The other day Matthew Shugart of Fruits and Votes and I engaged in an exchange about Iraq and the War Against Terror. I failed to keep the discussion going over the weekend, but it's important so I will attempt to restart it here.
Matthew put up this post about Daniel Benjamin's November 24th article in the Los Angeles Times which in addition to the passage quoted by Matthew, was critical of the war effort without offering constructive suggestions about how things might be done better.
I commented that Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have joined the defeatists. I went on to repeat what I posted in “Losing The War“, Benjamin and Simon seem to have forgotten that in their 2002 book, “The Age of Sacred Terror,” they explain that the roots of Islamic extremism which spawns evildoers like Osama bin Laden lies in the anger and frustration from all the difficulties under which they live—the poverty, unemployment, oppression. The only way to eliminate the roots of the extremist movements is to give these people hope. To do that requires freedom and democracy.
I also wrote that the “orderly departure” proposed by Benjamin won’t do anything to change the conditions which spawn and nurture the evil doers, but would only reinforce bin Laden’s belief that if you spill enough American blood we will turn tale and run.
In his articulate response Matthew made several points to which I feel compelled to reply.
First, Matthew asks whether democracy would bring improvements that will "give these people hope? I often refer to the war on terror as a multi-generational struggle because it may be the case the hearts and minds of the already indoctrinated can't be won.
Second, I object to the implication that we are subverting democracy at home. That charge is a red herring belied by the ongoing dissent, protests and debate concerning the war.
Third, supplanting Saddam's tyranny and oppression with freedom and democracy was one of the rationales put forward in the run up to the liberation of Iraq. Even the New York Times acknowledged this in a February 27, 2003 editorial:
President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [in an American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union made the same case....
Fourth, with all due respect, there is no justification for the false allegation that the administration lied about the WMDs. Everyone was convinced that Saddam had them and had used them. The intelligence and common wisdom proved to be wrong, but that doesn't equate to a lie. The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the reports states:
Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
[Redacted]
Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.
Besides that report, two other independent investigations came to the same conclusion.
The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction likewise found "no evidence of political pressure." At pages 50-51 the Robb-Silberman report states:
The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.
The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction similarly "found no evidence of deliberate distortion." At page 110 the British Butler report states:
Treatment of intelligence material
449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.
The effect of departmental policy agendas
450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.
The consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction formed in the Clinton administration. The consensus was more than evident in 1998, when President Clinton was threatening to attack Iraq.
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Secretary of State Madeline Albright:
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.
"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."
Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Nancy Pelosi, now leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
In a letter to President Clinton, from 27 U.S. Senators:
We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Fifth, what Matthew sees as the "growing opposition to the war" is seen by the public as political expediency. According to the Washington Post, a new Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll finds 70 percent of those surveyed believe that criticism of the war by Democratic senators is motivated by partisan politics with only 30 percent accepting that the Democrats' criticize the war effort because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq.
A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that despite all the main stream media's negative coverage of the war in Iraq 56 percent of the public thinks that efforts to establish a stable democracy in Iraq will succeed. That survey also found a huge disconnect between the perceptions of the general public and many of the so-called opinion leaders, such as journalists and academicians.
Comments