things along.

Neither a necessary or sufficient condition.

Oh, for the Cokehead-in-Chief it was sufficient enough.  Remember, he was the anti-Gore, all feelings and gut instincts and loyalty and shit.  And surrounding himself with policymakers like Jim Woolsey feeding into it, and yeah, you take a potshot at the family patriarch, you're going to get invaded.

Doesn't anybody watch Frontline anymore?  Christ.

[Berkut]

It wasn't the prime mover, but it sure helped move things along.

Neither a necessary or sufficient condition.

Oh, for the Cokehead-in-Chief it was sufficient enough. 

Except that it wasn't. Bush opposed neo-con pressure to attack Iraq until 9/11. So clearly is was not sufficient enough.

Remember, he was the anti-Gore, all feelings and gut instincts and loyalty and shit.  And surrounding himself with policymakers like Jim Woolsey feeding into it, and yeah, you take a potshot at the family patriarch, you're going to get invaded.

Doesn't anybody watch Frontline anymore?  Christ.

That really sounds great until you realize it doesn't make any sense. But don't let the complete lack of evidence or reason stop you, it never has before.

[lustindarkness]

I though it was all a conspiracy to get us out of EUOT and into Languish.

[MadImmortalMan]

Eventually, Saddam would have done something stupid and triggered war anyway. Don't forget he got Clinton to bomb his ass too.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I though it was all a conspiracy to get us out of EUOT and into Languish.

Johan's long arm at work?  He sacrificed Uglyduck in the doing, but that was no great loss in Sweden.