Despite Saddam’s Capture, Iraq War Was Wrong: Experts

arabnews.com ^ | 17 December 2003 | Barbara Ferguson

[TaxPayer2000]

WASHINGTON, 17 December 2003 — As the jubilation settles over the capture of Saddam Hussein, questions remain about the validity of the US presence in Iraq.

“Saddam’s capture is further evidence that if a threat was posed by Iraq, and that certainly is debatable, the threat has been removed,” said Charles Pena, director of Defense Policy Studies at the Washington-based CATO Institute, in an interview yesterday.

Because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, Pena said it is time for the US to remove its troops and “hand the government back to the Iraqi people and let them determine their own future.”

The US, he said, should “get back to the real threat which is the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.”

Pena said the US is responsible for a “huge” vacuum in Iraq. “We created it when we removed Saddam Hussein from power. We are part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.”

The Bush administration has waged an unnecessary war to dispose a dictator: “we started with weapons of mass destruction, then tried the Al-Qaeda angle, but in the end decided to focus on democracy.

“This is all about installing a government in Baghdad that is friendly to the US. Strip off the veneer and rhetoric — and this is all about putting a regime in Baghdad that will be friendly to the US,” said the CATO director.

Bush’s definition of democracies is ironic, he said. “We are using democracy as an excuse for everything that is going on in Iraq, and at the same time the president told the Taiwanese that they can’t be independent. How can you do that? If you truly believe in democracy, democratic values and giving people their liberties — which is what the president is saying about Iraq — then how can you tell another group of people who feel they are being repressed by a communist regime in Beijing that they can’t have independence? The administration’s polices are laced with hypocrisy,” said Pena.

Other experts share his perspective: “The early euphoria about Saddam’s capture being a turning point in the history of the US-Iraq relationship seems unwarranted,” said Dr. John Duke Anthony, president of the National Council of US-Arab Relations.

“They are saying this is the breakthrough needed to speed up the effort to democratize Iraq, but the evidence for such a reality is not present, and there is not a necessary linkage between what just occurred and the campaign to democratize Iraq.”

“There is a real need to restore physical security and stability to Iraqis who are currently not leaving their houses out of fear of being attacked. Anthony said increasingly large numbers of Iraqis feel their material well-being is rapidly deteriorating. “Without the assurance that Iraqis well-being is secure, despair will reign and no legitimacy will accrue for the foreign occupying power.”

[TaxPayer2000]

“hand the government back to the Iraqi people...

as if we took it from them....

[Rightone]

right... /sarcasm

[uncbob]

“This is all about installing a government in Baghdad that is friendly to the US. Strip off the veneer and rhetoric — and this is all about putting a regime in Baghdad that will be friendly to the US,” said the CATO director.

Isure as hell hope so

I think the object here and in Afganistan ( and thrn Irn and Syria) is to remove dictatorial governments that harbor and train and support terrorists so that we don't have to fight them here

[dighton]

Despite "Experts," Iraq War Was Right

BTW, Barbara Ferguson + Palestinians

[Tatze]

Plain and simple, if you think the war was wrong, then you think Saddam should still be in power, torturing his people and continuing his WMD programs.

[Ramius]

It's gonna be just *damn* funny when we find that stockpile of chemical artillery shells out in the desert somewhere.

[Callahan]

Sad to see someone from CATO making an ass of themself. As if a friendly goverment in Iraq is a bad thing, opposed to a vicious tyrant who would love to see the US go up in smoke.

[WOSG]

The article is pathetic, nothing but a pastiche of bad and flawed analogies and arguments. These are not 'experts' these are "folks who couldnt get booked on Hardball and had extra time to talk to a biased journalist trying to tarnish the victory".

We get better anti-Bush policy pot-shots from FR's own paleo-con contingent! (... anyone showed up yet?)

And btw this is indeed a specific form of media bias: TarnishTheVictory is a hit-piece style full of the 'yes but' variety. Take the news (good) and then use it as space for taking the SAME ARGUMENTS we've already heard against the policy. They do it again and again on Iraq and economy.

So, for example, next spring when the daffodils bloom, NYT will reporton the economy: "Despite progress, Many Left Behind". They will send out their journalists to tell some hard-luck stories for about 40 paragraphs, with one paragraph devoted to the stats about creating a million jobs this past year and the other 39 paragraphs devoted to how hard life is for some folks in "Bush's America".

The beat goes on.

[jocko12]

PENA IS A FOOL.LISTEN TO HIM.

[Paul Ross]

"...if a threat was posed by Iraq, and that certainly is debatable, the threat has been removed,” said Charles Pena, director of Defense Policy Studies at the Washington-based CATO Institute,

The Cato Institute seems to be rather clearly an enemy influence organization, just more astute as to the timing and framing of the issues they advance. This makes them rather more dangerous than the openly Leftist Agenda organizations, as they suck in conservatives with their Trojan Horse approaches. Even Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute people have gotten roped into the CATO-sponsored conferences. Anyone know anything about the two purported 'business' people that are behind this POS?

[WOSG]

"Despite "Experts," Iraq War Was Right"

Great Retort!

And yes, this journalist is nothin' but an Al Jezeera reporter-suck-up to Cynthia McKinney ...

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2002%20News%20archives/July%202002%20News%20Items/Israeli%20lobby%20targets%20Rep.%20McKenny.htm

[Cicero]

I can't help wondering if Pena is getting a little Saudi money.

[Tempest]

The spin begins. . .

[Callahan]

The delusional Lefties already have that angle covered. They'll say they were:

a. planted by Cheney
b. not enough to really matter
c. sold to Saddam by Reagan
d. irrelevant because the Islamo-fascists wouldn't hate us
if it wasn't for Bush's war-mongering

[speedy]

Well, the source of this thing is Arab News, and they just quote a couple of professional Islamic apologists to make their case. These guys are running scared, you can see it.

[Callahan]

It's called moving the finish line.

[Poincare]

If we don't democratize the Islamist world we will have to nuke it eventually--or we could just let them destroy us. I didn't use to think that CATO was a bunch of idiots, but recently.......

[WOSG]

CATO is very libertarian, which makes them isolationist wrt foriegn policy. Good on economy but simply wrong in matters of national security like this.

The liberation of Iraq was a good thing, done for just reasons, planned well, executed well, that will bring benefits to America for many years to come. We have liberated a country from a tyrant and destroyed an enemy regime. We are making progress in remaking Iraq into a potential friend.

[CaptRon]

The US, he said, should “get back to the real threat which is the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.”

For which Iraq will be the operational center.

I've always thought, and still do, that there is a larger strategy at work here.

[oldtimer]

Someone said the WMD are out in the desert somewhere, and it is probably Syria. Would bet some black chips on that.

CATO has clintoned in their mess kit on this one regarding walking out now...the pro freedom Iraqis would be assinated by the thousands.

[alancarp]

For a better read of this article, remove the word "expert" and replace it with "pointy-headed liberal policy wonk". Also, any references to their locations should be replaced by "secluded ivory tower, well away from direct observations in Iraq".

There. Isn't that better?

[Callahan]

Useful idiots. They'll make every exscuse for the enemy but can't cut the home team an inch of slack.

[auboy]

Perfect!

[Common Tator]

The left is putting out the crap that we are only justified in attacking nations that have attacked us first.

The Germans never attacked us in WWI or WWII. In WWII it was the Japanese that attacked us, but we responded by first taking down Germany. Yet Hitler went to great pains to never attack americans or their possessions until we attacked him.

The Kaiser never attaked the United States in any way before we entered WWI.

The spanish never attacked us in any way before we attacked and took Cuba and the Phllipines by force. Both Cuba and the Phillipines were Spanish possessions before we conquered them. Yet Spain never attacked us.

To say that the United States is not justified to go to war unless we are attacked by a nation says half of WWII, all of WWI and the Spanish American war were unjustified aggression by the United States.

[Callahan]

What really annoys me about these critiques is the lack of historical perspective. If a hundred years from now people looks back and say the U.S. successfully democratized Iraq in 20 years it will look like a major victory. These clowns want the job done in 20 minutes.

[Hazzardgate]

The US, he said, should “get back to the real threat which is the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.”

I'm so sick and tired of hearing this. Where did these loons ever get the idea that we aren't still in pursuit of the Al-Qaeda network? Do they not understand that you can walk and chew gum at the same time?

[speedy]

They hate the home team. They always root for the visitors. And then get indignant when you point it out.

[Burkeman1]

I listened to a 20 minute rant from Rush Limbaugh complaining that the critics of this war are "talking down" to the Iraqis we will leave in charge as if they can't do it!

And yet Rush advocates our stay in Iraq for years! Until them Iraqis "learn" our ways or at least mimic them in public.

Rush apperently thinks limited government and respect for law and reason just get transplanted through rule of arms?

Rush is a joke. I am sorry I defended him during his short "rehab".

[PattonReincarnated]

“This is all about installing a government in Baghdad that is friendly to the US. Strip off the veneer and rhetoric — and this is all about putting a regime in Baghdad that will be friendly to the US,” said the CATO director.

What a mental midget! Apparently the CATO director has no idea whatsoever about waging war. (Neither does the media for that matter - bunch of limp wrist panty wastes)

The official reason why we are in Iraq is that Iraq sponsored terrorism and broke UN resolutions. This is a convenient excuse to mask the real reason why we are there. The REAL reason why we are in Iraq is it gives us strategic position in the Middle-East. Iran is now sandwiched between US occupying forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq just happens to be next door to Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Iraq just happened to be a whole lot easier to invade than Iran or Syria. We already have a presence in Saudi. If by now, the Muslim street doesn’t get the idea that we are serious and change their ways, then they certainly deserve the same fate as Iraq and Afghanistan.

(What a sick thought ... we come in, kill the bad guys, and then we rebuild their country ... I say bomb them into the stone-age!)

[zarf]

Ah, my friend, you've astutely encapsulated the predictability / banality of the NY Times.

[Kirkwood]

There is no power vacuum in Iraq. The US is now the influential power there. If we were to cut and run the way some dems would want, then there would be a power vacuum and tremendous loss of life among the arab tribes. I don't see how anyone can morally support a quick exit from Iraq.

It really does amaze me when someone says they prefer a ruthless murdering dictator who suppresses free speach and human rights instead of a democracy based on free speech and equal rights. I can't help but wonder if they would choose that option if it were their country and their freedom at stake.

[umgud]

I believe we were right to take out Sadamn, but speaking strictly as an infidel, I'm not convinced his people were worth saving. I do however understand that we can't just take him out and leave. I also undersand this action sends a brutal message to other regimes in the mid-east and that is good. I'll never forget the message Reagan sent Gadaffi. The American message is a good one and needs to be sent more often.

[Wissa]

If a hundred years from now people look back and say the U.S. successfully democratized Iraq in 20 years it will look like a major victory.

Iraq, followed by several of the other countries in the area.

It's probably a long shot, given the history of that part of the world, but it IS possible. I believe that President Bush sees it as the reason he was elected president. He saw that if changes weren't made, that region would find more deadly ways of attacking the US. He's doing what he can to change the mindset of the people in that region. It will probably take generations to really see whether what he started succeeds or not.

[Jorge]

The article is stupid and shortsighted.

[alrea]

Despite Saddam’s Capture, Iraq War Was Wrong: Experts

Despite Saddam’s Capture, Killing Children in Front of Their Family is OK if Socialist Dictators Do It: Experts

[BriarBey]

Because no weapons of mass destruction have been found




SADDAM WAS A WMD!!!! He killed as many as any WMD would have!!! JJJJEEEESSSHHHH!! How stupid can people get.....Forget I asked that.

[IronJack]

Despite Saddam’s Capture, Iraq War Was Wrong: Experts

Despite Concentration Camps, War With Germany Was Wrong: Experts

[WOSG]

It seems that Rush is right on the matter as he is on other things.

"Rush apperently thinks limited government and respect for law and reason just get transplanted through rule of arms?"

This is arguing against a strawman. Nobody is saying that.
It's not arms, but the security that arms and a military victory and pacification which gives the Iraqis to live freely and build civilized society. We all understand that political institutions require a political process to set them up under, and 'respect for law and reason' are cultural changes that will occur in tandem with the institutional changes.

The critics are CERTAINLY WRONG to insist for example that the UN is 'better' able to try Saddam than Iraqis. no way, Iraqis can try and hang Saddam just fine. The critics are wrong to say Iraq cant figure out how to write a constitution. If nothing else they can just take Iraq's 1923 constitution and revise it.

Iraqis desire freedom and democracy. some may not be as advanced as us, but thank god they are not as 'advanced as the eurosocialists'. they are a resourceful people and many Iraqis especially those who escaped from Saddam and fled to the west have the exposure, knowledge and education to contribute to Iraq's future. The risks quite simply are either baathist violence/backlash leading to ethnic tensions, and second possible risk of theocratic/islamic state. Both risks are small.

Iraqis need help setting such a Government up. After 35 years of a reign of terror, they lack the noncorrupt Judges, police, institutions and 'track record' of a civilized government and society. As Bush has said, we need to stay there as long as it takes, so the fledging freedom isnt snuffed out by terrorist violence.

Like a young sapling, once civilized free and democratic institutions take hold in Iraq, they should be durable. IMHO this political process will take 3-5 years, and our military would continue at a low level at least that long. The 100,000+ commitment is for about 12 months only, until an Iraqi force can replace us and we can scale back significantly.

Nothing Rush said is contradictory, and it lines up with the planning and strategy of the President and DoD and CPA, which are executing this operation quite successfully. Watch and see.

JMHO.


I am sorry you lack the subtlety

[night reader]

Where's the Barf Alert???

[Burkeman1]

I am sorry you lack the subtlety

I just heard the cheif pill popper about two weeks ago. And he compared the hate filled and genocidal broadcasts of Hutu Rwanda that explicitely said to kill Tutsi - were examples of how the Dems wanted to queslsh conservative radio speech through "hate speech". A Rush fan called up and actually tried to save the drug withdrawqing Rush from himself and yet he tried to make fool out of him. Rush got angry and made a long incoherent speech. The caller- who was a Rush supporter was embarrassed and just left.

[Hotdog]

An expert is a drop of water that went down the drain....need I say more?

[new cruelty]

“Without the assurance that Iraqis well-being is secure, despair will reign and no legitimacy will accrue for the foreign occupying power.”

Lets just put the mother-kerrying tyrant back in power.

[WOSG]

uh .... whatever.

[Burkeman1]

Send your sons (and daughters I guess- what kind of nation does that? Allows women in combat?) But I am just an ignorant Catholic who thinks we should keep to ourselves.

[fiscally_right]

We didn't declare war on Germany because of concentration camps..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Burkeman1]

The Iraqis are barbarians. If Rush or any "phoneycon" thinks anyone of these nations inculding the heavily funded and proped up Turkey by our dollars is about to imitate the West and become Democratic- then they should have "MacMurphy treatment" and have half the brain taken out to shut them up right now!

[JasonC]

They are isolationist libertarian semi-pacifists, who live to distinguish themselves from Weekly Standard conservatism. Once, libertarian isolationism was about always being for individual liberty and being skeptical of an activist foreign policy on the theory that "war is the health of the state". But these days, the ones at Cato no longer care whether individual liberty is being furthered or harmed by a foreign policy. Fundamentally, they resent the idea of duties in the rest of the world - duties anywhere, in some respects - as the heath of conservatism. They are no longer fading etatism as Mises once labeled it. Now they are fading conservatism as their party-ideological competitor.

[general_re]

Barbara Ferguson + Palestinians

A blog I'm not familiar with reports the following. And this. And finally, this.