Via Ace, a good point made by Fouad Ajami:
Of all that has been written about the play of things in Iraq, nothing that I have seen approximates the truth of what our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, recently said of this war: “In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.”
It is odd, then, that critics have launched a new attack on the origins of the war at precisely the time a new order in Iraq is taking hold.
And right on cue, a breathtakingly dishonest example of just that from Robert Baer at Time:
I’ll defer to Hayden on Saudi Arabia, but when it comes to Iraq, Hayden betrayed his belief in the neo-con lie that Iraq was one of al-Qaeda’s bases before the 2003 invasion and still is today.
….
A friend of mine at the White House complained to me the other day that the Bush administration and the Pentagon until this day believe we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. In the teeth of the facts, they ignore that the enemy we’re fighting in Iraq is a half a dozen homegrown insurgencies, an incipient civil war, and criminal gangs.
This is just stupid, and it’s astonishing that Time has sunk so low as to print such far-left nonsense. Ansar Al-Islam and Al-Zarqawi were in Iraq long before the invasion, and while the pre-war AQ connection might arguably be tenuous, absolutely no one is pretending the Mahdi Army is Al Qaeda, or that former regime elements aren’t also causing violence. These statements are so irresponsible and obviously untrue they might be laughed off of DKos, but are apparently fine for Time magazine.
We have, of course, been fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq right from the start, and AQI is more than just an “idea” as Baer claims. It is in fact an organization, with cell leaders and financiers and propagandists. People don’t just wake up one morning and carry out a VBIED attack; it takes an operation with dozens of members to obtain explosives, rig a car, gather intelligence for targeting, and fund all of the above.
And while Al Qaeda may be smaller in numbers than other groups, they nevertheless carry out the most damaging attacks, primarily because they lack the scruples of more populous factions and deliberately maximize innocent casualties. In fact, from the standpoint of public safety, it is not unreasonable to refer to them as the primary enemy.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 16 comments }
There’s this weird distortion in parts of the press I think where if you’re surrounded by people who all think like you do, you no longer have to worry about the facts because, hey, you’re the paid reporters, you know the facts. Anyone else would have to be, I dunno, some loser in his pajamas in his basement I guess.
I assume you guys are aware that the planes that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 were all US commercial airlines that took off from US Airports. All the hijackers boarded those planes in the US, proving conclusively that Al Qaeda was operating in the US before 9/11.
Does that justify an invasion of the US? Of course not.
Yes, Ansar Al-Islam and Al-Zarqawi were operating in a no-mans land on the border between Iraq, Iran and area controlled by the Kurds in the North of Iraq, but that hardly justifies an invasion of Iraq. Every time you repeat this nonsense, you only show your lack of understanding of what is really going on in the Middle East.
Mikeca,
Does that justify an invasion of the US? Of course not.
That’s not a good analogy.
The question is, What was the threat posed by Saddam?
A better analogy: A cop is in a bad part of town at night. Sees suspicious activity of a hoodlum, who refuses to follow direction and then makes an agressive move, points what looks like a weapon. Cop shoots to kill — finds out later it was a toy gun.
Was the cop reasonably justified? I think yes.
I think that’s pretty close to the situation in Iraq.
It was a dangerous place (true), Saddam had used WMDs in the past (Hallajaba), Â had invaded a neighbor before (Kuwait) had kicked out UN weapons inspectors.
So, there was definitely a risk.
I do agree that the failure to find WMD has been an absolute political disaster for President Bush and shows that our intelligence services don’t really mean "slam dunk" when they say it.
However, once the US commits to troops, I think folks should be united and withhold any kinda of historical crticism until our soldiers are out of harm’s way.
I do agree that debating when and under what terms we withdraw is totally valid and that war critics who push for an immediate withdrawal should be heard.
HB
Hank Barnes :
It was a dangerous place (true)
It is pretty hard to argue we have made it a safer place by invading.
Saddam had used WMDs in the past (Hallajaba)
Saddam had used chemical weapons, which are illegal by treaty. Chemical weapons are not really what people usually mean by WMDs. In this arguement we have lumped chemical weapons with nuclear weapons, which is what most people think WMDs mean. The US is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. Many countries have used chemical weapons, including England. England used chemical weapons in Iraq (in the 1920s). Iran used chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. This is hardly and arguement for
had invaded a neighbor before (Kuwait)
And Iran too. But then the US invaded Mexico.
had kicked out UN weapons inspectors.
The US asked the weapons inspectors to leave so we could invade. Iraq did not ask the UN weapons inspectors to leave. This is simply untrue.
The US also asked the weapons inspectors to leave in the 1990s (under Clinton) so they could bomb Iraq for a week or so. After that Iraq refused to allow the inspectors back.
No I’d really thought that the hijackers hit Baghdad and that’s why we had to invade. [rolls eyes]
We had well over a dozen reasons for going to Iraq. All of them came out of the President’s mouth, and the mouths of numerous other administration officials as well. All of them were discussed–every single one of them–by Americans all over the country, including in the press, on blogs, in the television news, on talk radio, etc. September 11th was never once given as the reason, and except for the nutjob fringe almost no Americans ever believed Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11, although a reasonable number believed he might have had some involvement on some level. Which was a perfectly reasonable thing to think.
The only way 9/11 was invoked was in the responsible way: we can no longer afford to wait for things to happen, and, we need to send a message that we won’t just sit by and merely talk when an enemy openly attacks us (as Saddam had on multiple occasions) and openly sponsors terrorism (which, of course, he was doing quite openly and proudly).
That’s just the facts for you. Do with them as you will.
Thank God we did the right thing and took Saddam’s evil regime out. Now let’s just pray to God we don’t do something insanely stupid and selfish and leave before the legitimately elected democratic government is ready to defend itself and its suffering people from the terrorist murdering theo-fascist scumbags.
By the way, the U.S.’s first military response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in the Pacific was…. to engage German and Italian forces in Northern Africa around the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.
Because, I guess, the massive distraction that Roosevelt engineered to use Pearl Harbor as a pretext for his neo-con cabal’s evil designs on Ethiopia and his obsession with Mussolini? Hey, why not, Mussolini almost sounds Japanese right…?
Dean, we had a long list of bad reasons for the Iraq invasion. But not all people were taken in by those reasons. Some saw clearly what would happen, like this this American who had the courage to speak out against a war with Iraq in 2002:
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
The Iraq War has set back the cause of democracy in the Middle East by a generation. It is time for new leadership that can advance the cause of democracy in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Yes advancing the cause of democracy in the Middle East involves ending the occupation of Iraq sooner rather then later. It was a dumb war to start with and it is still a dumb war.
By the way, the U.S.’s first military response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in the Pacific was…. to engage German and Italian forces in Northern Africa around the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.
The Dec 11, 1941 German Declaration of War on the US had something to do with this.
Al-Zarqawi were operating in a no-mans land on the border between Iraq
Zarqawi was in Baghdad, receiving medical treatment.
Does that justify an invasion of the US? Of course not.
If they had a camp on the border with Canada and we were ruled by a brutal dictatorship that seemed to be more or less OK with that, it might be viewed as one justification.
but that hardly justifies an invasion of Iraq.
On it’s own, probably not. It was one of many, many justifications, as you and other lefties well know.
Every time you repeat this nonsense, you only show your lack of understanding of what is really going on in the Middle East.
No, you’ve only exposed your own side’s ignorance, unseriousness, and mendacity by making such ridiculous analogies and misleading statements. It’s more important for you to call Bush a liar than to be honest or factual in your criticisms. Shame.
Another inconvenient fact: Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum after 9/11.
The Iraq War has set back the cause of democracy in the Middle East by a generation.
That’s an incredibly stupid assertion. They’re holding elections in Iraq. There’s zero chance that would happening absent the invasion.
Name instances in which democracy was set back. I can name several in which it moved forward: there were elections in Saudi Arabia, liberalization in Turkey, elections in Palestine, and contested elections in Egypt, all for the first time, all since the invasion.
Again, partisanship has robbed you of common sense. It would be accurate to say Al Qaeda has been set back a generation by their utter failure in Iraq: no one liked how they governed, and their methods of acquiring power were so horrifying that public opinion all over the Mideast has turned against terrorism.
"It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
That’s from someone with a long history of hating America.
No, you’ve only exposed your own side’s ignorance, unseriousness, and mendacity by making such ridiculous analogies and misleading statements. It’s more important for you to call Bush a liar than to be honest or factual in your criticisms. Shame.
Ansar Al-Islam and Al-Zarqawi were long ago discredited as a link between Iraq and AQ. Saddam’s government was trying to hunt down and arrest Al-Zarqawi. The reports that Al-Zarqawi recieved medical treatement in Iraq were from the same unreliable sources that provided all the other incorrect intelligence on Iraq. This has nothing to do with Bush. I have not heard him repeating these claims lately. You are repeating them.
Another inconvenient fact: Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum after 9/11.
I don’t know where you got this information. I believe that this is a slightly garbled version of the claim that Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum in 1999 after the Africa Embassy bombings. That claim is really just speculation. The US was pressing Afghanistan to arrest Bin Laden and an Iraqi official visited him in Afghanistan in 1999. Intelligence analysts speculated that Saddam Hussein may have offered Bin Laden asylum. The speculation, with no supporting facts, was turned into a link between Iraq and AQ.
Now we are pretty sure that Bin Laden has been granted asylum by locals in the Pakistan tribal regions, but we have not used that to justify and invasion of Pakistan.
That’s an incredibly stupid assertion. They’re holding elections in Iraq. There’s zero chance that would happening absent the invasion.
Are you so blinded by your ideology that you think people will look at Iraq as a model of what they want their own country to look like. Iraq has associated democracy with sectarian violence, civil war, and weak, ineffective government. It will take a generation to overcome that those associations.
They were all actually very good reasons, Mike, and you should be ashamed of taking the pro-fascist, anti-democracy stance you did.
Perhaps one day you’ll embrace liberalism and give up your reactionary views. We’ll all say a prayer for you. :-)
Ansar Al-Islam and Al-Zarqawi were long ago discredited as a link between Iraq and AQ.
They had a base in Iraq. They were an Al Qaeda affiliate. They only lacked operational links.
Saddam’s government was trying to hunt down and arrest Al-Zarqawi.
Right, I’m sure they were trying really hard at the same time they were offering his boss asylum. Sure. Somehow the entire police state managed not to find him, even though the Baath party runs the hospitals.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/39-301101.html
SADDAM REPORTEDLY OFFERS ASYLUM TO BIN LADEN, MULLAH OMAR. The Karachi newspaper "Ummat" of 22 November carries an article saying that Saddam Husseyn has offered asylum to the top Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership, including Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. In this regard, a delegation led by a senior official in the Iraqi government. Taha Husseyn, met with Mavlana Jalal ud-Din Haqqani in Kandahar and conveyed Saddam’s offer to him. If the report is true, then it is at least the second time that Saddam has offered bin Laden asylum. Faruq Hijazi, the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey until his recent recall, contacted bin Laden in Afghanistan in late 1999 and offered asylum to him and some of his lieutenants (see "RFE/RL Iraq Report," 8 January 1999).
Iraq has associated democracy with sectarian violence, civil war, and weak, ineffective government.
That’s a trope of dictators, Islamofascists, and leftists who need to hate Bush , and to believe it you need to have ignored the last year’s news. Iraq is overcoming all those issues, and no one is blaming "democracy" for those problems. Quite the opposite; Iraqis are embracing the electoral process as a solution to those tensions.
Ansar Al-Islam and Al-Zarqawi were long ago discredited as a link between Iraq and AQ.
Also, if you will notice, Baer’s assertion did not involve operational links to Saddam. He actually claims AQ was not in Iraq, and is not today in any real sense.
This is the kind of shameless smearing based on a total disregard for the facts that the BDS sufferers have been doing for years, and it makes the cray right-wing Clinton Death List people look sane by comparison.Â
Comments on this entry are closed.