Senate Rejects Regulating Iraq Combat Tours

[ladelfina]

samclem

Is it more likely to be fixed in an environment of enhanced security that only the US can provide, or is the best course of action to withdraw support and let the radicals in Iraq and their supporters in Iran and Syria seek the solutions that best fit their needs?

But even with all that we have committed, the "environment of enhanced security" has not developed. As occupiers, it's likely that essentially NO level, however high, of blood, money, and manpower, is going to "create" that environment. I think the Iraqi gov. in some ways is biding its time until we leave the scene, whether that's tomorrow or in 50 years. They don't have our short-term view.

At one point, the three were trying to discuss the state of Iraqi security forces with Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, but the large, flat-panel television set facing the official proved to be a distraction. Rubaie was watching children's cartoons.

When Moran asked him to turn it off, Rubaie protested with a laugh and said, "But this is my favorite television show," Moran recalled.

Porter confirmed the incident, although he tried to paint the scene in the best light, noting that at least they had electricity.

"I don't disagree it was an odd moment, but I did take a deep breath and say, 'Wait a minute, at least they are using the latest technology, and they are monitoring the world,' " Porter said. "But, yes, it was pretty annoying."

washingtonpost.com

The "step up / stand down" meme is confusing.. it's kind of like two people going through a doorway: "you first", "no, you first", "no, YOU first". Saying they have to get their act together BEFORE we leave is only one way of looking at it. Maybe if we LEAVE, they will get their act together. In the meantime, we will only be a catalyst.. a flashpoint for more violence. To make matters worse, at this point anyone having collaborated with our forces has essentially a death sentence. And by all measures except those narrowly defined by Petraeus and the administration, the level of violence has increased - despite, or due to, the "surge". I think the course of action that would enhance our interests would be to leave; I might be wrong but that would be my choice.

The meth-head example IS "we"... "We" are hooked on the crack, the meth, the oil. We will do stupid things to get our fix.

Going back in time, what was Saddam's big mistake? Invading Kuwait. WHY did he invade Kuwait? He thought they were stealing Iraq's oil from across the border. HOW could that happen? Ask James Baker (of the Iraq Study Group/Baker-Hamiliton report), whose company (Baker Hughes) at the time was selling Kuwait their sideways (slant) drilling technology. Also on the scene was Santa Fe International, a subsidiary of Kuwait Petroleum. On the board of SFI was one Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to GHWB [bios of Scowcroft skip over his private sector positions, even on wiki and in the NYT]. The Bush dynasty is just a revolving door of oil friends and oil family. Despite their incredible power and influence, as a nation we choose not to examine this too closely because it would offend. Better to keep howling about Whitewater and HRC's cattle futures.

Whether the Kuwait oil-theft dispute was valid I don't know.. but we were the nanny at the time on all sides, arming Saddam and giving him cash, while supporting Kuwait's stepped-up production (despite this flouting OPEC and making Saddam's oil worth less).

Why do we keep poking these Rottweilers with sticks? Because they're guarding the bone we want. The run-up to the Iraq war is not JUST about the Iraq war.. it's about a whole panoply of pretexts (many or most false) that are used to incite war and that we see being repeating in the case of Iran, another Rottweiler whose bone we want. We can either learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

 

[bosco]

hey, Dick Cheney said it years ago...

check out

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cheneyvideo.html?r=2879&id=10983-2508203-fO0sgO

I know many are mistrustful of moveOn, but this is a video of Cheney ACTUALLY MAKING SENSE. Of course, that was many years ago...

 

[genghis]

All this may be productive in some ways. Just don't make the mistake of believing that it will shed light on the best way forward in Iraq. If you want to make progress there, it will be most productive to look at the situation as it is now, the capabilities and interests of all the players (including the US), and then craft a productive course.

In general, your point is correct. The problem is that in this case - the same people that lied to get us into this mess are the ones giving us optimistic "progress" reports (which are not in agreement with other unbiased reports) and are trying to convince us that they are capable of developing a productive course for the future. Their lack of credibility from the past is what hurts their chances of getting support today.

 

[hpbob]

Bring back the draft

The best thing the Congress could do for this country is to begin regulating the length of tour duty for the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Either the country would have to return to the draft to continue military operations or we would have to get out. The draft was a major factor in mobilising public concern about the effect of the Vietnam war on our troops. Not having the draft now allows the vast majority of Americans to support the troops in a vague patriotically feel-good way without having to confront the actuality of what is happening in their personal lives. If a war is worth supporting then it is worth the lives of ALL able-bodied Americans.

 

[clifp]

The best thing the Congress could do for this country is to begin regulating the length of tour duty for the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Either the country would have to return to the draft to continue military operations or we would have to get out. The draft was a major factor in mobilising public concern about the effect of the Vietnam war on our troops. Not having the draft now allows the vast majority of Americans to support the troops in a vague patriotically feel-good way without having to confront the actuality of what is happening in their personal lives.

Wow, no offense but I think that is phenomenally bad advice and pretty ignorant of history.

Virtually every historian of the Vietnam war faults LBJ for use of the draft, instead of calling up the reserves. The reason LBJ used the draft was pure politics, drafting an individual and shipping him of to Vietnam doesn't generate a news story. Sure you may know Ted, Bill and Bob were drafted, but that is function of 2-4x more troops in Vietnam (300-600K) in a nation with 2/3 the population. However, Ted, Bill, and Bob going to Vietnam didn't make the local newspaper unless they were killed, wounded or did something heroic.

In contrast sending a unit of 1000+ soldiers to Iraq or Afghanistan generates at least 1/2 dozen newspaper articles a couple before they leave, several while they are deployed, and one when the unit returns, complete with a side bar listing the casualties the unit sustained. It is even worse PR when a National Guard unit is activated since a couple more stories are generated about how tough it is for the families and co-worker to cope with a guy or gal being overseas. LBJ being a very shrewd politician understood this and used the draft instead guard unit activation to supply manpower for the war It wasn't until the 4th and 5th years of the war after 300-450K were deployed, 20,000 were killed, that college students started serious protests. In fact the Pentagon was so pissed off at LBJ tactics that the reshaped the National Guard (by putting critical support units in the Reserves) that they forced future President to activate reserve units in order to fight a large scale war.

As for Congress regulating troop tours. I will say as fairly serious amateur military historian, I don't have a f*ing clue as to how long the length of tour should be. Some of the members off the House, and Senate armed service committees are pretty well informed about military matters, but the average Congressman I believe has less clue than I do. I think it is very complicated and I feel confident that manpower specialist in the Pentagon are in the best position to judge.

Here are some of the trade offs. Prior to send to sending a unit overseas they go through several months of training. If you train them for 3 months and send them overseas for 6 months, you have 33% overhead, If they stay for 15 months your overhead is cut in 1/2. Second there is logistical cost to ship a unit oversea and bring them back. The longer they stay the less logistical cost. Next and most important is value of combat experience.
We all know that anytime you move into new job, there is a steep learning curve, which is why most companies don't give brand new employees a real important task without close supervision. Combat tours are no different, you lean a lot your first few months. Needless to say the consequences of a making a mistake while learning the job in Iraq are far worse than at MegaCorp.

All of these factor would lead one to lengthen the combat tours. In fact, in WWII the combat tours for almost participants were "for the duration". The US Army Air Corp had a policy of rotating aircrew out after so many combat mission, although the odds against you actually completely all 25 or 30 mission were well under 50%. Once again Vietnam gives a good example of one NOT to do, the one year tour of duties in Vietnam are widely regarded as a disaster.

On the other hand soldier in combat suffer combat fatigue and once they reach their breaking point they aren't effective. What the point is varies by individual and is hotly debated. In summary, the ideal length of tour minimized the overhead cost deployment, maximized the amount of time an experienced soldier spends in the theater of operation, while minimizing the psychological stress on the soldier and his family. I am curious why you think that Congress is in a good position to make this determination?

If a war is worth supporting then it is worth the lives of ALL able-bodied Americans.

I guess this sounds good and it is "fairer" to spread the pain. However, I like most Americans want to be successful in Iraq. (I'll define success later). Furthermore, I want to be successful while spilling the least amount of American blood and treasure. We have a very professional armed forces, these guys are well trained, very well armed, and by historical standards well paid. Lets say it takes 1,200,000 man years of America soldiers in Iraq to win the war. I respect but disagree with those folks who think the war is unwinnable, and understand that people think that this McNamara-like spreadsheet thinking is what happened in Vietnam.

The question is is better to have A. 1.2 million American spend 1 years in Iraq B. 400,000 spend 3 years or C. 300,000 spend 4 years. I don't know if B is better than C, but I do know that Option A, which is the draft option will result in thousand if not tens of thousands additional American casualties.

 

[clifp]

To provide evidence of winning, you must first define what constitutes a "win". There has never been any definition of what a "win" in Iraq would be.

I am to lazy to google for this. But various members of the adminstration at various times have said that sucess looks like this.

Iraq is able to defend it is own borders. It doesn't support state sponsored terrorism. It Isn't engaged in developing weapons of mass destruction, and doesn't threaten its neighbors. The government is reasonably democratic not by western standards but middle east/3rd world standards. The people enjoy a rising standard of living, and aren't living in fear of being rapped by the government, or feed to dobermans, or put through a paper shredder.

I'll give a simpler definition. If all of Iraq looks like the Northern Kurdish controlled 1/3 of Iraq has been like for the last decade, we have won. I think it is worth noting that this required more than decade of US Military power and aid via the food for oil program to achieve sucess in the Kurdish area.

 

[Gumby]

Wow, no offense but I think that is phenomenally bad advice and pretty ignorant of history.

Virtually every historian of the Vietnam war faults LBJ for use of the draft, instead of calling up the reserves. The reason LBJ used the draft was pure politics, drafting an individual and shipping him of to Vietnam doesn't generate a news story. Sure you may know Ted, Bill and Bob were drafted, but that is function of 2-4x more troops in Vietnam (300-600K) in a nation with 2/3 the population. However, Ted, Bill, and Bob going to Vietnam didn't make the local newspaper unless they were killed, wounded or did something heroic.

In contrast sending a unit of 1000+ soldiers to Iraq or Afghanistan generates at least 1/2 dozen newspaper articles a couple before they leave, several while they are deployed, and one when the unit returns, complete with a side bar listing the casualties the unit sustained. It is even worse PR when a National Guard unit is activated since a couple more stories are generated about how tough it is for the families and co-worker to cope with a guy or gal being overseas. LBJ being a very shrewd politician understood this and used the draft instead guard unit activation to supply manpower for the war It wasn't until the 4th and 5th years of the war after 300-450K were deployed, 20,000 were killed, that college students started serious protests. In fact the Pentagon was so pissed off at LBJ tactics that the reshaped the National Guard (by putting critical support units in the Reserves) that they forced future President to activate reserve units in order to fight a large scale war.

As for Congress regulating troop tours. I will say as fairly serious amateur military historian, I don't have a f*ing clue as to how long the length of tour should be. Some of the members off the House, and Senate armed service committees are pretty well informed about military matters, but the average Congressman I believe has less clue than I do. I think it is very complicated and I feel confident that manpower specialist in the Pentagon are in the best position to judge.

Here are some of the trade offs. Prior to send to sending a unit overseas they go through several months of training. If you train them for 3 months and send them overseas for 6 months, you have 33% overhead, If they stay for 15 months your overhead is cut in 1/2. Second there is logistical cost to ship a unit oversea and bring them back. The longer they stay the less logistical cost. Next and most important is value of combat experience.
We all know that anytime you move into new job, there is a steep learning curve, which is why most companies don't give brand new employees a real important task without close supervision. Combat tours are no different, you lean a lot your first few months. Needless to say the consequences of a making a mistake while learning the job in Iraq are far worse than at MegaCorp.

All of these factor would lead one to lengthen the combat tours. In fact, in WWII the combat tours for almost participants were "for the duration". The US Army Air Corp had a policy of rotating aircrew out after so many combat mission, although the odds against you actually completely all 25 or 30 mission were well under 50%. Once again Vietnam gives a good example of one NOT to do, the one year tour of duties in Vietnam are widely regarded as a disaster.

On the other hand soldier in combat suffer combat fatigue and once they reach their breaking point they aren't effective. What the point is varies by individual and is hotly debated. In summary, the ideal length of tour minimized the overhead cost deployment, maximized the amount of time an experienced soldier spends in the theater of operation, while minimizing the psychological stress on the soldier and his family. I am curious why you think that Congress is in a good position to make this determination?



I guess this sounds good and it is "fairer" to spread the pain. However, I like most Americans want to be successful in Iraq. (I'll define success later). Furthermore, I want to be successful while spilling the least amount of American blood and treasure. We have a very professional armed forces, these guys are well trained, very well armed, and by historical standards well paid. Lets say it takes 1,200,000 man years of America soldiers in Iraq to win the war. I respect but disagree with those folks who think the war is unwinnable, and understand that people think that this McNamara-like spreadsheet thinking is what happened in Vietnam.

The question is is better to have A. 1.2 million American spend 1 years in Iraq B. 400,000 spend 3 years or C. 300,000 spend 4 years. I don't know if B is better than C, but I do know that Option A, which is the draft option will result in thousand if not tens of thousands additional American casualties.

clifp:

This is a very cogent and well reasoned response to the wrong point. You are quite correct that a draft is probably not the best military solution, but the issue that hpbob raises is not how best to fight the war in Iraq, but the fact that the people in this country will too easily allow the children of someone else be led to the slaughter when they would scream bloody murder if it were their own children being used as cannon fodder. In my view, the president and his cronies have gotten away with this incredibly misguided adventure so far because your average American does not feel the pain of the war. If everyone's children were at risk, maybe we, as a nation, would think twice about engaging in these foreign adventures.

I don't care if we "win" in Iraq. We never should have gone there in the first place (it was, in my view, the commission of a war crime), and if I had my way, we would leave tomorrow. I don't care who runs the place and whether they all kill each other after we are gone. If they ever get into the position where they legitimately threaten our safety (as opposed to the lies and fearmongering of the White House in 2002-2003), we are quite capable of handling the situation at that point.

 

[samclem]

I don't care if we "win" in Iraq.

That says an awful lot.

How we got there has nothing to do with the way forward in Iraq(though I think it is a legitimate item for our upcoming election).

As clifp mentioned, the real eye opener to the public is largescale mobilization of the Guard and Reserve. There's been plenty of that. And, I don't think anyone can honestly say the press has ignored US casualties in Iraq--every enemy attack makes the news.

A draft would have extremely negative military consequences. The US military, in its present form, has no need for minimally-trained personel of uncertain motivation. If the purpose of the draft is to "highlight" some issue or another, then just draft people and lock them up or have them pick up litter along the highways. That way, the draftees won't be getting in the way of military operations.

Let's draft people to fight global warming, that would highlight the problem and make everyone suffer.

 

[clifp]

clifp:

This is a very cogent and well reasoned response to the wrong point. You are quite correct that a draft is probably not the best military solution, but the issue that hpbob raises is not how best to fight the war in Iraq, but the fact that the people in this country will too easily allow the children of someone else be led to the slaughter when they would scream bloody murder if it were their own children being used as cannon fodder. In my view, the president and his cronies have gotten away with this incredibly misguided adventure so far because your average American does not feel the pain of the war. If everyone's children were at risk, maybe we, as a nation, would think twice about engaging in these foreign adventures.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but are basically saying that the American people are sheep and until something effects them directly and painful, they are content to eat their happy meals, download their itunes, watch American idol, and stress about the careers and kids?

So the reason for the draft is increase the stress level of the American people in the hopes that they will demand an immediate end of the war?

I am curious do you think the people of South Korea say about 1950 or the people of Panama in 1980 share your distaste for foreign adventures.

 

[Nords]

I don't want to put words in your mouth but are basically saying that the American people are sheep and until something effects them directly and painful, they are content to eat their happy meals, download their itunes, watch American idol, and stress about the careers and kids?

Quite a strawman. I suspect the vast majority of the American [-]sheeple[/-] people want to be left alone to pursue Maslow's heirarchy. Self-actualization & altruism can wait until the kids are out of the house, or at least out of diapers. The imposition of a draft would be seen as a frontal assault on their pursuit of happiness.

So the reason for the draft is increase the stress level of the American people in the hopes that they will demand an immediate end of the war?

Not a bad idea from a civil-disobedience perspective. Maybe we could achieve the same public response by imposing an additional 10% income "war tax" or intimidating people into buying "War Bonds". Oooh, how about gas rationing? "Carpool so that they can convoy!" Maybe we could bring back CFB's "Do With Less So They Can Have Enough" coffee poster and ship more caffeine to Iraq for the troops, but there'd be even more violence & rioting in the streets than today. I'm talking about American streets.

BTW, who would we be drafting? The same caliber & motivation of the men (and women!!) who are volunteering today? The problem that Gumby and I have with a draft is totally selfish. We entered service in the late 1970s, observed the tail end of its effects, and boy was it scary. We don't want to have to train and depend on people who don't want to be in the service, let alone in combat, any more than they want to be trained & led by us. The draft was a frontal assault on everybody's pursuit of happiness, not just those long-haired dope-smoking college hippies.

Would a draft improve the military's demographics? Would the submarine force finally have a strong component of African-Americans, Hispanics, women, and (*gasp*) Democrats?

I'm not an expert on the period, but I thought the reason LBJ went with a draft was because Congress had refused to approve his little wild-goose chase with the designation of "war". The draft was one of the few alternatives he had to raise manpower without compromising with those former associates who he'd been bribing, jawboning, armtwisting, & backstabbing over the years.

I am curious do you think the people of South Korea say about 1950 or the people of Panama in 1980 share your distaste for foreign adventures.

I think they'd much rather have our tourist dollars than our security patrols. Quite a few South Koreans died of the paranoia (including that from American soldiers) that they were infiltrating North Korean guerillas. As for today, imagine having most of your civil liberties revoked, being routed out of your home in the middle of the night for inspections & interrogations, and having armed guards tear up your neighborhood in the name of chasing terrorists. But this time I'm talking about Iraq.

 

[FinanceDude]

Keith Olberman.....yet another washed up hack journalist that has "all the answers"..........

 

[Gumby]

That says an awful lot.

How we got there has nothing to do with the way forward in Iraq(though I think it is a legitimate item for our upcoming election).

Dear Abby:

I started beating my wife sometime ago. She is an ill tempered and mean spirited wench and I knew it was just a matter of time before she bought a gun and shot me. So, you see, I really had no choice. It was easy enough at first; I quickly overpowered her and broke her arms. The problem came after that. She simply will not submit to me and continues to bite, kick and scratch whenever she gets the chance. I also find it quite annoying that her culinary output is greatly reduced now. Some of my friends have told me I should just stop and leave her alone, but I've lost too much blood as a consequence of her bites and scratches and I feel I must see this through to the end. If I just step up the punishment routine, I think she may ultimately realize what is good for her and do things my way. Besides, if I stop now, the other guys in my neighborhood will think I'm a wimp. So I'm wondering what you would advise . . . oh, wait. You mean I never should have started beating her in the first place? Nevermind.

Sincerely,

Perplexed

Yes, samclem, it does matter how we got there. Being the best wife beater around is no prize.

 

[samclem]

wife (in example) = single entity
Iraq (in real life) = Not a single entity. External actors, various internal factions, government, etc.

Does anyone think we are at war with Iraq (as a single entity)?? What would that even mean in the present circumstances??

I like allegories, parables, and examples as much as the next guy, but this one obfuscates more than it illuminates.

 

[clifp]

I like allegories, parables, and examples as much as the next guy, but this one obfuscates more than it illuminates.

I must say I don't even understand the beaten wife = iraq allegory.

What a lot of people seem to forget was that in dealing with Rogue states like Iran, Iraq and North Korea the situation is and was AOS. (All options stink or suck)

There wasn't a magic silver bullet for dealing with Iraq from pretty much the day Saddam took power in 1979 to today. For every clip the Democrats/liberals can provide of Dick Cheney explaining why we shouldn't go into to Baghdad, I can provide a clip or an op ed of Senator John Kerry advocating the use of ground forces (circa 1998) Senator Bob Kerry saying having been at war with Saddam for a decade we need to go in and finish the job (circa 2002) or President Bill Clinton or Sen. Hillary Clinton,or the Cohen, Sec. of Defense under Clinton, explaining we need to stop Saddam from getting WMDs. The Iraqi liberation act passed under Bill Clinton passed with only one no vote.

A similar situation exists with North Korea pretty much from 1953 to the present day. While its fun to score partisan points and say the other guy screwed up negotations with North Koreas the truth is the North Koreans have screwed over and out manuevered both political parties.

We are in Iraq and we need to figure out a way creating a stable situation for economic and national security. Unlike Gumby, as matter of morality I care about what happens to Iraq and the Iraqi people. Just as important we have lots of example (Afghanistan, Lebannon, Sudan, Somalia, North Korea)of the dangers to US interest and our lives when we allow either anarchy to exist or nut case dictators to rule countries.

Finger pointing may very well win elections, but it does not do crap for fixing a serious threat the country faces from radical islamic groups.

 

[Gumby]

Hey, I thought it was clever.

I understand well those who adopt the realpolitik view -- we're stuck now, how can we make the best of it? But really, you cannot divorce the current situation from its genesis, which was and is a continuing violation of international law. Those principles, as established at the Nuremburg Trials and memorialized in the U.N. charter and resolutions, are that crimes against peace, including waging wars of agression, are war crimes.

The Nuremburg tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

To give some context, Robert Jackson, the chief American prosecutor stated that

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The United Nations' Charter, states in article 2, paragraph 4 that
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

UN Resolution 3314, Annex A, states as follows

Article I

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,

Article 2

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.

Article 3

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.


In the prefatory paragraphs, the resolution notes that it is necessary,

.....

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,

Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,

Reaffirming also that the territory of a State shall not be violated by being the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State in contravention of the Charter, and that it shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from such measures or the threat thereof,

.....


Our invasion, which was not in response to an attack or even a legitimate threat of attack from Iraq, as well as our continued occupation, clearly violates these international principles in that we have violated their sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. (I won't even get into the extraordinary rendition and torture, which is a separate war crime). A number of high ranking Nazi officers and political figures were indicted, convicted and executed for precisely these crimes.

Sometimes the issue really is this simple -- We broke the law. We continue to break the law every day. We should stop.

 

[hpbob]

Amen!

Brother

 

[samclem]

Gumby,
A very comprehensive post, thanks.

For twelve years, since his own invasion of Kuwait, Saddam had defied all significant requirements set by the UN. Of the 26 demands made by the UNSC since 1990, Saddam had complied with only three. (Significantly, a number of the demands related to the requirement for verification of Iraqi destruction of chemical weapons. Had Saddam complied with these, the US would have had no reason to believe Iraq was keeping any of these prohibited weapons/stockpiles. Saddam was not only cruel and barbarous--he was an idiot).

So, by early 2003 it was evident that the UNSC would not compel Iraq to comply with UNSCR 1441 or any of the preceding UN resolutions. Specifically, in March 2003 to UNSC refused to approve military action by the coalition as a response to the failure of Iraq to comply (the two members which balked: Russia and France. Hmmm--we've since learned enough about how Saddam bought off these nations and the UN bureaucracy that their motivations are very clear).

So, the coalition invaded,in part, in order to enforce UN resolutions.

Almost immediately after this intervention, the UNSC unanimously passed UNSCR 1483 which, among other things, recognized the coalition as the appropriate "authority" in Iraq. I wonder why they did that if the military action was illegal?

Of course, all of this is largely beside the point to a "realist." The UN is useful primarily as a place to talk things over. It has no effective means to employ military force (thank goodness!), and so it is largely irrelevant in the most fundamental sense to the security questions facing nations. A realist laughs at the idea of a "legal" or "illegal" war.

 

[clifp]

Hey, I thought it was clever.

I understand well those who adopt the realpolitik view -- we're stuck now, how can we make the best of it? But really, you cannot divorce the current situation from its genesis, which was and is a continuing violation of international law. Those principles, as established at the Nuremburg Trials and memorialized in the U.N. charter and resolutions, are that crimes against peace, including waging wars of agression, are war crimes.


Our invasion, which was not in response to an attack or even a legitimate threat of attack from Iraq, as well as our continued occupation, clearly violates these international principles in that we have violated their sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. (I won't even get into the extraordinary rendition and torture, which is a separate war crime). A number of high ranking Nazi officers and political figures were indicted, convicted and executed for precisely these crimes.

Sometimes the issue really is this simple -- We broke the law. We continue to break the law every day. We should stop.

I am convinced that your mind is made up on this issue, so I won't bother trying to change it. I'll just say that I think you are dead wrong this is an illegal war. In fact this is arguable the most "legal" war since WWII be the US or any country.

Simply stated in Feb 1991, the US and other coalition forces (operating for only the 2nd in history with a security council resolution) defeated Iraqi forces. Iraq according to UN resolutions had waged an illegal war of aggression against Kuwait.

Iraqi signed a cease fire agreement not only with Coalitions forces but also a bilateral cease fire agreement with the US. Saddam had to agree to whole host of conditions (the vast majority of which he was again found by the UN Security Council to have not upheld) However the principal condition that Saddam agreed "was an immediate and permanent halt to any attacks on US Armed Service personal". In April of 1991 Iraqi Air Defense units shot SAM missiles at US planes patrolling the Northern, this breaking the 3 month cease fire.

For the next almost 12 years Iraq and coalition force (primarily the US) engaged in constant fighting. During this time, Iraq fired on coalition force more than 10,000 times expending thousands missiles and hundreds of thousand of anti aircraft rounds. The US in turn dropped thousands of missile and bombs against Iraqi Air Defense targets and command and control centers. On at least two occasions (Desert Strike, Desert Fox) the US launched pretty major air offensives against Iraq, Desert Fox for example used more Tomhawks missile than were launched in the first Gulf war. During these attacks hundreds of not thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded.

Both sides attempted to kill the other sides leadership, with the US by all accounts targeting high ranking Iraqi officials, and Iraq attempting to assassinate President Bush (Senior) along with some Saudi ministers.


Now I don't know what you call it when two nation's armed forces shoot at each constantly, try to kill the leaders, and one side blockades the other side. But I think meets the commonly accepted definition of war.
War is a state of conflict involving two or more factions fighting
It seems to me that when two nations are involved in a war that invasions and occupations are pretty much part of the bad stuff that happens.

Finally, from a legalistic viewpoint. You say it is illegal based on the UN and Nuremberg trials, I say the invasion is simply the logical end to a 12 year long conflict with Iraq. If you are right as mater of international law surely some organization must agree.

If the conflict is in conflict with the UN Charter as you contend how come the UN hasn't done anything about it?
There is no security council resolution condemn the invasion (not even submitted for a vote)
No General Assembly resolution (not subject to a US veto)
No International Court of Justice case resolved or even filed.

Is it really illegal just because you and Moveon.org say so?

 

[Nords]

Our invasion, which was not in response to an attack or even a legitimate threat of attack from Iraq, as well as our continued occupation, clearly violates these international principles in that we have violated their sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. (I won't even get into the extraordinary rendition and torture, which is a separate war crime). A number of high ranking Nazi officers and political figures were indicted, convicted and executed for precisely these crimes.

Sometimes the issue really is this simple -- We broke the law. We continue to break the law every day. We should stop.

It'll be interesting to see if this approach helps 1LT Watada. He's attracting some fairly heavy-duty [-]publicity-hungry[/-] military-litigation talent.

 

[Gumby]

Gumby,
A very comprehensive post, thanks.

For twelve years, since his own invasion of Kuwait, Saddam had defied all significant requirements set by the UN. Of the 26 demands made by the UNSC since 1990, Saddam had complied with only three. (Significantly, a number of the demands related to the requirement for verification of Iraqi destruction of chemical weapons. Had Saddam complied with these, the US would have had no reason to believe Iraq was keeping any of these prohibited weapons/stockpiles. Saddam was not only cruel and barbarous--he was an idiot).

So, by early 2003 it was evident that the UNSC would not compel Iraq to comply with UNSCR 1441 or any of the preceding UN resolutions. Specifically, in March 2003 to UNSC refused to approve military action by the coalition as a response to the failure of Iraq to comply (the two members which balked: Russia and France. Hmmm--we've since learned enough about how Saddam bought off these nations and the UN bureaucracy that their motivations are very clear).

So, the coalition invaded,in part, in order to enforce UN resolutions.

Almost immediately after this intervention, the UNSC unanimously passed UNSCR 1483 which, among other things, recognized the coalition as the appropriate "authority" in Iraq. I wonder why they did that if the military action was illegal?

Of course, all of this is largely beside the point to a "realist." The UN is useful primarily as a place to talk things over. It has no effective means to employ military force (thank goodness!), and so it is largely irrelevant in the most fundamental sense to the security questions facing nations. A realist laughs at the idea of a "legal" or "illegal" war.

Samclem:

UNSCR 1441 directed Iraq to allow access to weapons inspectors and to submit a report detailing its destruction of its chemical or other WMD's. A very extensive report was submitted but dismissed by the Bush Administration as incomplete and untrue. Yet the Iraq Study Group reported several years after the invasion that

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered


It seems that Iraq's report in 2002 was not, in fact, untrue and that Iraq was not, in fact, failing to comply with UNSCR 1441.

Besides that, if the Security Council does not authorize the use of military force to compel compliance with its resolutions, how are we unilaterally empowered to make that decision? I think the answer is that we are not.

Frankly, the invasion and destruction of Iraq became inevitable on January 20, 2001. There was nothing that Saddam could have done to stop it. Mr. Bush was going to have his war come hell or high water. UN be damned.

As far as UNSCR 1483 goes, recognizing the reality on the ground -- that the US and Britain invaded and destroyed the Iraqi governnment and that there was no realistic alternative source of control over the territory -- is not a validation of the invasion.

You are correct that thhis is a legal argument and that there is no way to force the US to comply with international law, but aren't you concerned about living in a country that so blithely ignores that law? I am.

 

[Gumby]

I am convinced that your mind is made up on this issue, so I won't bother trying to change it. I'll just say that I think you are dead wrong this is an illegal war. In fact this is arguable the most "legal" war since WWII be the US or any country.

Simply stated in Feb 1991, the US and other coalition forces (operating for only the 2nd in history with a security council resolution) defeated Iraqi forces. Iraq according to UN resolutions had waged an illegal war of aggression against Kuwait.

Iraqi signed a cease fire agreement not only with Coalitions forces but also a bilateral cease fire agreement with the US. Saddam had to agree to whole host of conditions (the vast majority of which he was again found by the UN Security Council to have not upheld) However the principal condition that Saddam agreed "was an immediate and permanent halt to any attacks on US Armed Service personal". In April of 1991 Iraqi Air Defense units shot SAM missiles at US planes patrolling the Northern, this breaking the 3 month cease fire.

For the next almost 12 years Iraq and coalition force (primarily the US) engaged in constant fighting. During this time, Iraq fired on coalition force more than 10,000 times expending thousands missiles and hundreds of thousand of anti aircraft rounds. The US in turn dropped thousands of missile and bombs against Iraqi Air Defense targets and command and control centers. On at least two occasions (Desert Strike, Desert Fox) the US launched pretty major air offensives against Iraq, Desert Fox for example used more Tomhawks missile than were launched in the first Gulf war. During these attacks hundreds of not thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded.

Both sides attempted to kill the other sides leadership, with the US by all accounts targeting high ranking Iraqi officials, and Iraq attempting to assassinate President Bush (Senior) along with some Saudi ministers.


Now I don't know what you call it when two nation's armed forces shoot at each constantly, try to kill the leaders, and one side blockades the other side. But I think meets the commonly accepted definition of war.
War is a state of conflict involving two or more factions fighting
It seems to me that when two nations are involved in a war that invasions and occupations are pretty much part of the bad stuff that happens.

Finally, from a legalistic viewpoint. You say it is illegal based on the UN and Nuremberg trials, I say the invasion is simply the logical end to a 12 year long conflict with Iraq. If you are right as mater of international law surely some organization must agree.

If the conflict is in conflict with the UN Charter as you contend how come the UN hasn't done anything about it?
There is no security council resolution condemn the invasion (not even submitted for a vote)
No General Assembly resolution (not subject to a US veto)
No International Court of Justice case resolved or even filed.

Is it really illegal just because you and Moveon.org say so?

I understand the counterargument that this was simply a continuation of the Gulf War, but I see that as an illegitimate pretext. In my view, our writ arising out of the Gulf War was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait (why it was any of our business who runs Kuwait (or Korea for that matter) is a different discussion). George H.W. Bush did that and wisely refused to go further. We should have left it at that. I think the "no fly" zones, which were the source of most of the subsequent conflicts were unaccceptable restrictions on a sovereign nation -- we would never tolerate the same in our country. We bear as much responsibility for thhe countinued friction as Saddam.

And lest we forget, the same argument was presented to the UN Security council in 2002, which rejected the use of force to compel compliance with its prior resolutions. So clearly the UN did not view this as a continuation of the prior war.

As samclem points out, the UN cannot compel us to behave, so I would take no comfort in the fact that they have not really tried.

As far as moveon.org, I don't know their position. Based on your post, I gather it is similar to mine, but any implication that mine is derivative is unwarranted. My views are based on my own research and philosophy, not a political action group.

Finally, even if the war were not illegal, it is a colossally stupid waste of American blood and treasure.

 

[lets-retire]

Besides that, if the Security Council does not authorize the use of military force to compel compliance with its resolutions, how are we unilaterally empowered to make that decision? I think the answer is that we are not.

If someone is attempting to unilaterally punch you in the face after they said they would stop are you not unilaterally authorized to beat the snot out of them? The answer is yes you are. Iraq was constantly lighting up our planes with their SAM radar (even in an area they allowed us to patrol as a condition of us stopping the beating they were receiving). They NEVER stopped being the aggressor. They never complied with the cease fire agreement THEY signed. I can't count how many times I saw our planes leaving the airfields full and come home empty. France didn't have a dog in the fight they were there for training. The US and Britain were the nations at risk.

 

[Nords]

It's ironic that Saddam probably believed that he had WMDs and that Iraq was not sponsoring Al Quaeda training camps. A key to effective bluffing is to behave as if you believe it's the truth.

By invasion time he'd probably so intimidated his staff and his subordinates that they'd tell him anything... or maybe they felt that was the only way to use him to influence the gullible Americans to get rid of him.

The Navy has had abusive COs on many of its ships, and they get away with their behavior because no one's in a position to effectively challenge the culture. However investigations of incidents on these ships have collected many statements like "Yeah, that was a problem but the CO didn't want to hear about it." Whether their statements were true or not is irrelevant to the fact that it became a way to isolate the COs and eventually get rid of them.

 

[Gumby]

If someone is attempting to unilaterally punch you in the face after they said they would stop are you not unilaterally authorized to beat the snot out of them? The answer is yes you are. Iraq was constantly lighting up our planes with their SAM radar (even in an area they allowed us to patrol as a condition of us stopping the beating they were receiving). They NEVER stopped being the aggressor. They never complied with the cease fire agreement THEY signed. I can't count how many times I saw our planes leaving the airfields full and come home empty. France didn't have a dog in the fight they were there for training. The US and Britain were the nations at risk.

Actually, that part of my post was in response to the argument that we only invaded to enforce the UN resolutions. You cannot simultaneously use the resolutions to justify your conduct while ignoring the UN when it declines to authorize force to compel compliance with those same resolutions. Either the UN counts or it doesn't. (I suspect you are in the "doesn't count" camp).

As far as your observation about our planes, all it tells me is that we unloaded a lot of ordnance on Iraq. It doesn't say anything about what Iraq may or may not have done to us. But for sake of argument, let's assume that they did light off their SAM radars. How does that justify the full scale invasion and destruction of their country? At best, it might justify the bombing of those same radar stations and missile batteries (which is what I believe happened). But frankly, was there any useful purpose served by provocatively flying over their airspace in the first place? I doubt it. And were we or Britain really at risk from Saddam and his SAM radar? Again, aside from the pilots unnecessarily flying over their country, the answer is no.

 

[lets-retire]

Every time our pilots went up they were at risk. As far as how much risk did Iraqi SAM's pose ask John McCain, I believe he was shot down by an older version of the same system. Once there is a lock you better do something. Heck as soon as the system came on you better be doing something aggressive. There is only one use for those systems and it is to kill the planes. As far as did we have to fly over their airspace, yes we did. It was part of the end of the war. Remember the end of the last war, Saddam agreed to ALL of our conditions that was one of them. Then he disagreed when he discovered we wouldn't enforce them.

It is obvious we are not going to come to any sort of agreement on this. Your opinion seems to be one of extreme passivity. While mine is formulated from years of studying the art of warfare and dealing with the mopes who wish to do peaceful people harm.