Bush: "we misnamed the war on terror"

[Gunnerlove]

Thanks for the tip Tim we all know what assuming does.

Never even heard of the book but as "Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club", I should probably read one of the top two.


I wonder how much the families get from Saudi Arabian charities for each suicide bomber? Any proof that he was training/ supporting terrorists?

 

[dutchie]

John Galt: If you read my original post, I clearly stated that Saddam was not/did not plan any attacks on the West/US with the exception of Israel. This disclaimer allowed for the obvious and well documented evidence that Saddam sponsored terror attacks on Israel.

In regards to your point that Saddam had ties to terrorists not directly targeting the US, I would agree. I didn't qualify my assertion that Saddam had no ties to terrorist groups that have targeted the US directly, but I should have.

We can argue terror ties all day long, but the FACT is: the US government did not invade Iraq on grounds of terrorist links/'War on Terror', but on the pretense of WMD. Those pretenses have proven to be false, if not fabricated. To justify the invasion after the fact based on loose information that was not considered strong enough (by the US, not me) prior to the action is weak. It is so weak in fact that the US government is not even claiming this.

In regards to: "if you had said that he was not a direct threat to the US, you might have a point....but Israelis would disagree with you" Read my post, that is exactly what I said: "nor was he planning any attacks on the US/West (other than Israel, which pretty much the entire Middle East despises)." I also specifically stated in my last post: "Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside his own borders.", so your point regarding Kurds is moot.

Re:your challenge regarding genocide. I stated in my second post: "...the immediate issue (and the focus of the 'liberators') should not be the removal of the Dictator, but the cessation of the genocide." I did not state that the removal of the dictator was not a priority, just that the cessation of the Genocide should take precedence.

My question to you is this: knowing what we know about the claim of WMD, knowing what we know about Iraq's military capabilities AFTER the '91 Gulf War, knowing the threat that other Arab states pose to US security (Iran, Saudi, etc) what justified the US in invading Iraq?

 

[Brad Sallows]

"The end does not justify the means" is one position in moral philosophy.  Another is that both ends and means must be considered.  The latter underpins the principle of proportionality (between military necessity and humanity) in the conduct of war (but not necessarily as casus belli).  Furthermore, omission of a moral duty can be morally wrong.

Possession/development of WMD was not the sole reason advanced for war; it simply became the cause celebre in the press.  Please do not lose sight of that FACT.

If "crimes against humanity" is an exception justifying intervention, then intervention was justified in Iraq unless you are prepared to deny that Hussein's government committed any crimes against humanity.  "Crimes against humanity" includes, but is not limited to, "...murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated..." from the Nuremburg Rules of 8 Aug 1945 (recognized by the "Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and CrimesAgainst Humanity").

If the dictator is the source of the crimes and has proven to be unswayed by diplomatic entreaties and embargo, surely the immediate issue is the removal of the dictator.  I am prepared to read arguments that not all means short of war had been exhausted, except the excuse of "more time" which simply implies all means had been tried.  To repeat the same course of action expecting a different outcome is considered a loose indication of insanity.

The original anti-war message (granted, not necessarily your position) was "no known ties to Al-Qaeda".  The modification to "no known strong ties" would be a modification of that (granted, not your own) original position.

 

[dutchie]

Brad: I have a few issues with some of the things you've stated.

1-Re: "The end does not justify the means" is one position in moral philosophy.  Another is that both ends and means must be considered." - I agree wholeheartedly, but there were alternatives to military action.

2- Re:"The latter underpins the principle of proportionality (between military necessity and humanity) in the conduct of war (but not necessarily as casus belli)." Please explain this in plain language. I am neither a law student nor a poli-sci proffesor.

3- "Possession/development of WMD was not the sole reason advanced for war; it simply became the cause celebre in the press." - Cause celebre or not, the President stated very little else in his address' to the nation/intl community regarding his reasons for invasion (prior to invasion). His treatment of the Kurds, constant violations of the UN sanctions, etc, were merely used as 'supporting evidence', not the 'main charge'. To claim now that the original 'charge' (WMD) is not valid, but that the invasion is justified solely on these other issues is, as stated earlier, weak.

4-Re:"If "crimes against humanity" is an exception ......." - This would have been a valid reason to invade Iraq, but again, this was not the stated reason for invasion. The only reason the whole 'Crimes against Humanity' thing was put in my original post was to counter a possible rebuttal to my statement, "I do not see the removal of a foreign dictator as the business of anyone except the citizens whom he rules over....The other exception being crimes against humanity (Genocide, etc)". I was not suggesting that Saddam had not committed these acts, but rather, that military intervention in Rwanda, Kosovo, etc WAS justified. Like it or not, the Intl community does not tend to act on Crimes against Humanity until a massacre has happened, or is happening (ie-Rwanda). This, to my knowledge, was not the case in Iraq.

5-Re:"I am prepared to read arguments that not all means short of war..."  - By extension, that is what I am saying. I said the war was not justified, but it could have been had some basic requirements been met: a) International agreement and UN resolution(s) authorizing invasion b) All other diplomatic avenues exhausted (related to 'a').


I will pose the same question I posed to 'John Galt': Knowing what we know about the claim of WMD, knowing what we know about Iraq's military capabilities AFTER the '91 Gulf War, knowing the threat that other Arab states pose to US security (Iran, Saudi, etc) what justified the US in invading Iraq?

I look forward to as straight frorward an answer as I have given you.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What were the alternatives to military action that had not yet been tried and failed?

In plain language, proportionality is a principle by which "ends" (military advantages) are compared to "means" (actions with results contrary to humanitarian good, eg. collateral casualties and property damage) to determine whether military action is justified.

Bush spoke on several occasions about justifications for war.  WMD was not the only cause stated.  It matters not whether WMD was the primary cause advanced by Bush or the primary cause by popularity in the press (ie. merely because it dominated discussion).  The original WMD "charge", based on what was known and believed at the time, is as valid now as it was then - it can never be otherwise since it was an assessment at one period in time and not a certainty.  Different information and assessments now are relevant only if a new decision is being taken now; they cannot be cast back in time.  Anyone can second guess a decision with more information at a later time - so what?

If any one of several causes for war is sufficient, then it matters not if all but one are absent or weak.  By definition, one sufficient cause is enough.  To my knowledge, and the world at large prior to the war, Hussein was reasonably believed guilty at least of "persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds".  Those are crimes against humanity.  If crimes against humanity are sufficient causes for war, there was at least one sufficient cause for war.  Note that is true regardless whether that was specifically advanced as a cause for war; even if the WMD cause could be negated by hindsight - it can't, as noted above - the humanitarian intervention cause would alone suffice (although rightful intentions could be called into question).

Commonly accepted conditions for just war are: just cause, proportionality (of political "ends" sought relative to "means" employed and the bad effects thereof) , reasonable chance of success, public (open) declaration, legitimate authority, last resort (all other options exhausted), rightness of intentions.

My opinion is that the conditions of proportionality, success, and open declaration were clearly satisfied.  Disputed are just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions.

As explained above, at least one just cause was provided regardless how all causes were relatively emphasized.

Since Congress approved war, legitimate authority may be denied only if the authority of nations to initiate war independently of the UN is categorically denied.  UN Charter enthusiasts will never concede legitimate authority; it is doubtful any nation sufficiently powerful to pursue its own interests will cede authority to the UN.  Theory is trumped by reality whether we like it or not.

Satisfying the condition of last resort seems to hinge on the opinion of how much time was enough for sanctions, diplomacy, and inspections to work their magic and turn Iraq into an international law-abiding, WMD-free state which posed unreasonable threats to neither its neighbours nor citizens.

The final question is one of rightful intentions.  Unless it can be proven that at no time humanitarian considerations were advanced, then the worst that can be claimed is mixed intentions with self-interests primary and humanitarian interests secondary.

Note that the degree of outrage required for the international community to act in concert against humanitarian crimes is morally an unacceptable standard, particularly since the international community almost never acts, and rarely (if ever) does so in a timely manner.

Since France categorically excluded the possibility that a new UNSC Resolution could be introduced and passed, the option of UNSC authorization was in fact exhausted.  Since the US did not act unilaterally, there was "international agreement" (which is a meaningless standard unless there is some well-defined quorum).  Under sanctions, Hussein chose guns over butter.  To WMD inspections, Hussein was obstructionist.  What other diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted?

>Knowing what we know about the claim of WMD

That is irrelevant to the cause for war at the time, but would militate against a cause for war today.

>knowing what we know about Iraq's military capabilities AFTER the '91 Gulf War

Extant conventional capabilities were irrelevant (and were in any event sufficiently capable with Hussein's will to post a humanitarian threat to Iraqis).  Extant WMD capabilities were not the sole basis of the WMD cause for war; intentions, history, and developmental capabilities were.

>knowing the threat that other Arab states pose to US security (Iran, Saudi, etc)

That is also irrelevant since there is no doctrine or moral rule stating that a threat may not be addressed unless all threats, and in particular all greater threats, are first addressed.  Can you think of any area of human endeavour in which we must not do anything unless we can do everything?

>what justified the US in invading Iraq?

The historical causes based on the historical assessments.

 

[nULL]

The end does not justify the means. Just as beating a suspect to illicit a confession is not justified. (Not that I am equating these two things). I do not see the removal of a foreign dictator as the business of anyone except the citizens whom he rules over. The exception being when that dictator threatens others outside his nation to a significant enough extent to justify the carnage resluting from war. The other exception being crimes against humanity (Genocide, etc) within a nation (ie - Rwanda). In this case, the immediate issue (and the focus of the 'liberators') should not be the removal of the Dictator, but the cessation of the genocide.

It's easy to say that the Iraqi citizens had a responsibility to overthrow Hussein, but that just isn't so. It's easy to point out instances such as the French and American revolutions as instances where the populace threw out an unpopular leader (or established such things as the Magna Carta) but I hardly think that reflects the reality of the world today. If you want to be the guy at the front of the group of reformist Iraqi citizens going toe-to-toe with the Special Republican Guard to throw out Hussein, go for it; I'll be in my shop, trying not to get picked up by the secret police. The Kurds had the best chance to do away with him after the first Gulf War, and we all know how that turned out. The ends shouldn't have to justify the means, but they sometimes can, and often do. Is Iraq better off at this exact moment of time? That's hard to say. Will it be better off in 20 years? Definetely. And what is the "war on terror" if not a long term investment on our security?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Caesar;

How can you claim that links to Palestinian terrorists aren't links to terrorism?!?!?  Is your argument that we have not proven Saddam's links to terrorists (except the ones to which we have proven links)?  There is a real logical disconnect there ...

What do we now know about Saddam's WMD programme?  Well for one, we now know (as we did prior to invasion) he was clearly violating the terms of the '91 Gulf War ceasefire (various UN resolutions), but that the certain members of the UN Security Council were determined to continue to cut him slack (kinda reminds you of the rearmament of the Rheineland, eh?).  Here's plenty more information on Saddam's WMD programme: http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/index.html

Are you actually trying to claim that it is is a 'FACT' that the US Government didn't claim that the invasion of Iraq was under the aegis of the War on Terrorism?  That's a whopper!  I actually don't recall the debate being quite as you frame it (i.e., US arguing Iraq not part of the War on Terrorism, other nations claiming it was).  I think that is your argument, but you should be claiming it the position of the POTUS!

Maybe the threat to Kurds is moot but what about Kuwait?  Saddam still had a standing army of something on the order of 300,000 troops, along with an unkown number of chemical weapons, and sent them rushing to the Kuwaiti border several times (twice, at least) subsequent to the Gulf War.  How are the feelings of other Middle East nations towards Israel in any way NOT a non sequiteur when the question is whether Saddam was a threat?

I don't understand what point are you trying to make about genocide ...  that it's bad and we should stop it?

In short, the US WAS justified in in vading Iraq, because Saddam was clearly breaking the terms of the ceasefire and administartive means to rectify this had been exhausted (legality), he undoubtedly supported terrorism (legitimacy), and UNSC members stated that they "would not" pass a resolution that endorse invasion.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>It's easy to point out instances such as the French and American revolutions as instances where the populace threw out an unpopular leader (or established such things as the Magna Carta) but I hardly think that reflects the reality of the world today.

That's an interesting point.  Back then the authorities had weapons not much more sophisticated than what was available to the revolutionaries.  Today there is usually significant overmatch of even a poorly equipped army over the citizenry.  A revolution is unlikely to succeed unless it has a sugar daddy providing arms and funds.

Rhetorical observation: if the Cubans or North Koreans or Iranians were to rise against their regimes tomorrow and the US did nothing but provide arms, ammunition, and money - no advisors, no presence, studied indifference at the UN - it would be interesting to see who sides with the people against their oppressors, and who sides against anyone supported by the US (or simply thinks they should be handicapped by being denied US support).  It would certainly provide some clarity to the pretenses of moral posturing.

 

[dutchie]

Brad:

1-"Different information and assessments now are relevant only if a new decision is being taken now; they cannot be cast back in time.  Anyone can second guess a decision with more information at a later time - so what?" - If we cannot second guess a decision that has affected (and ended) thousands of lives, what can we second guess? And the US didn't simply make an 'Honest Mistake', they knew the Intel was bad, but sold it to the world as fact anyway.

2-Re:"If any one of several causes for war is sufficient, then it matters not if all but one are absent or weak. By definition, one sufficient cause is enough" "Commonly accepted conditions for just war are: just cause, proportionality (of political "ends" sought relative to "means" employed and the bad effects thereof) , reasonable chance of success, public (open) declaration, legitimate authority, last resort (all other options exhausted), rightness of intentions." - So, if one of the 'Just Cause Conditions' is 'Reasonable Chance Of Success', and all you need is one 'Just Cause Condition', then by proxy, the US could invade any nation it liked, as long as it had reasonable chances of success. Based on your posts you are reasonable intelligent, but you need to seriously reconsider this theory. The same reasoning can be applied to the 'Conditions': public disclosure and rightness of intentions.

3-Re:"Since Congress approved war, legitimate authority may be denied only if the authority of nations to initiate war independently of the UN is categorically denied.  UN Charter enthusiasts will never concede legitimate authority; it is doubtful any nation sufficiently powerful to pursue its own interests will cede authority to the UN.  Theory is trumped by reality whether we like it or not." - a)-the US Congress may have authority in the US, but it has zero authority in Iraq. b) The UN by it's existence denies the right of other nations to invade others without provocation or other just cause, unless UN authorization is given prior. c)- Theory being trumped by reality does not also make that theory invalid. If you trump (break) the law, does it make the law invalid?

4-Re:"Satisfying the condition of last resort seems to hinge on the opinion of how much time was enough for sanctions, diplomacy, and inspections to work their magic and turn Iraq into an international law-abiding, WMD-free state which posed unreasonable threats to neither its neighbours nor citizens." - Diplomacy had not been exhausted. The French did deny the US authority to invade Iraq, but only under circumstances at the time. If the US had credible evidence of WMD, then the French could not have withstood the International pressure to cede action. Of course, if the US had real and true evidence of WMD, I would not be arguing their invasion either. Further, Iraq did not pose a threat to anyone outside it's borders, especially with US troops surrounding her borders.

5-"That is also irrelevant since there is no doctrine or moral rule stating that a threat may not be addressed unless all threats, and in particular all greater threats, are first addressed.  Can you think of any area of human endeavour in which we must not do anything unless we can do everything?" - I would agree. My point was that the US cannot claim that Iraq posed the most serious risk to US security.

John Galt: The Palestinians pose a threat to Israelis, not Americans. I am arguing US action in Iraq, not Israeli action in the West Bank. In regards to your point regarding WMD/violation of the '91 sanctions. Those sanctions are the UN's, not the US's. Action for violations must come from the UN. And yes, I am arguing that the US gov doesn't claim to have invaded Iraq as a part of the War on Terror. Iraq couldn't piss over the Kuwaiti border without 50,000 allied troops watching, so no, they were not a threat to anyone outside Iraq. Yes, of course Genocide is bad. Read my post again, I don;t want to explain my point a 3rd time. And finally, don't confuse the old resolutions with the US proposal to invade. The UN has the authority to take action against Iraq in cases of violations of the UN sanctions, but the US doesn't.

 

[nULL]

"The Palestinians pose a threat to Israelis, not Americans.

In that part of the world, saying that both Israeli and American interests are legitimate targets isn't quite a stretch. The threat from Palestinians however is one of logistics; Israel is a much easier target to strike. For instance, not too long ago, 3 American diplomats were targeted and eliminated from a roadside bomb while traveling in a convoy in Gaza.   

And finally, don't confuse the old resolutions with the US proposal to invade. The UN has the authority to take action against Iraq in cases of violations of the UN sanctions, but the US doesn't."

Individual countries are the only ones that can "take action". The UN can but offer legitimacy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

1.   You can learn from second-guessing a decision in light of new information some lessons about your sources and your decision process to apply in future.   You can only second-guess the original decision (ie. whether you would make it again or not) by re-evaluating the same information you had at the time you made the decision.   It's pointless to lament after the market crashes that one should have not bought stock.   At the time one bought the stock one presumably had good reasons for doing so.   What are your grounds for asserting the US "knew the Intel was bad" since the overwhelming concensus among nations, and particularly at the UN, was that Hussein had and was developing WMD?

2.   No.   Please read carefully.   One of the just war conditions is "reasonable chance of success".   Another is "just cause".   A sufficient cause is by definition enough for war, but for the war to be just the cause must be just and all the other just war conditions must be met.   Example: shooting down another country's fighter aircraft over its own airspace may be a cause for war, but if the purpose is merely revenge and the damage of war exceeds the worth of one aircraft and one person's life it would surely not be a just war.

3.   "Just war" theory only requires the authority to be legitimate in the sense that a government of a nation has a recognized authority to declare war; a hotheaded mob of citizens or a branch of a religion does not.   As for the UN, jurisdiction without the will or means to enforce it is useless.   By its mere existence, the UN does nothing.   By its Charter, it claims powers and rights it can not enforce.   The sovereignty of nations has collided with transnationalism in the past 60 years, and transnationalism is giving way.   That is what I mean by reality trumping theory.   I believe transnationalism will pass as did communism and nations will remain sovereign, loosely guided by the strictures and conventions of international law so long as international law does not gravely subvert national interests.

4.   Or, France could have withstood pressure.   All France had to do was exercise its veto in the UNSC and claim (with no proof necessary) that other means had not been exhausted.   That's the diplomatic beauty of "other means" - a negative can't be conclusively proven; exhaustion of other means can't be conclusively proven.   It is as plausible to believe France would do anything to protect Hussein in pursuit of France's economic interests as it is to believe there was some threshold of evidence that would cause France to abandon Hussein.   The threat Iraq was believed to pose outside its borders had nothing to do with conventional forces which were screened by US forces.   The threat was the movement of weapons across borders uncontrolled by the US (Syria, Iran).

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

John Galt: The Palestinians pose a threat to Israelis, not Americans. I am arguing US action in Iraq, not Israeli action in the West Bank.

You seem to be trying to redefine the debate, but the pretense was 'War on Terrorism' ('War on Terror,' actually) NOT 'War on Terrorism in the United States only.'   Perhaps you disagree or you think that Saddam's ties weren't 'strong' enough to warrant invasion/regime change, but to argue that it wasn't part of the justification for war is ridiculous.

In regards to your point regarding WMD/violation of the '91 sanctions. Those sanctions are the UN's, not the US's. Action for violations must come from the UN.

This is incorrect: action comes from the members (states) of the UN directly: have a look at the UN Charter itself, if you don't believe me.   http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

And yes, I am arguing that the US gov doesn't claim to have invaded Iraq as a part of the War on Terror.

If you've done 'your research,' how could you possibly make this statement?   This kind of stuff destroys the credibility of your other arguments.   Here is a direct quote from Bush's "President Bush Discusses Progress in the War on Terror" speech of 12 July 2004:

"Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America, who provided safe haven for terrorists, used weapons of mass destruction, and turned his nation into a prison. Saddam Hussein was not just a dictator; he was a proven mass murderer who refused to account for weapons of mass murder. Every responsible nation recognized this threat, and knew it could not go on forever." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040712-5.html

Iraq couldn't piss over the Kuwaiti border without 50,000 allied troops watching, so no, they were not a threat to anyone outside Iraq.

50,000 troops handcuffed by UN pacificsm against 300,000 Iraqis?   Attempted assassination of a former US President?   I'd say that was a threat!   You are also again forgetting about the Israelis (or do they not count?) ...

Yes, of course Genocide is bad. Read my post again, I don;t want to explain my point a 3rd time.

Well then what point are you trying to make?   I'm not aware of, nor can I conceive of, any instances where any natioin has (would) used the excuse of regime change in order to stop a genocide!

And finally, don't confuse the old resolutions with the US proposal to invade. The UN has the authority to take action against Iraq in cases of violations of the UN sanctions, but the US doesn't.

You are missing the point: Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War ... and as, nULL posted, the UN has no capacity to take action (although it has been proposed).

 

[Gunnerlove]

Wasn't Saddam at the top of the US target list? I guess when you try to assassinate someone with a PGM it is not really an assassination attempt so one should not hold a grudge.

 

[dutchie]

John Galt:

The US has used the War on Terror as a justification for the War in Iraq AFTER the WMD were not found, and a new reason was required. Show me a quote where Bush states that regime change/invasion of Iraq is being done for the primary reason of attacking Terror, quoted before invasion.

I also agree with your statement re: force/UN. I will clarify my original statement. Yes, only member states can act, but the authority remains with the UN, not the individual states.

Re:50,000 troops, etc: the allied troops in Kuwait prior to the invasion were handcuffed only in regards to invading Iraq. If Iraq had invaded Kuwait (or Saudi Arabia for that matter), there is no way those Iraqi troops would get 5 feet without being crushed.

Brad:

I don't want to start splitting hairs over definitions, but second guessing means re-evaluating a decision in light of new info.

In regards to: "No.  Please read carefully.  One of the just war conditions is "reasonable chance of success"..... - you clearly stated in your post earlier that only one 'condition for just war' is required, and that 'reasonable chance of success' was one condition, and I quote from your post, "Commonly accepted conditions for just war are: just cause, proportionality..., reasonable chance of success...." and "My opinion is that the conditions of proportionality, success....were clearly satisfied.....As explained above, at least one just cause was provided regardless how all causes were relatively emphasized." You have now broken up the determination of legitimacy of the war into two separate categories: Just Cause for War, and Just War. I want to know what your 'Just War' conditions are, and how the US met them, as I am arguing that they have no legitimacy in Iraq.

In light of this challenge to your 'theory', I ask you again: What gave the US the right to invade Iraq?


Re:"I believe transnationalism will pass as did communism and nations will remain sovereign, loosely guided by the strictures and conventions of international law so long as international law does not gravely subvert national interests." - the sovereignty of Iraq has been violated, due to the immoral actions of another sovereign nation blindly persuing it's own national interests with no regard for the principles, ethics, and ideals it claims to epitomize (democracy).

If you don't see even a slight inconsistency in the US position pre/post invasion regarding the basis of legitimacy for the war, then we have no common ground, and therefore, this debate will go no where.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The US has used the War on Terror as a justification for the War in Iraq AFTER the WMD were not found, and a new reason was required. Show me a quote where Bush states that regime change/invasion of Iraq is being done for the primary reason of attacking Terror, quoted before invasion.

Well. first of all, you are now changing your argument which previously stated that the War on Terror was "separate" from the invasion of Iraq.  Now you want me to prove the primacy of one over the other?  That wasn't my point!  If you are conceding my point (that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the War on Terror) why don't you just admit it?  Nevertheless, here is a quote from Bush's statement on 26 Feb 2003:

"On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years, in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way, because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century.

We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully, before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: we will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men. (Applause.)

Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al Qaeda. (Applause.) Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning. And we're showing them the definition of American justice. (Applause.) And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. ...

The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them."

I have never argued that the threat WMD was not of primary importance in the justification of the invasion: I am refuting your "FACT .. [that] the US government did not invade Iraq on grounds of terrorist links/'War on Terror' ... [and the idea that they tried to] justify the invasion after the fact [by using the War on Terrorism]  ... so weak in fact that the US government is not even claiming this."  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

You are wrong in that the War on Terrorism WAS the justification of the invasion of Iraq before, during and after the action.  You would know this "FACT" with only a very minimal amount of Google search time.  You might also discover that the WMD argument itself is part of the War on Terrorism justification, as the threat was specifically that Saddam could  provide WMD to terrorists who could/would use them against America and her allies (and you should be able to figure that out from the speech above, too).

I also agree with your statement re: force/UN. I will clarify my original statement. Yes, only member states can act, but the authority remains with the UN, not the individual states.

And what was the implication of the UN agreeing that Saddam had violated the cease fire?

Re:50,000 troops, etc: the allied troops in Kuwait prior to the invasion were handcuffed only in regards to invading Iraq. If Iraq had invaded Kuwait (or Saudi Arabia for that matter), there is no way those Iraqi troops would get 5 feet without being crushed.

Possibly, although by that rationale, Saddam was never a threat (sure he invaded Kuwait and Iran, but he was pushed-back and never really had a chance, right?) ... you also fail to account for the threat he posed to people who don't live in Kuwait.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Second-guessing may, but does not by definition have to, include hindsight.  Second-guessing command decisions is a popular pastime among military history enthusiasts; the more objective ones limit themselves to what was known at the time the decision was made.

I wrote of causes for war, stating the obvious - one sufficient cause is enough cause - and then went on to discuss just causes (as opposed to unjust causes) and where just cause fits into the overall framework of just war for those who, while accepting that there were several potential causes for war, are concerned that a war be just before it be initiated.  Please state an entire sentence or sentences in which you believe I stated only one of the just war conditions must be met for a just war, as opposed to one sufficient pretext, or cause, for war being enough cause for war (just or unjust).

It is important to understand the concept of "sufficient" because some of the people opposed to the war have tried to craft the following argument: the sole or primary cause for war was the existence of WMD; because no WMD have been found (in any quantity of consequence), there was no pretext for war.  This is wrong, for several reasons:
1) Existence of WMD was not the issue; concerns were quite clearly expressed over development of WMD.  (SotU address, January 2002 - the "Axis of Evil" speech.)  These concerns were shared by other nations and bodies including the UN.
2) WMD may yet be found in large quantity, and evidence still exists that Hussein was pursuing WMD capability.  Knowledge after the fact is irrelevant to the case for war in any event.
3) The WMD cause was not the sole cause for war (and here is where "sufficient" becomes important).  Any one other sufficient cause, whether primary or secondary, whether just or unjust, is enough cause for (just or unjust) war.

>In light of this challenge to your 'theory', I ask you again: What gave the US the right to invade Iraq?

Just war theory is not mine.  It has been around for centuries.

Here is a template of "just war" conditions for removal of an oppressive regime, then:

1) Just cause - to end grave crimes against humanity.
2) Proportionality - the damage of war is anticipated to be acceptable compared to the year after year toll of suffering and death caused by the regime.
3) Reasonable chance of success - the invader will likely defeat the regime's armed forces.
4) Open declaration - a simple statement of intent, with or without preliminary warnings.
5) Legitimate authority - any duly constituted government following its legal process for making war (or coalition of such governments).
6) Last resort - regime fails to heed directives to cease crimes against humanity and is not compelled by diplomatic or economic pressure.
7) Rightness of intentions - the purpose is pursuit of the just cause and not some hidden agenda (eg. "for the oil").

The sovereignty of any nation is violated when it is invaded.  So what?  Be it resolved: nations must respect sovereignty only when the bearers of sovereignty respect their own peoples.

Which is the more morally praiseworthy: to stand by offering words of censure while one person tortures and abuses another, or to intervene violently?  If you believe nations should be judged differently in moral terms (if indeed they should be judged in moral terms at all, which I will stipulate here for now), please explain why.

>If you don't see even a slight inconsistency in the US position pre/post invasion regarding the basis of legitimacy for the war, then we have no common ground, and therefore, this debate will go no where.

Both proponents and opponents of the war have been indulging in spin control after the fact and consequently have developed inconsistencies in their pre- and post-invasion arguments.  That is to be expected.  The pre-war stances should still be judged purely in terms of what was known at the time.

 

[dutchie]

Brad:

Re: "Please state an entire sentence or sentences in which you believe I stated only one of the just war conditions must be met for a just war, as opposed to one sufficient pretext, or cause, for war being enough cause for war (just or unjust)." - As requested: you stated, "Commonly accepted conditions for just war are: just cause, proportionality (of political "ends" sought relative to "means" employed and the bad effects thereof) , reasonable chance of success, public (open) declaration, legitimate authority, last resort (all other options exhausted), rightness of intentions.

My opinion is that the conditions of proportionality, success, and open declaration were clearly satisfied.   Disputed are just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions.

As explained above, at least one just cause was provided regardless how all causes were relatively emphasized."

I have complied with your request for the exact quote. Now if you could, please explain how a nation can JUSTLY attack another based soley on the grounds that they will win.

As well, re: ">In light of this challenge to your 'theory', I ask you again: What gave the US the right to invade Iraq? Just war theory is not mine.   It has been around for centuries." - please answer the actual question: What gave the US the right to invade Iraq?

Re: "The pre-war stances should still be judged purely in terms of what was known at the time." - I have been arguing the following: 1)-that the WMD claim was unfounded, and that therefore the Invasion and subsequent occupation should be called into question. 2)-The US did not make an 'honest mistake'. They were either incompetant or they fabricated intel. As to which category they fall into is irrelavant, either way, they bear 100% of the blame for this error. If they had made an honest mistake, I would be arguing how to fix the mess now, while assigning no blame to the US for this 'honest mistake'.

John Galt: Re: "On a September morning...... we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.." - I will concede the point that Bush mentions the Invasion of Iraq as a part of the War on Terror, but he is still basing his justification for war on WMD, not terrorist links in Iraq. The Terror link is directly attributed to WMD. So if no WMD, no basis for terror accusation.

Re:"And what was the implication of the UN agreeing that Saddam had violated the cease fire?" - What is your point? The authority lies within the UN, if you want to argue what the UN should have done, perhaps another thread is in order.

Re:" you also fail to account for the threat he posed to people who don't live in Kuwait." - name one nation he posed a threat to outside Iraq (a reasonable threat not some wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists)?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

John Galt: Re: "On a September morning...... we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.." - I will concede the point that Bush mentions the Invasion of Iraq as a part of the War on Terror, but he is still basing his justification for war on WMD, not terrorist links in Iraq. The Terror link is directly attributed to WMD. So if no WMD, no basis for terror accusation.

No, the issue of WMDs made a bad problem worse: other justification included freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant.  Reread the last three paragraphs of the quote I provided.  Saddam's pursuit of WMD is PART of the accusation!  By your rationale, we could skip the 3rd and 4th paragraphs and pretend the invasion had nothing to do with WMD!!!

Re:"And what was the implication of the UN agreeing that Saddam had violated the cease fire?" - What is your point? The authority lies within the UN, if you want to argue what the UN should have done, perhaps another thread is in order.

Iraq violated Resolution 687 (acknowledged by Resolution 1441), which was a temporary suspension of Resolution 678, which authorized the use of force.  This was the legal basis for invasion and has nothing to do with subjective judgement of what the UN 'should' have done..

Re:" you also fail to account for the threat he posed to people who don't live in Kuwait." - name one nation he posed a threat to outside Iraq (a reasonable threat not some wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists)?

I also already mentioned Israel and the US (attempted assassination): the former of which you groundlessly dismiss and the latter you haven't even mentioned.  I think you are getting confused between 'threat to peace and security' and 'invasion of another country using conventional forces'.  The UN Charter talks about "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" (i.e., massing troops at the Kuwaiti border) and "the maintenance of international peace and security": not about credible threats to other county's sovereignty (which seems to be your position).  Interestingly, all of the members of the Security Council (certainly at the time) believed the "wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists."

 

[dutchie]

John Galt:

Re:"other justification included freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant." - so, when exactly did the US go to the UNSC in attempt to authorize force against Iraq based on links to terror not attributed to erroneous evidence (WMD)?   If you don't address these issues to the UN, but invade based on fraudulent intel (WMD), you can't turn around and say, "well, he also had links to terror, so were still good to go..." This totally circumvents the diplomatic process.

Re:"Iraq violated Resolution 687..." - I ask you again: what does this have to do with action taken by the US without the UN's approval? The US has no authority to enforce UN sanctions without prior UN approval.

Re:"the former of which you groundlessly dismiss and the latter you haven't even mentioned." - Threats to Israel by an Arab nation is neither rare, nor a threat to the US. An assassination attempt is not terrorism. Terrorism is an attack on a civilian populace, usually for political means, with the intent of affecting some change or otherwise favorable result to the perpetrators, by causing terror or fear of further attack on the populace as a whole. The President is not a civilian, and if you can call assassination conspirators terrorists, then many former (and the current) presidents could be called terrorists (JFK, for one).

Re: "Interestingly, all of the members of the Security Council (certainly at the time) believed the "wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists." - if this is the case, then where is the security resolution condemning it?

 

[dutchie]

Does anyone else have an opinion on the issues brought up by John Galt, Brad Sallows or myself?