« A Surprisingly Reasonable Unreasonable Man
The Muslim Brotherhood: Islamic Extremists or Moderate Democrats? »
Democracy, Accountability, and the Inevitability of Failure in Iraq
Bob Geiger is reporting on yet more proof — this time in a Senate Intelligence Committee report released before Memorial Day — that General Eric Shinseki was right in his pre-war assessment of how many troops would be needed in Iraq for the occupation. He suggested about “several hundred thousand soldiers” and was promptly ridiculed and worse by the war’s architects, notably Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. We’ve known for a long time that he was right — the neocons of The Weekly Standard have been calling for more troops for a long time, after all — but this report not only clears Shinseki but also reveals that “the Bush administration ignored critical pre-war intelligence in their rush to invade Iraq,” in Bob’s words. More:
The report, which the previous Republican Congress successfully kept from being produced for two years, shows that months before the Iraq invasion, the White House knew from U.S. intelligence agencies that a civil war would likely erupt after Saddam’s ouster, that al-Qaeda would quickly move to exploit the American occupation and that Osama bin Laden’s organization would actually gain strength globally due to Bush’s action.
One may be tempted to yawn at yet more evidence of pre-war malfeasance on the part of those itching for war, from Bush on down, and there are those, like McCain, who argue that the war is what it is and that there is therefore no need to go back and examine its origins (in this sense, the pre-war period, when the case for war was being made and the military plans were being drawn up and finalized), but I would argue that the war and its origins are inseparable. The war is what it is — or has become what it has become — because of its origins. The war has gone horribly wrong, of course, but it has gone horribly wrong not because of what could not have been foreseen before the war but because those who started the war ignored the warnings provided to them by the intelligence community, warnings that have been proven to have been nothing if not prescient.
One could argue that the war is wrong regardless of its origins, or that it would have gone horribly wrong no matter what, but the point here is that the decisions made at the highest level leading up to the start of the war, including the “decision” to ignore the warnings, essentially made success impossible. Once those decisions were made, once the ball got rolling, it was all but inevitable — we can now say with the benefit of hindsight and the evidence available to us — that the war would go horribly wrong.
True, the war is what it is. Whatever its origins, the reality is what is going on Iraq right now, and it is that reality that must be dealt with — preferably by putting an end to the war sooner rather than later. But one of the key aspects of democratic politics is accountability. Those who started the war, from Bush on down, must be held accountable for what they did. And this means they must be held accountable not just for what has happened over the course of the war, that is, the gross mismanagement of the war, but for how they took the country to war, for the decisions they made at the war’s origins.
This is not just for the sake of historical accuracy. It is for the sake of American democracy.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Democracy, Accountability, and the Inevitability of Failure in Iraq”
I hate to beat this dead horse again, but this news seems to make it relevant.
In the discussion of what went wrong with this war and whether it could have been prevented, we continue to ignore what is quickly becoming a distinct possibility and is supported by this news.
That it’s just possible that to the architects of this war, absolutely nothing has gone wrong and the result we see today was the desired result.
What’s more relevant is how this information might impact the future, vis-a-vis Iran, for example.
This type of news showcases a criminal negligence on the part of the President and his advisors. They should not still be running this country, and more importantly, the military.
[...] One may be tempted to yawn at yet more evidence of pre-war malfeasance on the part of those itching for war, from Bush on down, and there are those, like McCain, who argue that the war is what it is and that there is therefore no need to go back and examine its origins (in this sense, the pre-war period, when the case for war was being made and the military plans were being drawn up and finalized), but I would argue that the war and its origins are inseparable. The war is what it is — or has become what it has become — because of its origins. The war has gone horribly wrong, of course, but it has gone horribly wrong not because of what could not have been foreseen before the war but because those who started the war ignored the warnings provided to them by the intelligence community, warnings that have been proven to have been nothing if not prescient. (more…) [...]
Davebo said:
I disagree. First of all, Rumsfeld was fired after the 2006 elections; they know they’ve done some things wrong. Moreover, the reason why Dubya’s father didn’t go “all the way to Baghdad” (one reason among those why he wasn’t re-elected in 1992) and why war was avoided for as long as it was, was because the “power vacuum,” potential for civil war, and Iranian aggression were feared that long ago. Oh, and with such consequencdes there would be less, rather than more, potential for US energy company involvement in Iraq, which has some of the best petroleum resources on the planet. There’s no way that would be the desired result.
One thing that the malfeasance in prosectuting this war points out is the the hope that somehow things will turn around with this tactical change or some other is invalid. As long as Bush is in power along with key decision makers like Cheney and Rice malfeasance will rule the day. These are idealogues and practical matters bore them. Gates and a couple of new generals will NOT be able to overcome the Cheney/Bush arrogant incompetence. This is why I am in favor of pulling out the troops now. Cheney/Bush could screw up a free lunch and I fear they will just make matters worse the longer we stay in Iraq.
I’ve had that thought a couple of times too- because I’ve never seen an administration so doggedly determined to ignore all reasonable advice and go into a country so recklessly. And then to demonize anyone who had the temerity to point out the fired Sunni army had become an insurgency, or that the insurgency had turned into a civil war or who thought that the war would be expensive and require massive amounts of troops.
But, in the end, I have to agree with DLS, I don’t think even Bush and Cheney envisioned this kind of chaos or that what they were doing could lead to regional war. They had all the information, but just like before 9/11 ignored it.
“I have to agree with DLS”
How badly does that hurt?
Not a bit! Nobody can disagree with you 100%, LOL!
But I do think they wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 and tried to tie it together in a PR campaign. I think it was payback for the private contractors that helped them get into office. That’s why they never cared how badly any of the contractors performed, just kept using the same ones over and over.