Posted on 03/18/2013 11:20:57 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Here on the 10-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I wonder how long it will be before we can discuss the war free from the contamination of myths. It may be sooner than many myth-purveyors expect. Just listen to this lecture by Mel Leffler, one of the leading historians of American diplomacy. He has been a harsh critic of Bush-era diplomacy and his speech does accept some of the conventional critique (specifically about the "hubris" of the Bush administration), but his analysis is far more balanced than the conventional wisdom on the topic. All in all, Leffler's analysis is a promising example of myth-busting.
For my part, the myths that get thrown at me most often have to do with why the war happened in the first place. Here are five of the most pervasive myths:
1. The Bush administration went to war against Iraq because it thought (or claimed to think) Iraq had been behind the 9/11 attacks.
2. The Bush administration went to war against Iraq because it wanted to forcibly democratize Iraq.
3. The "real" motivation behind the Iraq war was the desire to steal Iraqi oil, or boost Halliburton profits, or divert domestic attention from the Enron scandal, or pay off the Israel lobby, or exact revenge on Hussein for his assassination attempt on President George H. W. Bush.
4. What Frank Harvey calls the "neoconism" myth -- that the Iraq war was forced upon the country by a cabal of neoconservatives, who by virtue of their political skill and ruthless disregard for truth were able to "manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities of so many other intelligent people..." who otherwise would never have supported the Iraq war.
5. Bush "lied" in making the case for war.
(Excerpt) Read more at shadow.foreignpolicy.com ...
America is as brain washed as...... IT WANTS TO BE....
Most brains are washed to some degree..
If you think you are NOT brain washed to any degree..
YOU SURELY ARE...... the propaganda has been (for a long time) and is ... INTENSE...
One thing heard commonly from the Left is “We were just fighting Israel’s wars”. But I heard those others too ad nauseam. “War for oil”, “Bush lied about WMD’s”, like a broken record. In reality, Iraq had violated its conditions of surrender in the first Gulf War. It was rebuilding its military, continuing to abuse its people, and shooting at our planes. But something just switches off in the heads of liberals when you tell them that. You can point out it’s all in U.N. resolution 1441, but it does no good. And then there’s the “Mission accomplished” banner which they completely and intentionally misunderstood the meaning of. They can’t be reasoned with.
I personally like the “No WMDs” one.
It’s like everyone assumes that only nuclear weapons are WMDs.
No, it’s like everyone assumes that a cunning, murderous despot wouldn’t hide the evidence.
Under what international law was Iraq not allowed to shoot at planes routinely invading their air space? If a country was flying planes over America, would we just laugh about it?
Believe nothing any politician tells you and you will be closer to the truth.
Under what international law was Iraq not allowed to shoot at planes routinely invading their air space? If a country was flying planes over America, would we just laugh about it?
Believe nothing any politician tells you and you will be closer to the truth.
Let’s say you want to catch a mouse. Do you climb into the mouse hole and look for him? No. You set up attractive bait and make the mouse come to you. Then you can slam the trap shut on his little neck.
I tried to read the article but was prevented from doing so by a Sign Up screen. Sorry I wasted my time there.
Sign up is free, and FP is certainly worth reading, if only to get the “establishment’s” take on things.
“Under what international law was Iraq not allowed to shoot at planes routinely invading their air space? If a country was flying planes over America, would we just laugh about it?”
After Iraq was defeated in the first Iraq war (the one to liberate Kuwait), a no-fly zone was established in the south of the country. Saddam routinely violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement by firing on coalition air patrols.
Ummm...The surrender terms above Hussein's own signature declaring shooting at our planes is a crime?
What a silly question you pose.
The Cease-Fire Agreement from Gulf War I established the “no-fly zone.” Saddam signed off on that agreement. So every time he fired on a coalition plane patrolling the no-fly zone, he was violating the agreement he himself signed off on.
I suppose my issue is with either international is something to honor or it isn’t. The sometimes part is bothersome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.