80 Comments

1. Andy Rigrod:

Jealousy knows no bounds.

Jun 24, 2008 - 5:00 pm 2. robert verdi:

What I Find infuriating is that hundreds of americans and thousands of Iraqis died wresting control of Iraq from criminals, terrorists and warlords. He is so flippant about their sacrifce and their accomplishment. Its typical of a pundit more concerned what other pundits are thinking then over reality.

Jun 24, 2008 - 5:59 pm 3. chuck:

Hey, that hat looks great!

Jun 24, 2008 - 6:55 pm 4. srlucado:

I think the mistake that a lot of people (especially liberals) make is to think “That guy’s wrong; I have a different point of view; ergo, I am right.”

Maybe it was wrong (in the sense of over-reaching) to try to bring western-style democracy to Iraq, but it would have been more wrong to do nothing and hope for the best.

I for one simply cannot believe that another five years of Saddam Hussein receiving tens of billions of “Oil for Food” dollars would have made the world a better place.

Scott

P.S. I like this profile photo better than the one on rogerlsimon.com.

Jun 24, 2008 - 7:08 pm 5. Lem:

[Klein] says he “happily” acknowledges he was wrong about the surge.

Joe Klein on The Daily Show Feb 10 2003 commenting on whether we should remove Saddam.

… I got to say, I mean I’m struggling with this [whether to remove Saddam]… It isn’t enough for me that France is against it to be for it…. and I go back and forth… I mean I live this thing day to day to day… and I change my mind from day to day to day.

http://tinyurl.com/4snosh

How long will Klein “happily” acknowledge he was wrong about the surge…. remains a mystery

Jun 24, 2008 - 7:18 pm 6. Sam:

Thanks, Mr. Simon. That’s an astute piece.

Jun 24, 2008 - 7:53 pm 7. Gary Rosen:

“The statement in general is remarkably arrogant and, dare I say it, out of control.”

Dare I say, blatantly antisemitic? This is right out of the Buchanan playbook – Joooish neocons and accusations of dual loyalty. What an unspeakably loathsome scumbag Klein has revealed himself to be.

Jun 24, 2008 - 11:49 pm 8. Lightnin' Hopkins:

Democracy. I mean, the notion. The very idea. Imagine!

Klein’s piece “smacks of” – and after this time in history is fully documented and annotated – will continue to smack of appeasement, weakness and failure.

When I peer into the soul of today’s Democratic party I see such a gutless void that I wonder what benchmark of evil, what horrendous attack will ever be enough to arouse their sense of honor and self-preservation?

Klein and his ilk “smack of” the Men of Munich. Let’s hope that history enshrines them as the ignoble footnotes they deserve to be.

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:25 am 9. Craig A. Zimmerman:

Note the line: “…divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.” Let’s look at an implied contrary position. Would a world which is NOT safe for Israel be in our National Interest? Might a world which is NOT safe for Israel also be NOT safe for other nations who support the United States? Consider a historical perspective. The Atlantic Charter is an example of “divided loyalties” where FDR explicitly recognized that it was in the National Interest “to make the world safe for Great Britain”. Of course, anti-Jewish opinion may see the Atlantic Charter as just as wrong as they see the current policy. I would rather not be on that side of the argument.

Jun 25, 2008 - 2:22 am 10. David Thomson:

“Klein and his ilk “smack of” the Men of Munich.”

Joe Klein and his fellow left-wingers feels uncomfortable with the need for disciplined violence to defend civilization. They are dishonest pacifists. In back of their minds, if not even explicitly, these people are convinced that “soft power” policies will always resolve conflicts. Our enemies only require warmth and understanding. Indeed, it is very fair to describe them as appeasers similar to those who allowed the Nazi crisis to get out of control in the mid to late 1930s.

Jun 25, 2008 - 4:39 am 11. vb:

It is very important to keep reminding people that no one besides the neocons offered an alternative for dealing with Saddam. John Vinocur reported in his IHT column of a meeting of congressional foreign policy people with European diplomats. Joe Biden told the diplomats that the only thing he heard from them was “bla, bla, bla.” That eloquent phrase remains stuck in my mind because at the time I was searching for an alternative I could support.

Jun 25, 2008 - 6:48 am 12. Jay:

“Whatever one thinks about the neocons, they had virtually the only program, the only idea of how to right the world after 9/11.”

I’m not so sure that they had the “only” post 9/11 program, as much as conservatives and neoconservatives happened to be holding the White House at the time. Comes the question: although said conservatives and neoconservatives had “the” program, was it the “right” program?

Finally, I’m suprised that you didn’t flag the coded anti-semitism of Klein’s writing, Roger. Jamie Kirchick is currently hammering him for it, and I think such punishment is richly deserved.

Jun 25, 2008 - 7:57 am 13. Roger L Simon:

“Finally, I’m suprised that you didn’t flag the coded anti-semitism of Klein’s writing, Roger. Jamie Kirchick is currently hammering him for it, and I think such punishment is richly deserved.”

Frankly, Jay, I thought it was too obvious. Klein is a very confused fellow – and to be honest, not much of a novelist either.

And could you specify what other programs you mean other than the neocon approach? All I can recall is a lot of confusion.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:12 am 14. david foster:

Klein could have also argued that it was impossible to “inject democracy” in the religiously-based monarchy of the defeated Imperial Japan; also the bizarre Nazi culture in a country with an authoritarian history and a record of failure with democracy (Weimar).

A Priori, neither of these really looked like a better bet than Iraq does today.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:16 am 15. david foster:

What is the difference between the “submit” button and the “post” button?

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:16 am 16. Roger L Simon:

“What is the difference between the “submit” button and the “post” button?”

Not sure myself. I will consult with my tech guru and report back. Probably a glitch.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:22 am 17. None Given:

Joke Line IS, himself, a neocon. You righties kick anyone off the team who doesnt spout the talking points every time.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:30 am 18. Glenn:

Awash in a sea of urban violence ,welfareism,illegitimacy, anti-white paranoia and anti-intellectualism the self defined good liberal goes forward. He/She can’t admit they are wrong about anything. Solution: Project your own failures onto someone else, the Neo-Cons are handy, and better yet some of them are Jews. Look guys we’ve got a twofer. And let’s throw Joe Lieberman into the mix as well. Perfect, someone else to blame for all the stuff we screwed up.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:41 am 19. GW Crawford:

Re: Joke Line IS, himself, a neocon. You righties kick anyone off the team who doesnt spout the talking points every time.

This is typical leftism: There is no ‘right’

We do not have to apologize for each other as we are not drones for the glorification of the nanny state as is the left

We may share some values but we do not walk in lock step like leftists (who make excuses for tyranny like Cuba because … well, because you say it is better than Batista)

I have something in common with the so-called religious right but disagree STRONGLY with their religious views, I share a lot with some libertarians but disagree strongly with no government oversight, I share some thoughts with humanists – but I disagree with their tendency towards soft Marxism

I am legion – I contain multitudes

You are The People – you try to make evil seem more pleasant and good for me

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:47 am 20. nynick:

Whatever one thinks about the neocons, they had virtually the only program, the only idea of how to right the world after 9/11. Conventional liberalism and conventional liberals had nothing to say. They still don’t”

He means neocons had the only program that Roger Simon thought was a good idea. There were alternatives but Einsteins like Mr. Simon would have none of it. Tracking down terrorists and those that funded them didn’t have the required “shock and awe” factor Mr. Simon required. A few marines with guns dropping into some Saudi village and killing a few sheiks while they slept would need to be done in secret. That would just not do for the armchair generals like Roger Simon. It required war. War was fought with lots of machines and men. It was not fought with superior intelligence and pinpoint targeted killings. To say there were no other options is to absolve the fools who wholeheartedly endorsed the neocon vision of the future. A vision that was never based in reality or had any chance in hell of success. Saying there were no other plans means Roger Simon can’t be blamed for how this all turns out. He’s a coward. He’s trying to reserve his right to take credit if it somehow turns out well in Iraq and blame the very people who warned against this idiocy should it fail.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:55 am 21. Mary:

Mr. Klein is an angry, bitter, washed up hack. He’s totally stuck in the sixties, as is the rag he writes for.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:05 am 22. nynick:

Srlucado writes:

“I for one simply cannot believe that another five years of Saddam Hussein receiving tens of billions of “Oil for Food” dollars would have made the world a better place. ”

Saddam was an evil bastard but he was fairly well contained. Our adventure in Iraq has one real winner and that’s Iranians. I’m sure some will say no one could have predicted that Iran would benefit from our invasion but that would be a lie. Iran may soon use Iraq in the way Syria used Lebanon. Their influence over the Shi’ite community within Iraq is well documented and their knowhow and arms are the primary reason the Shi’ite militias exist. All of this was easily predictable prior to our invasion. Yes Saddam is gone and that’s good but was it worth the risk of creating a regional superpower out our Iranian enemies? If one uses the Bush Doctine criteria, they have it all. They have been a primary exporter of terror for over thirty years, they are pursuing weapons of mass destruction and they are actively targeting american soldiers inside Iraq albeit through their proxies. I never heard the neocons explain how they planned to counter this. Back before the war began when I would mention this the usual refrain was “don’t worry, their next!” Any realistic assessment of the situation would have to conclude there is no “next”. We are not likely to repeat this invasion/occupation mistake again.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:09 am 23. jaed:

Er… and Marines with guns invading Saudi Arabia in order to shoot a few random people in their sleep is not an act of war?

(I mean, apart from the fact that I don’t actually recall anyone proposing to murder a few sheiks after 9/11. Do you perhaps have a cite to anyone espousing such a plan at the time?)

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:12 am 24. gk1:

I remember Mr.Klein writing an article (circa 1998) about ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and how the ineffectual translator who is too craven to fight when it matters is a moral coward when he shoots a surrendering nazi. He likened this to the left’s hybernation in using force that Serbia had awaken under Clinton and that forever more the left would be a muscular proponent of U.S democracy, righting wrongs, blah,blah,blah. Yeah, right. Its amazing this petulent, baby-man is still taken seriously in this day and age.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:26 am 25. Ben:

nynick,

Roger’s point stands. Look back at the record and you will see that no one else in 2002-03 offered up a comprehensive plan for dealing with the terrorism problem. The Left was too busy navel-gazing and whimpering about how everything was America’s fault to actually deal with the problem. They were content to sit back and bash GWB for whatever choices he made, while not offering any credible alternatives. Now that’s cowardly.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:27 am 26. Cap'n Dan:

It was pretty clear to me, anyway, when we went into Iraq that it was a bold move to completely transform the middle east and potentially Islam by building a western-style secular democracy right in the middle. Overreaching? The first people able to answer that question are the historians who will be publishing their conclusions 30 years from now.

W told us after 9/11 that the war our enemies started would be long and hard. I remember telling my (then 9 y.o.) daughter in September 2001 that we were entering a war that would be the dominant fact of her generation, just as the cold war was for mine, with a similar commitment in time, blood, and treasure.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:30 am 27. Ben:

Saddam was an evil bastard but he was fairly well contained.

Hah! Yeah, and Iraqis were a happy and prosperous people flying kites before we invaded.

The sanctions regime was collapsing, even in the wake of 9/11, due to French and Russian fecklessness. As every investigation of the past few years has verified, Saddam was quietly biding his time on his WMD programs and seeking uranium from countries in Africa. To say he was “contained” is a sad, sad joke.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:32 am 28. gk1:

It is interesting to me the canard that Iran is a regional superpower now because we knocked off saddam, and that the status quo was preferable to regime change in iraq. Most adults understand we went to war with hitler because he presented a greater evil than stalin. Yes, Stalin and the soviet union benefitted from hitler’s downfall but the idea of keeping a balance of power between hitler’s germany and Stalin or “containing” hitler is absurd on its face for the same reason hoping to “contain” a psychotic saddam flushed with oil money is absurd.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:38 am 29. Bob Owens:

“Saddam was an evil bastard but he was fairly well contained.”

Contained in Iran from 1980-88 at a cost of roughly a million lives. Contained in Kuwait in 1990-91 at a cost human cost estimated as ranging from 20,000 to 200,000.

This of course, does not count the tens of thousands of his on countrymen he put under the ground through internal suppression, and ignores the fact Saddam was grooming his sadist son to succeed him to terrorize the region for another generation.

nickny and other progressives like him always claim to be anti-war, but why is it their pacifism in the fact of oppression always exacts such a high price in needless death and suffering?

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:39 am 30. Michael in Seattle:

What is the difference between the “submit” button and the “post” button?

One button complies with Sharia. The other is apostate.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:39 am 31. Martini Revolution » It’s about time:

[...] Media lead dumbkopf Roger Simon: Whatever one thinks about the neocons, they had virtually the only program, the only idea of how [...]

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:46 am 32. ray_g:

Even more out of control: the bit about the neocons is followed by “And then there is the question–made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis–of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies. ”

So it appears that in Klein’s opinion, it is still all about the Jews and oil.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:53 am 33. Respawn:

NYNick,

So, it’s a disaster because . . . you say so? Sorry, but argument by assertion doesn’t impress me. Let’s see: violence down, civilian killings down, infiltration down, oil production up, infrastructure expansion and repair up and accelerating. Iran’s sock puppet, Moqtada El-Sadr and his Madhi Army? Getting their butts kicked, regularly. Over 95% of the country under Iraqi government control. Significant and accelerating progress on the political “milestones.” Yep, sure sounds like a disaster to me.

Oh, and BTW, Saddam was most certainly NOT contained by the sanctions. The record is replete with evidence that he was violating the sanctions left, right and center. We have ample evidence of direct complicity on the part of the Russians, and probably the Germans and French, in such violations. Billions in bribes to UN officials. The sanctions leaked like a collander, and were collapsing further before our eyes. But do go on with that “he was contained” meme; it helps illustrate for the observant how completely out of touch you are.

Dude, your BDS is showing.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:03 am 34. Rachel:

Look, the only thing most of us who support the Iraq War is to watch how the Libs (the group I’m always lumped with with every political quiz) will tap dance around this when they own 1600 Pennsylvainia Ave. All of the sudden, *gasp* Hussein was EVIL and tortured people! *gasp* SH had connections in the UN to exchange oil for support of Iraq!

translated – all the things the “neocons” have been legitimately arguing for years will suddenly have validity under a Dem House, Senate and Presidency. they cannot kick W around without sounding whiny and if they abandon Iraq and it leads to something worse it will be they not W and the neocons (great name for a band) who will have blood on their hands.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:04 am 35. pdq332:

But nynick, Saddam was not in fact contained. That was the whole issue. Saddam wielded greater and greater influence among EU and UN business elites (the “Oil for Food” bankers and contractors) and EU and UN politicians (the “multipolar world” dreamers). The sanctions regime was in a freefall due to the efforts of those same businessmen tainted by “Oil for Food” as well as the public machinations of leftist activist groups like Doctors without Borders. And Saddam operated with impunity training camps for terrorists within his own borders (including Salman Pak complete with an airliner mockup), had been free of weapons inspectors since 1998, and had in many instances used chemical weapons against Iran and Iraqi civilians. Oh, and he was regularly shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones. In what precise sense was Saddam contained? Contained only by the goodwill of liberals, it seems.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:05 am 36. Neo:

What seems to have happened in Iraq in the last few months is that the Iraqi mainstream has finally done some liberating of itself. With the help of the troop surge ordered by President Bush, the mainstream Sunni tribes have liberated themselves from the grip of Al Qaeda in their provinces. And the Shiite mainstream — represented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army — liberated Basra, Amara and Sadr City in Baghdad from both Mahdi Army militiamen and pro-Iranian death squads.

The many voices that rose in favor of the invasion, that have now claimed some sort of buyer’s remorse or insanity in the aftermath, have learned nothing. It’s easy to be a wimp.

When Bush started the adventure into Afghanistan (before Iraq), the first thing that the local partners in the region asked is whether America was in this for the duration, or would they be left with an American mess to clean up. Clearly, Bush said what he meant and meant what he said.

Friedman’s column can be read to say that finally, in the last year or so, the Iraqis believe Bush meant it too. Beleived it enough to take on UBL’s al Qaeda that planned to make Fallujah the capital of the caliphate. Believed it enough to take on their Shia brothers from Iran. Believed it when the Democratic leadership in the Congress showed none.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:05 am 37. Jay:

Roger,

There was no “confusion” among liberals post-9/11. Bush got support from every Dem and Lib in congress save the irrelevant Barbara Lee. It seems you’re asking why the Dem leadership didn’t propose an alternative foreign policy in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. Such an action would be unneccessary in my view.

Now, you may argue that they’re doing that vis-a-vis the Iraq War. I disagree. For while I supported, and still support, that invasion, I think it is vital for elected officials to voice their constituents’ concerns, and in case you haven’t noticed, the public is deeply anguished about this war. People disagree with Bush’s course in Iraq, and sustained disagreement is important to the health of the Republic. Our fighting men and women are far stronger than what a politician or public figure might say; I don’t think the domestic political climate hurts them. Why? Because people join the military for a variety of reasons, leading to a military that is more diverse politically than some people may think.

Finally, on the question of an alternative foreign policy, it’s much easier to implement one from the White House than the sidelines, and alot of Dems, with Obama now gathering steam, are coalescing around his idea of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan (an inarguably neccessary front in my view, and the Senator’s) and pursuing bin Ladenists in Pakistan.

We can argue the merits of this approach, and it may well work in future, but no one can say it isn’t an approach.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:11 am 38. Nicole Tedesco:

nynick,

Keep in mind that when you remove your most important problem, your second most important problem becomes your most important problem. That is one way to understand Iran’s position.

Was Iraq our most important problem at the time? Well, perhaps not–rather, Iran was and still is our most important problem. To balance me previous statement, we failed to take care of our Number One problem and instead concentrated on our Number Two, or Number Three problem. Why would we have done that? Why did we invade Iraq instead of invading Iran? Probably because we could. We could for many reasons, including the fact that we were still technically at war with Iraq from the early 1990s. Cease fires don’t end wars, like in the case with North Korea–then again, given that logic why didn’t we invade North Korea? I mean, Jee, there they were helping the Syrians build nuclear capabilities that the Isrealis had to destroy just a few months ago. Then again, sanctions were crumbling for Saddam by 2003 and we know from past experience he would have indeed continued his past behavior the moment he had cash coming in again. What to do? What to do…

In the decision to invade Iraq there were many, many trade-offs like these to consider. Invading Iraq was an imperfect decision, but so would have been the decision to not invade. After 9/11 we have been left between the proverbial rock and a hard spot with regard to how to prosecute this war. For instance, do we perform targeted killing in Pakistan today because the Pakistanis can’t or won’t do so for themselves? I mean, Jee, we know bin Laden, Mullah Ohmar and all the rest of the Gang of Merry Men are hiding there! Unfortunately, there are nothing but trade-offs and imperfect decisions to be had.

I often tell people that for any important decision where uncertainty is high, you will find the sharpest “politics.” I don’t despise, for instance, Barak Obama’s decision to “Just Say No” to this war. I also don’t despise the Neocon’s decision to do so. I was conflicted in the run up to the war, really. I sought opinions from friends on all sides of the political spectrum. In the end, I favored the “go to war” decision because I though (and still do) that sanctions were killing more people than war would have (and I turned out to be correct). However I don’t begrudge my fellows for their point of view in a difficult, difficult decision that did not have clear answer then, and does not have clear answers now. For instance some rudimentary democracy may indeed take hold in Iraq. The Iraqi sense of proudness and fondness for “doing it their way” may very well keep Iraq from becoming another Lebanon. Who knows, the rest of Iraq may indeed even turn out like the Kurdish north, rich with oil, stable, and a place where Middle Easterners can experiment with government forms beyond what they tend to have today. Perhaps the voice of Iraqis, as they become more confident in themselves, a little richer, and more participatory in regional affairs, help indeed to offset some of the crappy memes that have been floating around that region for the last couple of generations or two or so.

In short, calm down nynick. Your past decisions had no more certainty that the ones that were undertaken, really. Besides, Iraq is only one data point from which no overall recommendation for any strategy can be taken with any high degree of certainty. Drawing any conclusions at all from today’s Iraqi situation is still fraught with uncertainty.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:18 am 39. Jbl:

Klein hates Israel, too?

Well, that’s taking the brave and edgy view.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:19 am 40. Charlie (Colorado):

Not sure myself. I will consult with my tech guru and report back. Probably a glitch.

It’s a bug. I already asked

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:21 am 41. nynick:

Jaed,

Either we’re serious about fighting the war on terror or we are not. Do you think it’s s a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis? do you think the funding for these operations doesn’t include some Saudi funds? If we want to stop these people, we should be serious about stopping the people who sleep in nice clean beds and write checks that provide safe houses and training for their deadly operations. That definitely includes some folks in Saudi Arabia. Will they get upset? Should we care? I doubt anyone would complain if we were fly a few marines into Pakistan to kill
Osama, why aren’t the people who funded his operations subject to the same treatment? The goal should be to make it obvious to those that fund terror that they may well pay with their lives for this decision. Why would anyone who’s serious about fighting terror object? Are there risks? Sure. Aren’t there risks to our current approach?

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:21 am 42. Charlie (Texas):

Despite centuries of intelligent disquisition on Peace, progressives persist in misdefining it as the absence of conflict rather than the absence of coercion.

Their misdefinition “proves” there is no logical possibility of fighting for peace; Vietnam is, in their narrative, cherished proof.

Iraq and Afghanistan stand to upset that narrative. If they succeed, there is no reason not to tackle other tyrannies, freeing the people: Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea.

I can understand why isolationist paleo-conservatives would oppose such ventures, but can’t conceive why so-called liberals are so dead-set against true peace.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:26 am 43. Jungus:

nynick:
I remember alternatives that had been tried before:
1. Overrunning the country with troops, winning big time and then just leaving. This lead to Iraq pre-2003. We took out their tooth and claw, but the rot remained and festered again.
2. Sending in Marines and Spec-Ops. We did this with Osama, it is a shame that Clinton couldn’t give the final order. This could have worked. With the exception that someone else could then fill in the vacant seat.
3. Firing a missle and wait. That was a dismal failure when all we hit was an aspirin plant and an uoccupied camp.

Sorry buddy, but like the Marshall Plan in WWII cleaning up the swamps that created our enemies was the solution that works. It takes time. Lots of it. And if the neo-con plan had not worked, it at least had the distinction of not being tried and failed recently.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:29 am 44. Nicole Tedesco:

nynick,

In the spirit of my last post, you have a good point. We should probably do all of those things, and more. Can we though? When? How? What is the next thing we should do? While it is easy for you and I to be armchair presidents and generals, I can’t imagine it is easy to actually be them. Trade-offs, trade-offs, trade-offs…

I tell you what though, I prefer people who make any decision at all in difficult situations to those like Jimmy Carter who froze and couldn’t make any decision at all. When he was elected I, probably like many, thought that it might be good having an ex-Navy engineer-type in office. He might be smart, I said to myself. However, like a lot of engineers I know who see the details of everything and hence see life in terms of shades of gray instead of Ye Olde Black and White, decision making tends not to be their strength. I have learned through painful–painful I tell you–experience that making any decision at all most often trumps making no decision (in the long run, at least).

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:33 am 45. Lem:

He means neocons had the only program that Roger Simon* [sic] thought was a good idea. There were alternatives but Einsteins like Mr. Simon would have none of it.

Revising history (There were alternatives to Saddam being removed – never mind the dozen or so UN resolutions) this close to the election and with the surge widely accepted to be succeeding, smacks of lemons being turned into lemonade.

If an Obamination has to pass thru the cinders of Bagdad in order to insure entering into the White House, then by golly – yes we can – NOT have success in Iraq.

* That’s Roger L Simon (not to be confused with Politico’s Roger Simon)

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:40 am 46. Jungus:

Wow, Nicole, I have never seen anyone else write down exactly how I feel about the Iraq invasion. Thank you.

nynick, I do sympathize with your argument about the Saudis in 9/11. However like what Nicole said there are trade-offs. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia is our “ally”. They also can raise the price of oil globally which will get other countries blaming us for it. It also might also inflame muslems world-wide since their holy city of Mecca is there. I guarantee if we attacked, propaganda will spring up saying we are trying to take their holy land.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:41 am 47. nynick:

Look, it’s been how many years since Bush landed on that aircraft carrier to say Mission Accomplished? Through all that time, we’ve been assured that the situation is improving and that we’re just around the next corner from victory. Meanwhile, we’ve spent over a trillion dollars, lost countless lives and still have very little to show for our investment.

The military has adapted and has performed beyond expectations. They have been through too many battles and lost too many comrades to not adapt. They have learned how to fight this war and are a lot better and it than they were when the arrived five long years ago. That being said, reduced violence is not the same as no violence. There are still people inside and outside Iraq who have a vested interest in making Iraq ungovernable. All they need do is continue to forment ethnic violence, disrupt basic services and otherwise toss a monkey wrench into the machinery of government. We can keep a tight lid on violence but that only preserves the status quo. How do we go from here to a place where we can reduce our troop levels enough so that our men and women are not the exposed to daily IED attacks? We’re going to have an election here in November and if you are paying any attention at all, it’s pretty clear the Republican brand has been so badly tarnished by the Bush adminstrations incompetence that there is only a very small chance John McCain can defeat the flawed and overhyped Barack Obama. There is no chance Republicans will gain down ticket and Democrats will control the House and Senate and probably the White House. That’s going to mean significant changes ahead in Iraq. If the neocons who brought us to this point have a solution, I’d love to hear it. They don’t. Their solution is to continue plodding along, they know it’s unsustainable, they know their about to be displaced in Washington and they know that in the end, they will not take an ounce of responsibility for their failures or their hubris. They will simply blame the next guy.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:41 am 48. Jim:

Klein must have forgotten – Israel is off limits for any criticism. Fortunately, most other ethnic groups in the US have made efforts to take on an American mindset, rather than putting their ancestral home first.

Imagine what foreign policy would look like if those of us with English, Irish, German, Italian, Russian, and Chinese ancestry all looked at foreign policy the way neoconservative Jews do (I clarify here because most of the Jewish people I know HAVE taken on a more American mindset, and it is unfair to blame the majority of American Jews who aren’t irrational Israel jingoists).

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:45 am 49. JKRibera:

NYNick, I noticed you called Mr. Simon a “coward” above. He puts his name and reputation behind his opinions and you appear here attacking him ad hominem under an anonymous moniker. Contradiction? (Of course, there may be only one “Nick” in NY, in which case I apologize).

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:48 am 50. Jungus:

Since I probably meet the definition of a neo-con take this for what it is:
I believe that we should continue. I do think it will work. Like I said, it takes time.
Other solutions are pickup and leave (much like Vietnam, I know this is getting pretty cliched) and go totally no-tolerance police state on them.
I see that other nations are not helping or leaving (with a few exceptions) so multi-national is out. I am not sure, but did even the UN say they won’t help? If they do offer, I wouldn’t bite. They still stink of Oil-for-Food scandal.

And I am tired of that lame Mission Accomplished whine. Seriously, you can do better.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:52 am 51. Nicole Tedesco:

nynick,

Yes, Iraq is a difficult situation and has been since its inception after World War I. (If you can talk to the dead, I implore you to ask Churchill about his experience there.) In some sense however, we are still fighting WWI in the case of Iraq. That case has been made by many people over the last few years, and it has some merit.

Iraq always has been a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. If we didn’t tackle it now, we would have to revisit it again later. Assuming Saddam’s sanctions crumbled completely (which they were on the way to doing), and Saddam restarted his WMD programs and worked to rebuild his military, and he continued to provide training for terrorists and so on, what would have been the cost of invasion in the future? There is perhaps no good way of answering that question, but I am willing to bet the we have been getting the best deal possible.

Are things bad in Iraq? Ask that again, but follow that with, “Compared to what?” Is the situation in Iraq worse that, I don’t know, Sudan? What about Zimbabwe? “The level of violence is lower in those regions!” you might say. To that I say the Iraqis have one thing those places do not: hope. Damned, that is a priceless gift. Iraq just might turn out OK in the long run, where all bets are currently off for many other countries around the world.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:55 am 52. nynick:

Jungus writes:

“Sorry buddy, but like the Marshall Plan in WWII cleaning up the swamps that created our enemies was the solution that works. It takes time. Lots of it. And if the neo-con plan had not worked, it at least had the distinction of not being tried and failed recently.”

Maybe. But you tell me, if you were president and you were proposing something akin to the Marshall Plan, why would you spend the entire pre-war period downplaying the risks and the costs? If you were planning a long term strategic endeavor which would require a committment well past your presidency, wouldn’t you maybe want to prepare the american people for the road ahead? If not, what do you think the odds are that you would be able to sell this idea at the last minute when you’re approval rating is at an all time low and even your former supporters are abandoning you? It’s basic leadership 101.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:02 am 53. Nicole Tedesco:

How soon we forget…if you looked at our nation in the early 1800s, would you have concluded that we were a nation with a future? Have you read your history books? Do you know what kind of violence we were experiencing in the decades prior to the Civil War?

What about Chicago around the time of Prohibition? What about Las Vegas in the middle of the century? What about our gang problem now? How bad is our “warlord” problem and will it ever improve? Is the United States in danger of crumbling tomorrow? Is it OK to have hope in the future here in the United States?

Iraq has taken more than a century to pacify, and it is certainly still a work in progress. From my point of view however, the United States has accomplished more in that country in 5 years what many have tried to do for more than 80. From a historical perspective, I think we are doing pretty damned good there.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:02 am 54. jmurphy:

Quote: “The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives–people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary–plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.”

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:05 am 55. nynick:

Rkribera,

Email me and I will send you my real name. Unlike Roger L. Simon, I’m not looking in this to make a buck.

Roger is a coward because he is looking for someone to blame for any outcome less than victory. He was an early and vocal advocate of this war and if you look back at his prewar predictions and statements, he cannot now escape his responsibility for pushing the neocon vision he’s quietly trying to back away from.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:07 am 56. Nicole Tedesco:

nynick,

Yes, risks were downplayed publicly. Yes, I will also admit that President Bush has been an abysmal failure in his ability to communicate and “sell” the war, before and after invasion. (Then again, FDR didn’t have much luck “selling” WWII until Pearl Harbor and he was by far a better communicator. Then again, he could communicate.) Yes, it would have been nice to have a leader in office and not just an administrator and decision-maker. In my mind however, these failures do not change in my mind the (complete) original reasoning for invasion and my perception of progress to date. (Unfortunately, I have to get my information from sources other than our dear president.)

I wonder what we would be doing today if Al Gore would have been elected? 9/11 would have still happened, that’s for sure. We probably would be in Afghanistan, as we are now. Would we have invaded Iraq? Would we have gone directly to Iran instead? Perhaps neither, and perhaps Republicans would be giving Mr. Gore the Devil’s time about not prosecuting the GWOT more effectively. Perhaps there still would not have been another attack on our soil and instead, other countries and perhaps other U.S. embassies would be getting hit more often. Perhaps not. Perhaps unintended consequences that no one has yet thought about of not invading Iraq would have been clearly present by now. Who knows. I am willing to bet however, that there is no way to predict what the outcome would have been because this situation is very, very complicated.

A decision was made however, some decision. Let’s all try to make the best of it. I would rather try to succeed in Iraq now than just throw it all away, regardless of how my neighbors feel about it.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:13 am 57. nynick:

Nicole,

“Is it OK to have hope in the future here in the United States?”

Of course. But hope is no replacement for a strategy.

You’re analogies to Vegas and Chicago don’t hold water. We may have had periods of violence but I grew up in Vegas and don’t remember going years with only intermittent electricity like they have in Iraq. I don’t recall daily suicide bombings in public squares. I don’t recall our neighbors forming militias and forcing people who didn’t come from our tribe to leave town. Those are all too familiar occurances for Iraqis.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:14 am 58. jmurphy:

Quote: “The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives–people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary–plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.”

Does accusing Joe Lieberman, and others, of treason (their “divided loyalty” leads to sacrificing American blood and treasure)really an example of a “ritual bashing” of neocons? I thought this type of talk was on the extreme fringe of anti-semites and conspiracy theorists (the-Trilateral- commission-is-controlled-by-Jews-and-they-rule-the-world nutcakes.)It is truly disturbing to see it come from anyone who professes to be a responsible, serious person.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:14 am 59. nynick:

Nicole,

“(Then again, FDR didn’t have much luck “selling” WWII until Pearl Harbor and he was by far a better communicator. Then again, he could communicate.)”

Since you were so quick to lecture me about history, may I respectfully suggest you consult a history book as to exactly when we entered WWII. My version suggests it was after Pearl Harbor, not before.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:18 am 60. nynick:

“Are things bad in Iraq? Ask that again, but follow that with, “Compared to what?” Is the situation in Iraq worse that, I don’t know, Sudan? What about Zimbabwe? “The level of violence is lower in those regions!”

If I understand you correctly, you’re not making a distinction between casualties and American casualties. Does this mean you advocate America as the worlds policmen? Parachuting in wherever trouble may strike? If so, that’s a decidedly unconservative approach to foreign affairs. IMO there is a big difference between trouble spots in the world and trouble spots were we have 150k boots on the ground. We can and should do what we can to help the helpless in places like Sudan and Zimbabwe but when we have our boys and girls in uniform in harms way in some far off trouble spot, we have more than a passive interest in what happens there.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:27 am 61. Nicole Tedesco:

nynick,

In terms of “bombings in public squares,” perhaps Vegas and Chicago weren’t my best choices of places to use as examples. Let me try instead, Oklahoma City. How about the Wall Street bombing of the early 20th century? What about the Anarchist assassinations during the 19th and early 20th century which also claimed the life of President McKinley in Buffalo? What about the group of communists who rushed the Congress in 1950s and started shooting up people there? What about the KKK? What about the Indian Wars? Then there was that nasty business during the 1860s. Wounded Knee anyone? LA race riots of a few years ago? Nick, you don’t recall being marched out of your home, because you are probably not black and not old enough to remember. (Heck, I remember houses of black families in affluent neighborhoods of my home town being torched even as late as the early 1980s.) What about the forced labor of blacks after the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927).

This country has indeed has its share of problems analogous to what Iraq has today. Perhaps they were not concentrated into as small as an area as Iraq (our country is, after all, much bigger). Perhaps they didn’t all happen during the same time period. (With the exception of the Civil War–gulp, should we really omit that from our analysis?) Leave the United States for a moment and look at recent European history. France certainly has had its Iraq-like time within the last couple of hundred years. (Then there was that nasty business during WWII.)

I guess my point is that the establishment of the United States was not, and is not, without its sad moments yet somehow we have slogged on over the generations. I believe Iraq will do that too. A future in any way like ours (or whatever they want it to be) was not a possibility for the Iraqi people until 2003. At least they have the possibility, even if it will only come after a few generations have passed. That is, after all, how long it took us to get where we are today.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:32 am 62. Nicole Tedesco:

Nick, I do remember my history and my point about FDR is that we didn’t enter WWII until we had to (Pearl Harbor) precisely because there was no way FDR could sell the idea to the American people (who were burned out from WWI and feeling quite the isolationists). This was FDR, who was a known communicator. Bush is an anti-communicator, unfortunately. I don’t think he had (has) a chance in Hell of being able to sell us anything, even water if we were all dying of thirst. This doesn’t change my decision about whether or not we should have invaded.

As for being the “world’s policemen” — While that may actually sound like a good idea, that ultimately didn’t work out for the League of Nationers and their Mandates they were managing at the time, including Iraq. Speaking of Iraq, following Gulf War I, we were basically in the Churchillian position of playing Mandate manager for that country until 2003. Why no one else? Because no one else had the capability, nor the cash, nor the will. Did that pseudo mandate need to continue? Yes, if everyone felt that “containment” was necessary for Saddam. Was that pseudo Mandate in danger of failing? Yes, which gave us a vested direct, interest in the situation in Iraq as opposed to the situation in Sudan and so on.

Our alternative was to live with no sanctions, a failed pseudo Mandate, and a for all intents and purposes uncontained Saddam. Would that have been acceptable to today’s situation? M-m-m-m-maybe. An argument could be made either way. Like I said earlier, no perfect decision was (or is) before us.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:43 am 63. non:

I hope Klein is reading these comments.
We now know that the Israelis were lukewarm about the Iraq war and were not pushing for it. They were much more worried about the Iranians. How do you blame proIsraeli JOOOS for the war when Israel itself was telling the White House otherwise?
Yes, Israel is worried about Iran, but you hardly have to be a crazy neocon to realize that Ahamjadined with nuclear weapons spells trouble.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:44 am 64. Nicole Tedesco:

Nick, I am not necessarily a Conservative. I happen to be a free marketer and hawkish on foreign policy because I think it is amoral to leave people in slavery, whether that slavery is overt or called Communism, or extreme Islam, or despotism of any kind. If I were living in a despotic country like Saddam’s Iraq, I would want disparately for someone to come and break that problem us–regardless of the consequences. I personally would rather live with hope and uncertainty than under certain, soul-crushing slavery under which I would probably consider taking my own life. I also come from a family whose many members probably would fought against Saddam (even if we lost and died)–that’s just the way we are. My personal decision in the case of Iraq was certainly a “do unto others” kind of thing.

I remember reading “A Handmaid’s Tale” many years back. The author told us that other countries didn’t have the problems that the United States did in that future. I thought about myself in the protagonist’s position; I would have wanted these other countries to invade. Really. Even if I were killed in the process. That kind of environment was simply immoral in it was killing the souls of half of its population.

There are Iraqis here in the Seattle area I hear that are quite glad that we invaded. I hear there are Iraqis in Iraq that feel like I do. What about them? We were in a position to help them, we had a direct interest, and we were already involved. Should we have just let their souls to rot? Personally, I couldn’t take the thought of that any more.

That’s just me, I suppose.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:54 am 65. Nicole Tedesco:

Really, I’ve got to get to work. Thank goodness I can schedule my time as I see fit this week (even if it means I will be working into the night).

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:57 am 66. Nicole Tedesco:

By the way Nick, do you remember that it was we who were getting blamed for the deaths of innocent Iraqis because of the sanctions? Do you remember the propaganda fodder that was providing? What if we continued down that path? What if we were the last country to be supporting the sanctions? Would you have lived with a sanctionless Iraq? Would we just have to revisit invasion plans again in the near future? (An argument can be made that we would have been better prepared because we would have had more time to think about it. I’ll grant that argument, for sure though it would be balanced by a more prepared Saddam. Trade-offs, trade-offs, trade-offs…)

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:00 pm 67. nynick:

Nicole,

“Really, I’ve got to get to work.”

Me too!

Oklahoma City was one tragic event and one tragic event is nearly impossible to predict or stop. We don’t have them regularly. They do in Iraq.

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:07 pm 68. Jungus:

nynick writes:
…why would you spend the entire pre-war period downplaying the risks and the costs?

I wouldn’t. And as I recall Bush told us that this would not be a quick war. Bush did over-emphasis WMDs and removing tyrants and all. All I wanted was to end the war (it was still a cease-fire) and clean up a swamp that would be used to create terrorists, WMDs, and anti-US sentiment.

Anyhow, about your call for strategy, I think the point was that if there is no good way to know which strategy is better, it is best to just choose one and run with it. Flip a coin, if you don’t like that your side didn’t come up, sorry, but it was better than nothing. We had tried nothing and got 9/11 for it. If you meant the post-invasion strategery, then welcome to the American way of war. Start of on the wrong foot, but learn, and adapt, and win anyhow*. The surge was a change in strategy. I think it was successful and a sovereign, stable Iraq is now within reach. (I think it is now in easy reach if Iraq can be held back).

* The only caveat would be Vietnam. I think the country gave up, not the armed forces. And I also think that it is the only thing that can lose Iraq.

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:14 pm 69. Jungus:

Sigh, I need to work too. Good debate though.

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:18 pm 70. mbabbitt:

Liberalism is pretend compassion. They simply hate those who are willing to fight to free people from tyranny. Pacifism is the religion of Liberalism — just yell loud enough as long as you do not offend anyone.

Jun 25, 2008 - 1:48 pm 71. amos:

Hey, I love the idea of killing more Al Qaeda. But if you abandon Iraq, do you really think you’ll keep Pakistan in our column? If you lose Pakistan, will you be able to keep Afghanistan? Go look at a map and ask yourself how supplies are going to get in.

As for Viet Nam, the history books basically jump from 1968 to 1973. At its height the Army of the Republic of South Viet Nam fielded 4 million troops. Yet you never see them in the popular history. Read A Better War.

As far as Iraq taking a long time, I hate to say, if you believe that, you don’t know what a long time is. We in the Anglosphere consider ourselves the purveyors of democracy. We have supported it and spread it to more people, more successfully than anyone. Bumpy, yes, but successful? Definitely. See: India, U.S., Canada, Australia…

But how long did it take for us to get from the Magna Carta’s “The king shall not have absolute power” (because we, the aristocracy, are claiming some) to the United States Constitution’s “There will be no king”?

575 years.

6 years? 7 years? 10 years? Forever? Seriously? What an enormous lack of perspective.

Jun 25, 2008 - 1:52 pm 72. Jamie:

nynick, I’m late to the party, but there are still things to be said and I’m already home from work. You seem a decent fellow; unfortunately you’ve pitched a tent here where you’re going to be debated with as if you’re the mouthpiece for your entire side. So… nothing personal, but:

So far you’ve hit “Mission Accomplished,” “Bush had no plan,” “intermittent electricity”(=”Iraq is worse off now than it was under Saddam”), “Saddam was contained,” “we should have gone after the Saudis,” and perhaps most importantly at this point, “neocons/supporters of the effort in Iraq know we can’t win and are just biding their time, waiting for a chance to blame the Democrats.” Here goes.

“Mission Accomplished”: oh, come on. You skipped the fake turkey. This is hardly worth the virtual ink, but the “Mission Accomplished” banner belonged to the aircraft carrier, because their mission was accomplished. Bush pronounced that “major combat operations” were over – which means Saddam and his government had fallen; it did not mean we were done in Iraq. But that particular milestone was something to celebrate.

“Bush had no plan” – yet the military, the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, even the oh-so-inconvenient-and-irritating airport security folks seem now, and have seemed all along, to be doing something according to some plan or other. Perhaps it’s not the plan you would have supported. Perhaps it’s not even the most effective plan possible; we can’t run side-by-side experiments to check. Bush may be a lousy communicator (and I actually don’t think I fully believe that; he’s been up against a media that was fully in the tank for the other side for the past eight years, yet he certainly did manage to get himself elected in 2004, didn’t he?), but he doesn’t lack for decisiveness or political courage. And that is clearly part of Leadership 101. Just as importantly, the plan does appear to be working. Would another plan have worked faster to get to the point where we are now? Well, I think we can be pretty confident that actually leaving Iraq wouldn’t have accomplished much. (BTW, be careful of the word “countless” about the lives lost for the ground gained.)

“Intermittent electricity” – electricity in Iraq was more intermittent under Saddam, just not in Baghdad (and I’d wager not in any of Saddam’s palaces). The underlying bit, “better off under Saddam” than under the most liberal constitution in the Arab world – okaaay…

“Saddam was contained” and “we should have gone after the Saudis” – the former has been well flogged herein and I trust you won’t be bringing it up anywhere else. The latter – do you really think we haven’t been “going after the Saudis”? We just haven’t been bombing them or murdering them in their beds (I’ve got to second the comment of the person who pointed out that that would have been an unequivocal act of war against at least a nominal ally, versus an invasion of a rearming nation that was in violation of cease-fire, which served – at minimum – to make the point that we were not a paper tiger, Vietnam notwithstanding. Libya got the point quickly). Since the earliest stages of the so-call “GWOT,” interrupting terrorist financing has loomed large in our strategy. And showing that we’re not out to destroy Mecca, but that we won’t sit by idly and be attacked either, has significant diplomatic value. Nuance – it’s all about the nuance.

Finally. We can’t win? Nicole has striven mightily to show you the scope of the problem. Success in Iraq is not a day without IEDs. Israel is by any measure at all a notably successful democracy; yet it’s continually having to deal with terrorists within its borders. (Yup, I chose Israel on purpose.) Britain in the early ’90s suffered frequent IRA attacks – my husband missed by about an hour being injured or killed by the largest bomb to go off in the City since WWII, and I missed an Underground bomb by one train. And we only lived in London for six months. Yet Britain’s government was and is very clearly in control of its territory, governs by the rule of law, and guarantees important rights to its citizenry. These were generally true in Belfast even in the worst of the Troubles. Iraq doesn’t have to be perfect; it just has to work. And unfortunately for your argument, it seems to be doing more of that all the time.

Jun 25, 2008 - 2:02 pm 73. DoDoGuRu:

Wow… So the invasion of Iraq was reinforced by a cabal of turncoat Jews, and the adventure was doomed to failure because the backwards Arabs can never be democratic?

Nice going, Mr. Klein. Nice going.

Jun 25, 2008 - 3:01 pm 74. Roderick Reilly:

Golly, I must be a Neocon. I don’t have to be Jewish to be a Neocon, do I? Which also begs the question, what will the next euphemism for “Jew” be in the coming days?

Jun 25, 2008 - 3:37 pm 75. vb:

Nicole and Jamie: Bravo for your knowledgeable debate with Nick. The only factor I would add is the state of our intelligence about the scope of the terrorist threat. Nick seems to assume that we could have taken out some Saudis and solved the problem. That ignores the worldwide recruiting and funding networks which are still being identified. We have obtained significant information in Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq did not hinder our establishment of effective systems for sharing intelligence with allies.

Bush has always said that many of our efforts would not be seen. We are learning about the enemy’s funding, recruiting, and communications. We are closing these operations down slowly but surely. The most difficult area to control has been propaganda, and yet the brutality of the terrorists is now known by Muslims around the world because they have seen them in action in Iraq. If these people can see that we remain committed in Iraq, they may come to prefer us.

Jun 25, 2008 - 4:01 pm 76. syn:

Just the other day I heard some Democrat pundit who basicially equated ‘Neo-Cons and the ‘Christian Right’ as the same thing and that they really don’t hold any real percentage in terms of voting numbers.

Everything no make sense.

Jun 25, 2008 - 4:09 pm 77. sherlock:

Then there is the inconvenient little fact that the Democrats were all for war when they thought it was popular and easy, and then ran away and made up bullshit like “Bush lied” when they found out it wasn’t and public support was flagging.

Opportunistic and feckless chickensits.

Jun 25, 2008 - 5:04 pm 78. Problem Priority | Explorations:

[...] Problem Priority [W]hen you remove your most important problem, your second most important problem becomes your most important problem. — Nicole Tedesco in a comment at PJM. [...]

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:08 pm 79. Simon:

Regarding NYNick’s comments about sending in SpecOps to take out terrorist leaders and/or their supporters, I seem to recall this being mentioned early on in the piece. Many pundits at the time were slamming the suggestion, as it ammounted to “state sponsored killing”. Israel has copped an enourmous amount of flack for taking this approach in the past, despite it being shown to have at least a moderate amount of success.

Supposing they went ahead and did so, using covert measures to assassinate Hussein. What happens then – one of his sons would have taken over, or someother of his henchmen, so do you keep killing them? I’d like to know how this continual process would have resulted in regime change or caused any less chaos in a country that would have been on its knees with no-one in charge.

Furthermore, the Iraq war has not resulted in “countless” deaths of American troops. The number is in the thousands over several years. Compare this to Korea, Vietnam, WW2, WW1 and you’ll realise that to sacrifice a few thousand lives for the sake of at least one country and it’s people is a relatively small price to pay.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:45 pm 80. pst314:

NYNick wrote “Saddam was an evil bastard but he was fairly well contained.”

Ben replied “The sanctions regime was collapsing, even in the wake of 9/11, due to French and Russian fecklessness.”

I would like to point out that another factor was increasingly vehement opposition from domestic leftists and liberals and assorted “think of the children” peaceniks.

Jun 28, 2008 - 4:35 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: