Liberal Hawks Debate the War

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 918 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 1:48 pm:        There is a really interesting debate in Slate re how liberals who supported the invasion of Iraq feel now (most still suport it). A lot of really interesting and nuanced views. http://slate.msn.com/id/2093620/entry/2093641/   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 743 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 2:40 pm:        At least they're honest about the supposed #1 concern of those on the left when it comes to war -- humanitarian concerns (note I didn't say national interests -- which is a primary guide to conservatives). And I think you can be honest about not liking the way Bush conducted the war and question (as I do) the efficacy of our gutted intelligence apparatus. That they still would support a candidate who would NOT have done what ultimately needed to be done is disappointing, however, especially in these times.   tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2107 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:00 pm:        Our intelligence apparatus has its limitations and to attribute those limitations to some sort of Democratic gutting is simply wrong. Our CIA failed to predict the implosion of the USSR despite forty years of studying the subject. To penetrate an organization such as Al Qaeda is extraordinarily difficult. Moreover, with regard to Iraq, Bush chose to ignore any evidence not supporting his ideology-driven rush to war.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 744 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:09 pm:        Rebutting a charge that was never directly leveled is never smart, but..... Reagan knew he could defeat the Soviets by burying them. The exact time of that victory wasn't certain, but the outcome was not. Penetrating Al Qada is difficult if you lean away from human intelligence on the ground and shy away from hiring spies because they may be disreputable and ugly (see: The Torch). It is that very facet that this government is trying to rebuild. As to evidence on Iraq -- Bush didn't ignore it. He just thought it was too dangerous to not take the supporting evidence seriously. And after all....humanitarian concerns won, and aren't people more important than deficits? They are domestically, why not internationally.   tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2108 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:13 pm:        People who vote are important. Period. Sometimes, people who vote care about people who don't vote in which case those people become important. Regarding Al Qaeda, our government never took the Arabs seriously. Witness the extreme lack of Arabic language personnel in our CIA and FBI. That was not the fault of any lawmaker.   ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 920 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:18 pm:        Its interesting that what cjc calls the liberal justification for war, humanitarian concerns, is at least defensible, while the claim that Iraq posed a threat to national security, either because of WMD or ties to terrorism, have now been thoroughly debunked (and there were plenty who said they were invalid before the war). In fact, the Slate debate is more interesting than cjc suggests because several participants see steming what they see as a new wave of totalitarianism as a justification for the war. Once response given, which I think is correct, is that Iraq was not the center of such totalitarianism, Bathism after the first gulf war was an ideology with no adherents outside the criminal gang running Iraq. Also interesting is what Thomas Friedman calls the "real" reason for the war. Essentially he says that we needed to create an object lesson in what would happen to countries that mess with us and Iraq was the easiest target. (Certainly compared with more threatening states like N. Korea or Iran.)   bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4380 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:28 pm:        I supported the war, but I have to say it was more from a good old realpolitik point of view than anything else. I view Iraq as a huge, unsinkable aircraft carrier and troop transport geographically located right in the middle of the most volatile area of the world. I also hoped that Iraqi oil would lessen our need to suck up to the Saudis, who I actively distrust, although that is at best a few years down the road. A fair amount of positives have happened in that area of the world and elsewhere. The Iranians, who are fanatics but not insane, seem to be coming to the table on the nuclear weapons program. Syria seems, well, more mild mannered, although I have my doubts on this. Certainly the capitulation of Libya was stunning. They haven’t only surrendered they are turning in their friends, even if finding out one of our ‘coalition of the willing” partners, Pakistan, is one of their suppliers. North Korea seems to be coming to the table and quite possibly the specter of having B-2s and f-117s overhead is a factor in that. Offsetting this is that Iraq in all probability had given up their WMD programs sometime in the mid 1990s, an embarrassment to all who thought they were still in that business, and, again almost certainly, was not a fellow traveler with Al Qaeda and friends. Yes, previous administrations also thought that this was an ongoing weapons program, but they didn’t invade to prove the point. I also thought that Bush and his handlers had a plan for post war Iraq. I really thought they were going to install Chalibi (sp?) and company in power, de-Bathe the Iraqi military and we would have the majority of our troops out within a year and this might very well have been the case. I also believed the Bush folks when they claimed Iraq would pay for their own reconstruction through oil revenues. Unfortunately, none of this happened or has any likelihood of happening in the foreseeable future. I also I think our diplomacy stinks. In the months leading up to the war we managed to alienate just about all our former allies. Bush cut the legs out from under Secretary Powell, about the only senior administration figure with any international credibility. I am not saying that we had to have UN approval to do what we did, but a friend of mine loves the expression; “telling them to go to Hell, but making them enjoy the trip”. In this day and age no matter how powerful your military you can’t stand-alone. No country can afford the cost; in lives, in money, in credibility and in prestige.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 745 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:33 pm:        WMD hasn't been debunked entirely yet. I have a hunch maybe sometime in October there may be something. Or possibly after we get better intelligence from Syria -- speaking of Baathists outside Iraq. The sad part is that liberals caste aside their true beliefs on the war as it relates to humanitarianism and oppose it entirely just because Bush is the president at the time. That's like me voting against an income tax cut just because some democrat proposes one (assuming he actually follows through with it for the first time in 40 years).   bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4381 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:40 pm:        LOL cjc, a discovery of WMD in Iraq a week or so before the election is a real possibility. My wife, the original cynic, is sure that Bin Laden will be "killed" on the Monday before the election.   Don Perkins Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 287 Registered: 9-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:42 pm:        Oh come on CJC, you know that the Bush administration is holding back on releasing any official proof of WMD's until closer to the elections in November. Of course they might be found in Syria...   Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2757 Registered: 10-1999 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:43 pm:        I'll go you one better, Bobk. I half expect to see Saddam Hussein in the gallery for tonight's State of the Union Address.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 746 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:51 pm:        Great line.