SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home In Libya, Obama Finally Did the Right Thing

WORLD MARCH 20, 2011

In Libya, Obama Finally Did the Right Thing

BY THE EDITORS

Over the past few days, President Obama has surprised us. For weeks, he seemed committed to avoiding military action against Libya—even though Libyans were imploring America and the West to come to their aid. But at the very last minute, when Muammar Qaddafi seemed to be only days and perhaps hours away from retaking the remainder of his country by force, Obama decided to act. It was a decision we wish he would have arrived at weeks ago. But it was the right decision. And Obama deserves credit for having made it.

(Join Richard Just and Jonathan Chait for a Livestream discussion about Libya at 4 p.m. EDT on Monday, March 21.)

To understand why Obama’s decision was not only correct but really the only decent one that was available to him, it is necessary to contemplate what would be taking place in Libya right now if we had not intervened. Late last week, Qaddafi announced that his forces, having reestablished control over most of the country, were closing in on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, and issued his now infamous warning to those who refused to give up. “We are coming tonight,” he said. “We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.” Had we not intervened to cripple his forces, it seems likely that, by now, Qaddafi would be in Benghazi and, undoubtedly, carrying out bloody reprisals against his opponents. The rebellion, moreover, would effectively be over, and any hopes of freedom that the Libyan people had been entertaining would be dead, at least in the near term.

Skeptics of the intervention (including TNR contributing editor Michael Walzer, whose thoughtful analysis can be found here) have argued that one of the mission’s flaws is that its goals are woefully unclear. Are we trying to topple Qaddafi? Are we merely trying to create a safe-haven for rebels in the east? These are fair questions, but it seems to us that the most immediate goals of the mission were quite clear: first, to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi, a slaughter that Qaddafi himself had promised was only hours away; and second, to tip the balance of power in the rebellion away from Qaddafi, so that his forces were unable to retake any more of the country, thus extinguishing the resistance for good. On these terms, the intervention has already been a success.

As for what comes next: It is difficult to say whether Western airpower can tip the balance of power toward the rebels so dramatically that they will be able to topple Qaddafi. We certainly hope so. But even if it does not, an intervention that at least allows the rebels to maintain a free zone in Libya will certainly be a better outcome than the alternative—a Libya reunited under Qaddafi’s iron control.

In making this argument we are mindful of the lessons of Iraq. We supported that war, which has exacted an enormous human cost on Iraqis and Americans alike, and we long ago came to the conclusion that our support was a grave mistake. But we are also mindful of recent instances where Western power has been necessary to head off mass killing and to help oppressed people achieve their liberation. In some of these instances—Bosnia, Kosovo—we acted, and the outcomes have been generally positive. In other instances—Rwanda, Darfur—we did not act, and the results were hundreds of thousands of dead. The point is that Iraq alone cannot be used as a basis for determining the morality or predicting the efficacy of any given intervention.

Many skeptics have also pointed to the events unfolding in Bahrain, where a Sunni minority government allied with the United States has (with the help of another U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia) violently suppressed an uprising by the Shia majority. Isn’t Obama a hypocrite, many liberals have asked, for intervening to stop an autocrat in Libya but not in Bahrain? It is a legitimate point. Bahrain is said to be a difficult case for American policymakers because a revolution by the Shia majority would be a major victory for Iran. And it is true that anything which advances the interests of a brutal Iranian government in the Middle East must be seen as a setback to the cause of liberal democracy.

At the same time, the events of the last few months show that aligning oneself with autocrats is never a wise course. We spent decades paralyzed with fear about what the fall of Mubarak would mean for our strategic interests. And yet, looking back, would we not have been better off cutting Mubarak loose a generation ago, and siding forthrightly with the Egyptian people? By helping to postpone the arrival of democracy, we did not fortify our long-term strategic position one bit.

We must now think about Bahrain (and Saudi Arabia and our other repressive clients in the region) in the same terms. If our backing allows the Al Khalifa family to remain in power for a few more years, and in the process causes the Bahraini people to conclude that the United States is fundamentally hypocritical, we will in fact be helping Iran. The message of the Obama administration to the Al Khalifas and to Saudi Arabia’s rulers must now be unequivocal: You cannot rule forever, and you must begin the process of opening up your societies and paving the way for liberal democracy.

Should we have intervened diplomatically to stop the repression in Bahrain? Absolutely. But for those offering our failure in Bahrain as a reason not to intervene in Libya, here is a simple question: Would our failure in Bahrain have been in any way ameliorated by allowing Qaddafi to move into Benghazi late last week? We think the answer is a clear no.

Of course, no one knows what will happen from here forward. But this much we do know: Four days ago, a cruel dictator appeared to be on the verge of initiating a bloodbath in one of the last free zones of his country. Today, the free zone he was threatening to attack remains free. And his ability to wage war against a justified rebellion seems to have been at least somewhat compromised. Without Western intervention—that is, without Obama’s decision to finally do the right thing—there is little doubt that the situation would have been worse.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 168 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

168 comments

"Finally," eh? Y'all are some begrudging motherfuckers. Do you think it would have been better for the US to act unilaterally? If not, do you think the president could somehow have moved the UN along any faster? Seriously you people shouldn't be writing "Obama surprised us" as if it's the president's job to fulfill your expectations if him. Instead you should say, "We were badly wrong. We made a series of unfounded assumptions about what was going on in the president's head and behind the scenes in the government, and on the basis of such non-facts we published a lit of inflammatory, insulting nonsense. We are sorry." You guys are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

- AaronW

March 21, 2011 at 2:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ditto AaronW. All the pissing and moaning about "unilateralism" and etc over the last few years seems in light of this recent performance to have been so much bullshit. How do the Editors presume a multilateral military response with UN approval is actually organized? Perhaps the relevant governments should just check with TNR on what to do in the future. Yeah, that's the ticket!

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 4:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Double ditto AaronW. Your "finally" is arrogant nonsense. Obama resisted all the strident calls (represented in TNR by uberhawks Leon and Marty) for unilateral military action a la George W. Bush and waited until there was an international sanction and participation. Obama deserves credit for his caution, prudence, and careful diplomatic work behind the scenes in building a coalition. It was an artful, nuanced response that TNR's editorial in no way credits.

- JackR

March 21, 2011 at 6:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wrong. Obama has blundered into a war that will not benefit the United States. Let the Muslims duke this one out among themselves. We don't know who we are supporting in Libya. Why do we always have money for neo-con ventures abroad and non for improving America at home?

- amidut

March 21, 2011 at 6:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This editorial goes a long way to proving the point I made earlier about the TNR editors that they are more concerned with vindicating their view of the propriety of the unilateral intervention by the US not only for humanitarian reasons but, as I expect we shall see, for regime change. Their regret about Iraq is not that our war their was a violation of international law, but that they foolishly underestimated the costs. Obama deserves credit not only for securing a UNSC resolution, that he is just barely within, but for understanding, as many clamoring for action did not, that a no-fly zone by itself was not adequate under these circumstances. He didn't wait to take effective action rather than take the ineffective action advocated here to be followed for demands for escalation. He needs to stick to the limited goal of a safe-haven and avoiding a massacre, although this may mean a prolonged period of stalemate. TNR will shortly be urging that the US depose Qaddafi, count on it. And we should refrain. Why? Because if we do not, this is the last time we will see a UNSC resolution such as this and we need the international machinery for humanitarian reasons. TNR, I predict, will be very happy to engage in the subterfuge of using this resolution for regime change. We should resist that urge. The TNR editors appear to have bought entirely into the neo-con view of US intervention to depose dictators here, there, everywhere so long as they think the cost is manageable. This is a pernicious doctrine that, if allowed sunlight, will cause far more problems than the problems it has already caused in Iraq.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 7:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Managing the world is quite a chore. It would appear that Obama has done quite well under the circumstances of this particular situation. Roid. I would be remiss to allow your comments to go completely unchallenged. So with a light touch might I inquire as to the extents of your willingness to indulge Q's regime? 12 year NFZ? Is there an acceptable slaughter figure, all things being equal, that would stay your hand? At what point are you willing to intervene on behalf of a beleaguered populace suffering under the weight of sanctions? Should those sanctions be loosened for the sake of extortion at the hands of a proven murderous despot? What would you do if, say, Russia and China set about to circumvent the sanctions via back door oil dealings, thereby further strengthening Q's resolve to maintain his position of power? How would you have your beloved international machinery speak to such things?

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 8:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AAAHHHHHH!!! I feel like my freaking head is going to explode. Do any of you nitwits on the editotial staff have any idea how complicated it is initiating military operations against a foreign power? I'm not jumping back into the argument about whether it's a good idea for us to be there, even as part of a multinational operation, but if you think Obama "at the very last minute decided to act" you are somewhere way beyond stupid. Infuriating.

- Tristan

March 21, 2011 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I couldn't continue to read past the mid-point of this sad piece of comingled confusion and certainty. Would Qaddafi have slaughtered the inhabitants of Benghazi? We really have no idea, but the editors assert that it is undoubtedly true. Such certainty rests on the rhetoric of Qaddafi, a man whose public statements are always hyperbolic nonsense. I am willing to accept that we would all have felt very badly for Qaddafi's victims if his threats were realized in a bloodbath of retribution, but would we have attacked the rebels to stop them from slaughtering loyalists, had the tables been turned? We have convinced ourselves that our use of force was justified on humanitarian grounds, but the editors themselves are unclear about the full scope of our war aims. Are we committed to regime change, or not? Once again, off to war we go, unsure that it was necessary, uncertain of our objectives, supported by yellow journalists but not by an act of Congress, and confused about our exit strategy. It is so easy to convince ourselves that the launch of cruise missiles will fix everything. Yes, the UN is behind us. Yes, the Arab League endorsed the defense of civilians. So what? These are our missiles. We ought to have Congress and the American people behind such an act of war. We are a great military power and we wirld that power without due process of law and without sufficient reflection. The uncertainty about our war aims is inexcusable and indicative of the muddle-headed way in which we have drifted into these attacks. I am not surprised to find TNR cheerleading the offensive. You guys don't mind playing the hawk, even if it means being married to an incoherent half-baked militarism. Let's hope this ends well and soon. Neil

- purcellneil

March 21, 2011 at 8:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When I was younger, I remember people saying that there was no such thing as "police action" in terms of relations between nations and governments (despite the nickname for the Korean war). Today, of course, police action even within a country such as ours inspires much examination and much criticism and calls for Tasers and rubber bullets instead of "Dirty Harry" tactics. Nevertheless, the action in Libya, as difficult and worrisome as it is, does seem to indicate that something akin to "police action" is beginning to arise in international relations (as late in the day as it may be). By the way, I am impressed by the eloquent use of language and careful choice of words of several comment posters before me. My granddaughter is seven years old and learning to read and use a computer. As a birthday present I started a credit union account for her. Perhaps when she turns eight years old, I will get her a subscription to TNR online, so she can learn about world peace as well about how to to use the English language in a colorful and expressive way, though probably she will have learned it from the other eight graders by now. Perhaps they are the ones who posted the other comments? No, of course not.

- skahn

March 21, 2011 at 8:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" Is there an acceptable slaughter figure, all things being equal, that would stay your hand?" That should be, "continue to stay your hand?"

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent point, Tristan. ____________________ Your question, jacko, as it is framed betrays a lack of understanding of the function of law in general and international law in particular. You wish to see it as principally an expression of a deeper moral order and hence, when your moral sense is offended, you seem perfectly happy to undermine a system of law in order to achieve an outcome that you personally deem just. Your view misconceives law -- not something to be "loved" but a type of social machine with a purpose to be achieved. You suffer from Leon Wieseltier disease in which an inability to understand law and what it does becomes the accusation that those who do, those who are able to think systematically about it, suffer from what Wieseltier characterized as "lawyerliness." Not a bit. Quite simply, it most people most of the time do not observe the law, the "forces of order" are necessarily far from adequate to maintain order. What ensues is lawlessness which, at the level of states, probably means warlordism and uncontrollable terrorism. As with any legal system, we tolerate a certain level of bad outcomes in order to maintain the system, because, over a period of centuries of slaughter, people have come to realize that an imperfect order is vastly to be preferred to chaos. What you want is a system of vigilantism, in which the US in particular takes it upon itself to right the wrongs of the world when they reach some level -- I might ask you as well just what level that is -- that you deem too high. But you imagine that if vigilantism becomes the accepted behavior of states in the world that only the US will be able to engage in this. Particularly with modern weaponry and the asymmetries it makes possible, this is far from being the case. Others will also conclude that they can intervene unilaterally and their interventions will neither their means nor their purposes will be to our liking. The system of international law is a system of restraint on national behavior. Before WWI at least, there was no notion that war per se could be illegal. Certain conduct in war was illegal, but not war itself. That could be conducted for any reason a state deemed sufficient. Sincer WWI, we have evolved an international system in which the legal bases for war are very limited. We are safer because of it. However, we cannot expect to maintain very long a system of international restraint in which we exempt ourselves. Accordingly, the answer to your question is that it is not for us in particular to "indulge" or not Qaddafi's regime. Nor is the failure to intervene militarily to depose a government "indulging" it. The system of international law on which we depend for a manageable order in the world does not permit such intervention. If at some future point Qaddafi were to commit war crimes against his people, then there might come a point at which the doctrine of humanitarian intervention might permit other states to intervene without immediate UNSC sanction. Short of that (or the spectacularly unlikely case of direct threat to us), there is no basis for intervention. If at some point based on his behavior Qaddafi is indicted by the ICCJ and the UNSC determines to enforce the indictment, that would in my opinion be legal, although not necessarily prudent. But suppressing an armed rebellion is not a war crime and the likelihood that the UNSC would authorize regime change on that basis alone is nil, precisely because states, not least the United States, are not prepared to move to a system in which they are no longer sovereign. We may be moving slowly toward a system of more limited sovereignty in which the international legitimacy of governments depends on their maintaining a certain level of compliance with human rights law. In general, I think we should be encouraging the evolution, although its full implementation now would be grossly premature given the vastly different levels of human rights compliance in different states. This is indeed the very problem that has emerged within the UN human rights machinery, a problem which the carping critics, most notably the neo-cons and fellow travelers, take to be the "fault" of the UN. They are not able to recognize that this is a result of the as yet immature state of human rights in the world. The Universal Declaration is not even a century old. If Obama were to ignore the international machinery, abuse the UNSC resolution, and proceed to regime change without authorization -- as I absolutely guarantee the editors of TNR will soon be advocating -- among the casualties will be the fitful steps toward a regime of limited sovereignty and internationally enforced human rights. In my opinion, the suffering that would ensue would exceed by several orders of magnitude the consequences of Qaddafi trying to do what any state would do which is to suppress an armed rebellion. If Qaddafi does not commit large-scale human rights violations, then the chances that the UNSC would authorize intervention in order to give victory to the rebellion is very slim. The result may be a long, drawn-out process, maybe more than 12 years, in which either Libya is de facto partitioned or Qaddafi attempts to suppress the rebellion with means limited by the UNSC. So be it. If that is the best outcome that international law and machinery can achieve, it is still vastly to be preferred to the neo-con chaos that will result from a new iteration of the Bush doctrine.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 9:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is ample evidence to support the conclusion that Qaddafi has engaged in egregious human rights abuses, both in terms of police-state repression of domestic opponents and aggressive acts of terrorism abroad, for decades. No less so recently--The ICCJ indited him over a week ago, making it much less likely that he will step down. Does this mean it would be "legal" to target his regime and person? Beats me, but it seems very clear that as long as he's in power this civil war is now likely to drag on inconclusively for a long time, allowing the body count to spiral upward, and for both sides to get involved in atrocities. Does the "no-fly zone" turn to close air support when the rebels tighten up their chinstraps and go back on the offensive? "International law" is a work in progress. What its principles are seems to vary from crisis to crisis depending on the politics. One thing everyone does seem to agree on is that aggressive wars of conquest are illegal, and when Iraq invaded, raped, and annexed Kuwait it triggered the war that followed. Even massive violations of human rights of the sort rarely seen since WWII, and the comprehensive violation of the ceasefire terms carried on while combat operations continued and hundreds of thousands died from the embargo (also an act of war), didn't prevent some International Law enthusiasts from declaring the pursuit of a definitive resolution by the Coalition to be "illegal". A bit of perspective and a somewhat different political environment has since evolved, and historians as credible as John Keegan, Andrew Bacevich (on these pages), and others have definitively concluded that any distinction between "Gulf War I" and "Gulf War II" is entirely artificial in terms of international law as well as practical reality, but one can still find those who believe in their hearts that the Iraq War was ginned up out of thin air by a cabal in the White House early in the GWB first term, and was therefore "illegal". The situation in Libya is a great deal less clear cut.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As for what comes next: It is difficult to say whether Western airpower can tip the balance of power toward the rebels so dramatically that they will be able to topple Qaddafi. We certainly hope so. " And that's why many of us on this board opposed, and still oppose our intervention. The arm chair warriors just don't get it. Sweeping aside Qaddafi (or Gadaffi's or Khadaffy's) air force and air defense, all based on 70's era Soviet technology is the easy part. Sure, all the "shock n-awe" Air Marshals on the TNR staff got boners watching the nightime Tomohawk launches, but the Pottery Barn Doctrine "you broke it, you bought it" still applies. The U.S always personalizes its disputes with 3rd world powers. "Oh, if we could just get rid of Gadaffi (Hussein, Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Papa/Baby Doc, Khomeini, all that nation's problems will go away. "But even if it does not, an intervention that at least allows the rebels to maintain a free zone in Libya will certainly be a better outcome than the alternative—a Libya reunited under Qaddafi’s iron control." Yeah, we'll see. 2 months ago we were quite willing to live with Qadafi's iron control. We'd re-established diplomatic relations and Qadafi (or Khadaffy) had given up his nuclear weapons program. Iran sure as hell now isn't going to make that mistake now - the only nations that the west takes strong action against are non-nuclear states with oil.

- dubyadoubte

March 21, 2011 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Beside the morality of siding with Bosnia against the Serbs they previously killed together with Jews in concentration camps. Not bombing Sudan where the genocide of Black people continues. Bombing Despicable Kadafi and not Saudi Arabia killing Shia revolting against a Sunny King in Bahrain. Sounds to me like Imperial Washington where Emperor Obama sends the Legion now called marines to enforce is rule all over The Global Market. Imperialism is back with a vengeance and everybody better listen to Emperor Obama who found an innovative way to raise employment. Every cruise missile will have to be replaced at great cost. Very impressive!

- Poupic

March 21, 2011 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neil makes an insightful comment. I am normally somewhat hawkish, and agree that the Libyan people deserve a country where they can live free and prosper without the tyrannical aims of a man that should have been snipered years ago. However, once we put our foot in this door, there is no simple way to exit....I don't care how "clear" your goals are. Do we say, "Ok...there ya go...skies are clear....Yer on yer own." Orrrrr...do we continue to strafe the loyalist tanks, troops, and munitions until the rebellion can claim victory? Do we help them into elections after the battles are over, only to be surrounded by die-hard loyalists, hellbent on blowing voters to hell. There are so many past gripes about how the Iraq theater was conducted, without considering cause and effect....aren't we saying, "Mission Accomplished" just a bit premature? Today we see the dawning a new battle...and it is only the dawn. These past few days have initiated a new set of future events that can not be predicted. Q promises a "long war"....and you know what? Even if he swallows a tommahawk tonight....that may just be what we'll get.

- John_Hart

March 21, 2011 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alas, we are all neocons now.

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No seattle, we're not

- dubyadoubte

March 21, 2011 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Despite the awful yearning of the Iraq war diehards for legitimacy, there is no ambiguity about the illegality of the Iraq war. It was illegal. It is equally clear by now that Bush could not make his case to the American people of the necessity of war without the intentional false claim that Iraq was in imminent possession of nuclear weapons based on the knowing misuse of intelligence that had already been discredited within the US government. There remain only three bases for legal war: individual or collective self-defense, UNSC authorization, and halting of an ongoing humanitarian crisis. Even Bush didn't think he could make a plausible case on the first or third grounds and didn't bother to try. Instead, he endeavored to claim that the authorization of force in 1991 to oust Hussein from Kuwait was still in force and allowed a new intervention. This claim was secretly debunked by the UK Attorney General in a now no longer secret memo to Downing Street and fails on two grounds. One is that the law is clear that once hostilities have ceased, it requires renewed authorization from the UNSC to resume them, even if the terms of the ceasefire have been violated. It is for the UNSC, not individual members, to determine whether a ceasefire violation is of sufficient gravity to warrant renewed hostilities. The second is that the UNSC had not ceased to exist between 1991 and 2003. It is not for an individual of the UNSC, the US, to tell that body what it means and intends when the body itself is right there and can decide contemporaneously what it means and intends. In the case of the Iraq war, the UNSC, prudently based on the lack of urgency other than that falsely claimed by the US, would not authorize the armed intervention that Bush wanted. That was the end of the matter as a question of law. As a result, Bush should be indicted as a war criminal for waging aggressive war in Iraq. It is simply not the case that ICCJ indictments are self-executing and authorize any state to take whatever means it considers necessary to arrest the accused, including invasion. The ICCJ itself has no power or authority to authorize any such action. The authorization would have to come from the Security Council. So, we are back where we started. There is no current doctrine of international law that allows one state to invade another because of despotism or human rights violations short of ongoing humanitarian crisis of no small magnitude. There is also little chance that any such system will soon come into being, and if it does it will not be on the basis of vigilantism but on the basis of the UNSC and its authority. The constant demands that we invade this place or that place or deploy our military to decapitate this regime or that regime are flatly contrary to international law. This vigilantism is pernicious. It has led to no good and will lead to worse if it becomes the established precedent, set by the US, that a country with the power can decapitate whomever it deems unfit. We can be very, very grateful that, despite the overwrought urging of the Wieseltiers of the world, President Obama has repudiated the Bush doctrine. I hope that he will continue to do so even if the immediate cost is a long, slow war in Libya. It would hardly be the only long, slow war in the world.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Editors: you all have been schooled, as you should have been. Aaron, Jacks, Roi, RP etc - thank you.

- WandreyCer

March 21, 2011 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well it nows seems that the Arab League, that brave group of guys, has now condemned our actions as going too far. Remember that blood is thicker than water, that we will always be consider infidels and that the Arab culture well always look for outside villians. I guess will never learn.

- jneuberg

March 21, 2011 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, Roid! That response was more ambitious than I am up for this morning. That said, I don't appreciate your condescension. Leon can speak for himself. I'm not interested in relinquishing some sort of judicial authority to you simply because in your mind you seem to think that you have such a heightened understanding of Law. It seems to me you glorify the gears of the whole apparatus to satisfy your own biases. Law is, ostensibly, underpinned by the aspiration to transcendental Truth. Otherwise it is simply meaningless yadda. It is that order should be a natural bi-product of Laws perfect aspiration. Kind of tough in an imperfect world but.... it's what we are stuck with. I'll be Baaack.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dubyadobte: "We'd re-established diplomatic relations and Qadafi (or Khadaffy) had given up his nuclear weapons program. Iran sure as hell now isn't going to make that mistake now" I raised this point, I think, in the original Leon thread. It does amaze me that no-one appears to give this the slightest thought.

- Nari224

March 21, 2011 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I cannot improve upon the comments of AaronW, Robert Powell and Jack R so I will simply second them.

- DC Spence

March 21, 2011 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, jacko, given the snarky tone of your question, I am amazed that you are so sensitive. And I wasn't even snarky about it. Oh well. "Law is, ostensibly, underpinned by the aspiration to transcendental Truth." This is exactly what law is not and the reason why you get it all wrong. Law is underpinned by public consensus, which may be achieved in a variety of ways, and often, but not always, requires a shared perception if not of justice then of equity. The shared perception of equity is the reason why the US cannot arrogate to itself the power to decapitate governments it deems unfit based on someone's notion of what is right. Your belief that law is supposed to embody transcendental Truth and that you have access to the same is why you have no qualms about the prohibition of abortion, although there are many women who do not share your Truth and want to control their bodies according to their own truth. The appeal to individual experience of transcendental Truth is not a sound basis for a regime of law. Your resort to it is but more evidence that you do not understand what a regime of law is and what it is for.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yawn, if it isn't the TNR roosters taking credit for the break of dawn; the rooster crowed, the sun rose, ergo...

- wkwami

March 21, 2011 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Crazy Roid is back with another nasty comment "Gee, jacko, given the snarky tone of your question, I am amazed that you are so sensitive. And I wasn't even snarky about it. Oh well."

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, not only gives law a bad name he is responsible for people voting in towards ultra conservative politicians so that they can appoint ultra conservative judges. Anyone who sees such a nasty pustule practicing law would tell herself that there is something wrong with the legal system we have. I am with Shakespeare when he advised to “kill all the lawyers.”

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are way out of your depth here, nr. This is a grown-up thread. But, keep talking. You have already begun to make yourself ridiculous and the longer you keep at it, the more ridiculous you will appear. As ever, your record of entering every thread with personal attacks and insults remains unbroken. And yet, I can predict with confidence borne of consistent experience that by the end of this thread you will be complaining about personal attacks and insults. I wish I could make book on it.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dubya writes: "No seattle, we're not" Of course we are. A neocon, often used to deride, just means someone intent on using military might to spread the 'Merican way. You know, democracy and capitalism. Roid, with Obama's action towards Libya, there is not doubt that he (and Clinton, and Gore, and whomever else might have been in office) would have followed the same steps. Remember, Bush's CIA was Clinton's CIA. And it was Clinton that started the ball rolling for regime change. And it's was Clinton's guy that said the WMD was a slam dunk. Bush didn't have to twist anything here. Overwhelmingly, the day before Bush took office, just about every democrat of importance believed Iraq had WMD. There was not twisting of the facts needed. The threat Iraq posed to the US was laid out in the Iraq war resolution. I think your assertion that the US never believed Iraq was a threat was wrong based on a re-reading of that. At the root, the reasoning was Iraq had WMD, Iraq was already aiding terrorist organizations, and ergo, Iraq could help with another 9/11. Not much of a stretch at all... Regarding the illegality of the Iraq war...it'll be a source of debate for a long time. The fact that the UNSC council drafted something that was so ambiguous is a laugh in and of itself. If you are working on a document of tough language, but you don't want it to be construed as an authorization for something that evolves into war, then you explicitly spell that out. Either these guys were total amateurs, or they changed their mind later on.

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Over the past few days, President Obama has surprised us." Hmmm. Last night I sent in a note to cancel my subscription; I checked in this morning and saw the headline, and wondered if I had made a mistake. Then read the first line of this article. Ugh. I can't improve on RP, Aaron, Tristan, roid, etc. as to what is really wrong with this article specifically, and what has been really, terribly wrong with the coverage of this issue by TNR more generally. I will enjoy your comments from the outside, but in good conscience, I can no longer pay to sustain what has become, but for some of its commenters, a mindless unilteralist rag. Happy to keep in touch - same handle, on gmail! Cheers all.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suppose the new debate should be 1) whether Reponsibility to Protect should have become a United Nations SC mandate for the use of "all necessary means" (Denmark certainly thinks so) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect ; and 2) whether the American President can commit military assets to the enforcement of a UNSC resolution without a vote in Congress. Misrata is Libya's 3rd biggest city; Zawiyah is the 4th biggest. Zawara has about 40,000, mostly Berbers. The opposition was local (organic) in all three of these cities west of Tripoli. These early battles supplied enough evidence of Qaddafi's military onslaught against civilians to lead to the Arab League vote and then the UNSCRes1973 as Q's tanks were at the southern edge of Benghazi after similar campaigns by Qaddhafi forces to retake Brega and Adjabiya. Of the four NYT reporters taken 'prisoner' by Q's forces (and just released this morning), Anthony Shadid filed his last story from Adjabiya on March 14 or 15, mostly about the massive, indiscriminate destruction of Zawiya and Misrata. CNN's Nic Robertson reported last night that a team of reporters from Indonesia had managed to get to Misrata, and reported many civilian casualties. I have yet to find the confirmation report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misurata Feb 24, 2011 to the present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Az_Zawiyah Feb 24 - March 10-11, 2011 In the east: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ajdabiya March 15 to this very moment

- K2K

March 21, 2011 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Misrata is Libya's 3rd biggest city; Zawiyah is the 4th biggest. Zawara has about 40,000, mostly Berbers. The opposition was local (organic) in all three of these cities west of Tripoli. These early battles supplied enough evidence of Qaddafi's military onslaught against civilians to lead to the Arab League vote and then the UNSCRes1973 as Q's tanks were at the southern edge of Benghazi after similar campaigns by Qaddhafi forces to retake Brega and Adjabiya. Of the four NYT reporters taken 'prisoner' by Q's forces (and just released this morning), Anthony Shadid filed his last story from Adjabiya on March 14 or 15, mostly about the massive, indiscriminate destruction of Zawiya and Misrata. CNN's Nic Robertson reported last night that a team of reporters from Indonesia had managed to get to Misrata, and reported many civilian casualties. I have yet to find the confirmation report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misurata Feb 24, 2011 to the present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Az_Zawiyah Feb 24 - March 10-11, 2011 In the east: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ajdabiya March 15 to this very moment I suppose the new debate should be 1) whether Reponsibility to Protect should have become a United Nations SC mandate for the use of "all necessary means" (Denmark certainly thinks so) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect ; and 2) whether the American President can commit military assets to the enforcement of a UNSC resolution without a vote in Congress. The No Fly Zone is now being extended to Misrata where Qaddhafi's forces are inside the urban areas, reported to be killing civilians by NPR.

- K2K

March 21, 2011 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The history of the UNSC debates over Iraq resolutions is quite clear, seattle. The US pushed for language to authorize the use of force and could not get it. Even Bush never attempted to claim that he had contemporaneous authority for the use of force. He claimed that the 1991 resolutions were sufficient. That was not a responsible point of view. Further, despite the language of the Congressional resolution, he never invoked the right of self-defense. If he had, he would not have need the subterfuge that the 1991 resolutions afforded legal authority. The whole thing was a rhetorical and legal house of cards capped off by sending Powell to the UN to invoke African yellowcake and aluminum tubes when the Bush administration already knew that the yellowcake story was a phony and the DOE had opined that the tubes were unsuitable for gas centrifuges and were most likely intended for rocketry. The fact of having to create a confection of lies in order to proceed is more than a jury would need for culplable conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. I am sure Bush imagined he would find WMDs and that all the excesses of his path to war would then be of no importance. But he did not have the means to make that case honestly and the evidence that we did have pointed the other way, that there was no urgency. I have no doubt that, absent the clear implication that Hussein was in imminent possession not just of WMDs but of nuclear weapons generally, it would have been impossible to gain the political support necessary to start a war. The lies about nuclear weapons were the sine qua non.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus - take care of yourself my friend. You'll be missed.

- Tristan

March 21, 2011 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, you have answered none of Jacko's original questions. Kwami, good one. Hart and Neil, couldn't have said it better. Amidut, I can't believe we agree. Especially your line about Neocons. I have a feeling no one on this board but me has kids in public schools, or they, too, would be wondering why we have money for Libya but not for smaller classes, better science labs, higher teacher pay.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes I did, molly. I just declined to adopt his frame because it is misconceived from the gitgo and spins the questions to attempt to force the answers he wants. The correct short answer is that intervention beyond that needed to prevent a humanitarian disaster, as described in greater detail in UNSC1973, is not authorized and would not be legal. Regime change, which is what jacko demands if some threshold of bad behavior that he holds in his head is crossed, is not authorized by UNSC1973 and is also not a permissible direct object of humanitarian intervention. Ergo, if Qaddafi is to be removed by military means for violations of human rights, that would require a separate Security Council authorization. At what point his deeds might be such as to make such an unlikely event possible I cannot speculate. At what point it would be more prudent to try and remove him by military means rather than suppress his ability to oppress, I cannot say. Depends on the circumstances. But, short of UNSC resolution, there is no legal means of removing Qaddafi by force which is what jacko wants, hypothetically, to do when the Truth so moves him. That clear enough?

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid the man who invented the personal attack here pretends that he was only defending himslef. But why expect truth from a psychopath.

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From roid: "But, short of UNSC resolution, there is no legal means of removing Qaddafi by force which is what jacko wants, hypothetically, to do when the Truth so moves him." That was funny Roid. :) Legal? heh heh....Here's a scenario for ya.....For "protection and humanitarian purposes" we need to blow up a column of tanks and troops because an innocent parade of rebels would like to enter Tripoli for a picnic. Oh look....there's an angry mob of armed Q loyalist human shields interfering with the picnic...better snuff them out, before a humanitarian crisis occurs. Headline: Rebels Attack Tripoli...Qaddafi Captured

- John_Hart

March 21, 2011 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid knows best. He always knows best. How dare you question him. He is the Sun King of law, everyone else is dumb, dumb, dumb. If you keep pestering him with reasonable questions his angry twin, his psychotic self will reappear. He attacks one poster uncontrollably and that should be a warning to all posters.

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, I get it John. Under the Little Cowboy Bush doctrine we are supposed to smite bad guys wherever we find them so long as it is opportune, the legality of warfare be damned. That there sorta stuff is fer them lawyer types - "lawyerliness" as Wieseltier likes to say. But, there are well thought out reasons why the UN Charter says what it does (written primarily by the United States), limiting legal warfare to self-defense and UNSC authorization. The neocon desire to abandon that collective agreement would, in my opinion, cause far more harm than good if they succeed. Draping the lawless approach to the world in often faux humanitarian concern doesn't make it any more appealing and certainly won't make it more successful in achieving either collective security or human rights. Fortunately, I think we now have a president who understands this, unlike Little Cowboy Bush and, apparently, the editors of TNR.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "the Bush administration already knew that the yellowcake story was a phony" You are aware that 550 tons of yellowcake was found and removed from Iraq in 2008, right? Roid writes: "But he did not have the means to make that case honestly" Honestly how? If WMD were found indeed his case would have been made. If they were not, well a bad guy is gone and hopefully a democracy takes root. Remember, Iran, Iraq and NoKo were at the some point in their nuclear evolution at the time. Look where they are today. That we only have 2 to worry about instead of 3 isn't such a bad thing. You can bet had Bush done nothing that Iraq would be right there with Iran today. The 550 tons of yellow cake that Iraq had, assuming it was low-grade, could have yielded tons of uranium...

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keep digging, nr. You are doing great!

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A lot of ad hominem criticism towards roid, who posted what I think - non lawyer though I may be - is the most thoughtful critique on this thread. My understanding was there was something of an unspoken gentleman's agreement on these posts that each thread exists entirely independant of every other; that aside from the occasional friendly or drole reference to past posts here and there, disagreements, event vehement ones, ended with the final post on a given topic. Have I misjudged? Are posters here really as eager as every other site on the web to descend into petty name calling when reasonable debate fails them?

- Tristan

March 21, 2011 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That yellowcake was found by UN inspectors after the First Gulf War, seattle, and was I believe controlled. The point of the false story about Iraq obtaining yellowcake from Africa was that it was, purportedly, evading inspections thereby to supply a covert program of nuclear development that was in fact non-existent. Bush needed the lie, because the truth would not sustain his invasion of Iraq, legally or politically. So, he lied. It is highly doubtful that Iraq would by today have a nuclear weapon absent the Second Gulf War. Had we not impatiently invaded Iraq we might well have achieved security at a much lower cost, the costs of our invasion being as yet untallied and perhaps including a much more aggressive push by Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon. We invaded the country that was actually the least capable of the three and now have to contend with the other two. That's what we get for Bush's recklessness and dishonesty, not to mention to human costs and financial costs of the Iraq war itself.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle - this was pretty hard: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.html "The yellowcake removed from Iraq - which was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa" And even better! http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp Claim: The removal of yellowcake uranium from Iraq in 2008 proved that Saddam Hussein had been trying to restart Iraq's nuclear program. Status: False. ... "The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press article cited in the example above: Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts. "

- Nari224

March 21, 2011 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle, you can't possibly be serious. Either with your implication that the "yellowcake" they removed was in any way related to that which they used as casus belli, or with the rest of what you wrote. Are you really that unaware of what the findings actually were? Iraq was at "some point in their nuclear evolution"? What, the trilobyte stage?

- Tristan

March 21, 2011 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One should note that it has taken nary an eye-blink for advocates of unilateralism to go from the call for a no-fly zone (just a no-fly zone!, how could we not they cried, as they wept great tears for the Libyans) to nothing short of what is needed to oust Qaddafi now that authority for a no-fly zone and a bit more has been achieved. This could only have been expected, and I am sure that the TNR editors will soon follow suit.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Digging your grave.

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The grave of a pretentious dummy.

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid should follow his twin icarus and stop reading this magazine. Time for him to move on. The editors will thank him.

- GillGavin

March 21, 2011 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: "...Fortunately, I think we now have a president who understands this, unlike Little Cowboy Bush and, apparently, the editors of TNR." Well....time will tell. I doubt there's ever been a US President in history that didn't bend the rules a little to win a war (or even a war disquised as a conflict). I don't obsess over bush-bashing, as it clouds one's objectivity.... ...Whether Obama is above reproach on this issue.....well.....I say he is a politician, and that should say enough.

- John_Hart

March 21, 2011 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nari/Tristan, I didn't say it was the same yellowcake. The additional stuff they sought was irrelevant. They already had it. They already had enough to make several tons of uranium PRIOR to the stuff Joe Wilson talked about. Is your argument that this 550 tons of existing yellowcake was no danger, and that only if he acquired the stuff from Africa that it would become a danger? Please. Clinton claimed in 1998 that Iraq admitted to having 5000 gallons of botulinum, 2000 gallons of anthrax, 25 scuds filled with antrax...and he noted at the time that UNISCOM believed these were UNDERESTIMATED. Please, let's get off this notion that Bush was the only person that thought Iraq was dangerous. World consensus on the day before Bush took office was that Iraq was trouble and something had to be done. 9/11 was the tipping point. Had there been no 9/11, Iraq and Iraq and NoKo would all be doing the same thing right now and would all have nuclear capabilities. Tristan writes: "What, the trilobyte stage?" No, it is the stage at which you assemble raw materials. In the last decade Iran built the machinery needed to refine their raw materials, and ended up with nuclear materials. Probably not refined enough for a bomb. But certainly usable for fuel or rendering a city dirty enough that people can't be there. Why do you think Iraq would not have been at the same place given that they had the raw materials already?

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But, Gill, I couldn't possibly care less. I don't read or write here to please the editors or you for that matter. If you don't like reading what is written here, no one is forcing you to continue. Or, even better, why don't you write something that you like and believe everyone should appreciate and then we can all see what YOU have to say. Thank you for "twinning" me with icarus. I consider any comparison to him to be high praise indeed. _________________ You think you are getting somewhere, nr? Well then, carry on!

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle - this was the flow of the argument 03/21/2011 - 11:51am EDT | seattleeng Roid writes: "the Bush administration already knew that the yellowcake story was a phony" (Seattle) You are aware that 550 tons of yellowcake was found and removed from Iraq in 2008, right? Since you concede that the yellowcake to which you refer is not the yellowcake to which Bush (and hence Roi) was referring, I'd say you're throwing red herrings that do nothing to disprove Roi's assertion.

- Nari224

March 21, 2011 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As usual Roid is mistaken, "...Fortunately, I think we now have a president who understands this, unlike Little Cowboy Bush and, apparently, the editors of TNR." From the NY Times, March 6, 2011 “Mr. Obama's blunt call last Thursday for Colonel Qaddafi to leave office, coupled with a threat to leave all military options on the table if he doesn't,…” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/weekinreview/06protect.html?src=twrhp If he said this then how can he go back on his word now?

- Newly84

March 21, 2011 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly Roi. It's clear that the goal is to decapitate Iraq. Regime change. Elecitons. Nation building. Is J. Paul Bremmer available? "No Fly Zone" my eye. Qadaffi/Khadaffi/Gadaffi/Ghadaffi's palace has been bombed. Last time I checked palaces didn't fly. Our childish personalized view of foreign policy. Oh, if we could only get rid of (insert current international bete noire here) things would be better.

- dubyadoubte

March 21, 2011 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is your argument that this 550 tons of existing yellowcake was no danger, and that only if he acquired the stuff from Africa that it would become a danger? Please." Actually, seattle, that is just the argument. The known yellowcake was under the control of UN inspectors. The whole point of the fabricated story about African yellowcake was to be able to claim that Iraq was evading those controls even though they had not been broken with respect to the known yellowcake. While you confidently declare that there existed a world consensus that "something had to be done" about Iraq, the consensus that mattered, that of the Security Council and its permanent members, did not exist for an invasion. Also, while various people may have thought various things, the responsible party was George Bush, who, I seem to recall, held the office of President of the United States at the time. Or do we now make high policy by asking Jim Bob on the street what to do?

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Thank you for "twinning" me with icarus. I consider any comparison to him to be high praise indeed." In that case, follow your leader and leave.

- GillGavin

March 21, 2011 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I said it was praise, I don't feel obliged to do whatever icarus does. Won't you write something for us Gill, something of substance, so that we can all gain a better understanding of what you think about the issues? _________________ We shall see whether Obama and the French and British proceed to try to enable the rebellion or whether they persist only so long as Qaddafi tries to maneuver closer to Benghazi and does not cease fire as he claimed he would do. I expect Qaddafi to back off, lest he does become the target, and things to quiet down. Then we will be hearing the interventionists loudly complaining that Obama doesn't have the stones to finish off Qaddafi (UNSC be damned) and blah, blah, blah. The story line is utterly predictable, but I really doubt Obama is going down the road of exceeding the authority obtained from the UNSC. We shall see.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So long, icarus. But wait -- presumably you have access until the end of this month, right?

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Won't you write something for us Gill, something of substance, so that we can all gain a better understanding of what you think about the issues?" I am with the editors. If they give me leave I'll expend on their argument.

- GillGavin

March 21, 2011 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: I actually don't know when the subscription ends, but end of March sounds right. Am in DC as of tomorrow for the rest of the week - for work, so I might well not be able to post until next Monday.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh Great and Powerful Editors of TNR! We beseech you. Send us a sign that GillGavin is permitted to post here so that we can see what he thinks about matters of substance. Just a note here will do. Nothing fancy.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: Actually, I think it's more along the lines of Oh Great and Powerful Editors of TNR! We beseech you to release the chains with which you have bound GillGavin that prevent him from expanding upon your argument. But curiously, not from writing comments on any other topics that take his fancy.

- Nari224

March 21, 2011 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A word to the wise, roid.

- GillGavin

March 21, 2011 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony and Molly: Talking about the castration theory, here is Salon on the latest drivel from NRO:

"America has a president who gives in when women nag him. This cannot stand. This will make America look weak to everyone who isn't as enlightened as "sensitive New Age guy" Krikorian. Do you think Putin and A-jad and Chavez and the ChiComs are more afraid of Obama now? It was obvious to most of us that Hillary has more, uh, stones than Obama, but to have it confirmed so publicly for less-attentive foreign goons means they’re that much more likely to try to push us and see how The One responds. So, there you have it. This war is a bad idea because Barack Obama isn't manly enough to stand up to his emasculating staff of harpies. Women!"
Funny that Chait had more or less the same reaction - although not quite so aggressively stupid. Yet another reason, if one needed any, that incessantly beating on the drums of war makes you not only deaf but dumb.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I admit to being a bit smarty-alekish in my referencing the various condition hypotheticals. A bit inasmuch that I thought it might roust a little vigorous conversation. Hmmm. Law is underpinned by consensus...... That is only a part of the gear activity, Roid. I misunderstand nothing. I damn well disagree but I don't misunderstand anything. I will happily allow degrees of fungibility with consensus. Still even this consensus is motivated by something other than simple equilibrium.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gill: I don't know who you are and I don't recall ever having had the pleasure of discussing anything with you. I will accept the praise of twinning me with Roid, puzzle at why you think accepting compliments should necessarily result in duplicating actions. The answer, perhaps, lies in the same dark well of logic that considers itself unable to comment on TNR editorial writers unless they give benediction, and that states "a word to the wise" a propos of absolutely nothing. Any way, my loss, really, that leaving these boards means I will not have the pleasure of understanding your logic better. Then again, life is short, and you are, it would seem, a multiyear project.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When he's not provoked into vitriolic flame wars, roi is a competent and thoughtful spokesman for the idea that "international law" exists as an artifact of World Government--that the UN is a World Legislature with the ultimate power to determine legality. Unfortunately for this noble ideal, in the real world the practice of making every Resolution, even the Chapter VII ones reserved for the gravest threats to global stability and well-being, into an ever-expanding volume of constantly re-litigated law that seems doomed to become ever more complex and subject to endless debate and interpretation that assumes Talmudic characteristics, is destructive of the kind of concerted international action to address serious threats and crimes that was supposed to make the UN different from the League of Nations. The whole purpose is defeated if there is never any enforcement, and violated Resolutions are only addressed by more Resolutions. People less ethical than roi have learned to play this orchestra very well, at the cost of literally millions of innocent lives. In terms of actual legality, I'm much more concerned and in agreement with purcellneil re: the absense of a Congressional resolution--at least, if not a formal Declaration of War. The soap opera about "Bush lies" is hardly worth a response. Gallup shows that American voters supported "the use of American troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power" overwhelmingly from 1991 through 2002. Ergo, there was hardly any need to lie to get support, which was consistently in place as the sanctions regime killed hundreds of thousands, "regime change" became official US policy, Americans killed and died in combat, and we spent tens of billions every year on military deployments aimed at Iraq throughout the Clinton years. The Clinton national security team supported the second invasion virtually to a man and woman, and I'm sure they were not impressed by tabloid journalism about yellowcake and the appalling Affaire d' Plame. Congressional approval was a landslide, and certainly didn't depend on the kind of voodoo mind reading and unsubstantiatable "insights" into the inner thoughts of the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Powell that roi provides. Check your dictionary on "lies".

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said. Robert Powell If we truly want to discuss something for the purpose resolving anything....We need to get our heads out of our collective butts and discuss with painful honesty....lack of bias.....and concerted goals. As long as this adolescent finger-pointing continues...Nothing will be accomplished.

- John_Hart

March 21, 2011 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have checked the dictionary, "lies" is exactly what applies, knowing, intentional deception in sending Colin Powell to repeat before the United Nations and the world stories intended to demonstrate Iraq's present nuclear intentions, stories that the administration knew to be untrue at the very time that Powell was uttering them. This is a very new idea that war is legitimate so long as the Congress and people of the United States approve. Does this apply to other nations, or only to the US? Unfortunately, the unilateral interventionists, despite the shambles of Iraq, remain blissfully unaware that there is a downside to going about the world slaying dragons in the seemingly confident expectation that no one else is going to follow our own example with regard to whatever they think to be dragons. That will soon mean the Chinese. The unilateral interventionists want nothing less than the abandoning the UN Charter with nothing better to put in its place than the very system we had before the UN Charter in which nations simply went to war as they saw fit with whatever means they believed to have at their disposal. Stability under this regime required a system of alliances that proved in World War I to be extremely fragile as a means of security, resulting in a war of titanic proportions that was the result of this fragility, a war that supposedly no one wanted but they all had to fight. Now we have a more stable system that even allows for intervention by consensus against a common threat. It is not a perfect system. It is not a world legislature not least because the US would not subordinate itself to such a legislature. It is as yet a poor tool for dealing with human rights violations. But it is better than what went before. The unilateralists want to abandon this system believing, on the basis of what I have no idea, that we will be better off when we and every other nation are no longer constrained by the UN charter, returning us to the Westphalian system pre-UN in which, despite the reach of modern weapons, it is every country to itself with whatever alliances it can make. ________________ Bingo! Wieseltier has just been published at TNR calling for Obama to undertake regime change in Libya on his own without any UNSC authority beyond that which already exists. Not long ago, he was pleading for a no flight zone as the minimum decent thing to do. EXACTLY as I predicted, the unilateralist view now demands that we, without legal sanction, decapitate the Qaddafi regime. Oh, they say. How can we stand by and not impose an itty bitty NFZ when lives may be lost. What they mean is that they need us to make some sort of military commitment however minimal, so that they can then say, Well, what did you think? That matters could possibly stop with an NFZ? and demand that we do what is necessary to overthrow the regime. Cue tears, big sopping tears for Libyans. Let us hope that Obama, who thus far has shown the good sense to ignore Wieseltier and the rest of them, will continue to do so. But now that Wieseltier is out of the closet, can the rest of the TNR editors be far behind? No, they have been yearning for the opportunity to show that Iraq was merely a tactical error, not a doctrinal error. And now they think they have their case. And all the Iraq cheerleaders are lined up in hope of the same, for a demonstration that the Iraq war was simply mismanaged, not that it was a mistake ipso facto.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“When he's not provoked into vitriolic flame wars, roi is a competent and thoughtful spokesman for the idea that "international law" exists as an artifact of World Government--that the UN is a World Legislature with the ultimate power to determine legality.” Robert Powell I don’t agree, Roid often provokes more flame wars. He is also not a competent arguer. He reduces all argument about any topic to an issue of law. That’s all he knows. He is also very rigid in his interpretation of law and when he is challenged he goes on the offensive and turns psychotic.

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gill: You are the beneficiary of a rather elegant putdown. Ick. Where'd you learn to do the soft shoe? George Burns? Tommy Tune? Gonna kind of miss that man. Oh yeah. I'll second that praise of Mr. Powell. Elegant in its own way. Straightforwardly elegant.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Those who insist that no fingers be pointed when colossal mistakes have been made are merely insisting that we make the same mistakes. It is hardly "painful honesty" that we are summoned to when that is taken to mean ignorance of history and all of the things that brought us to the current pass. No, what is being asked of us rather is dishonesty, that we pretend that the past did not occur as it did so that we are free to ignore it and do the same thing all over again. Just better this time.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Au contraire, nr. I never throw the first punch. Never. When anyone complains, I always invite them to find me doing so and cite to it. No one ever has. It is quite easy, however, to find you doing so. One has only to look for your first comment on any thread and there you will find it. You never open with anything other than a personal attack or insult and this thread has been no different. Moreover, virtually your entire contribution to these boards consists of nothing but personal attack and insult. You have, apparently, nothing else to say. Carry on.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

". . . and that states 'a word to the wise' a propos of absolutely nothing." But ick, GillGavin just likes the sound of "a word to the wise." I do too. And what's wrong with that. I often say things like, for example, "the question of multilateral versus unilateral intervention has dogged this discussion since the very beginning" because it sounds so lovely. There's the sublime repetition of 'lateral' in the two words divided only by a shy 'versus'; the snicker of alliteration in 'dogged/discussion'; the hint of passion in the qualifier 'very' at the end. I don't know what it all means, but who cares. It makes Gill's day, just romping among the W's.

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "Actually, seattle, that is just the argument. The known yellowcake was under the control of UN inspectors. The whole point of the fabricated story about African yellowcake was to be able to claim that Iraq was evading those controls even though they had not been broken with respect to the known yellowcake." Nope. Iraq ended cooperation with the inspectors in October 1998. At that point, the yellowcake was not controlled. Whether or not he had 800 tons of 550 tons is irrelevant. Iraq had it, it wasn't controlled. Full stop. Roid writes: "While you confidently declare that there existed a world consensus that "something had to be done" about Iraq, the consensus that mattered, that of the Security Council and its permanent members, did not exist for an invasion." Oh please. Since when does the UNSC matter for this stuff? Obama ignores them when it's convenient, just like every other president has. What does the world opinion say about drone strikes on civilians in Pakistan? Can you imagine if we were doing drone strikes in Canada trying to kill bad guys? You don't see the problem here? There is no question the world leaders believed Sadaam a threat, and stocked with WMD. Now, we can debate on whether or not that threat was enough to act upon. Prior to 9/11, most of the world decided to let it ride. But 9/11 was a different game. Even Obama would have ordered us in there after 9/11, it's clear now based on his response towards Libya. Roid writes: "Also, while various people may have thought various things, the responsible party was George Bush, who, I seem to recall, held the office of President of the United States at the time. Or do we now make high policy by asking Jim Bob on the street what to do" Yes, the buck stops with him. But whether or not he lied to get us there is what is at issue. Evidence says he didn't need to--the world believed Sadaam had WMD. He acted reasonably, and I'd venture that 95% of US presidents in his shoes would have done the same. Including Gore and Clinton, and now we can add Obama. There was no lying needed. That was a popular dem meme that materialized afterwards.

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is not, by the way, the UN that determines legality as Mr. Powell suggests. Not in my estimation and not in fact. It is the UN Charter, a world treaty to which almost every nation on earth subscribes, largely written by the US, that sets forth the legal bases for war: individual and collective self-defense and UNSC authorization. The unilateral interventionists want as to tear up this treaty, to make clear to all that we have no intention of abiding by it any longer when we ourselves decide otherwise. There is no evidence at all that they have thought through what may come after or even that they are the slightest bit interested in the ways in which the existence of this Charter and system enhance stability and reduce the demands upon us and the rest of the world for self-defense. They just KNOW that we must intervene and decapitate any regime that we find odious when it appears to them that it serves our interests to do so.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry seattle, but that yellowcake was under UN control. The Bush administration spent a good year persuading the American people that Hussein was in imminent possession of nuclear weapons capped off by the lies that Powell was sent to repeat at the UN. One great big fat lie on a matter crucial to American security. We have no alternative history so we cannot know what the public would have supported without these lies, but I think it highly doubtful that the American public would have supported the invasion of Iraq just because Hussein was a very bad guy. The best evidence that the lies were needed was that Bush told 'em. If he hadn't thought he needed these lies to win public support, there was no reason to tell them. Very curious indeed that you think that the UN Charter has never meant anything. Why then the Bush doctrine if it did not represent a departure from past practice? We can add Obama? Really? I believe he openly opposed the invasion of Iraq. No matter. All history is to be re-written as seattle wishes to support his preferred political outcomes. Obama would have invaded Iraq. That Obama would not act unilaterally in Libya as Bush did in Iraq? No matter. This now proves that Obama would have done just what Bush did. Indeed, no matter how contrary the actual evidence, everything is taken to prove that Bush was right all along and that everyone would have done what Bush did. Seattle pretty much proves my point that the greatest stake that the unilateralists have in Libya is proving retroactively that they were REALLY right all along about Iraq, just had a bad day.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh, believe it or not seattle, there is a legitimate claim that drone strikes are in our own immediate self-defense or in pursuit of our legal, defensive war in Afghanistan. There are TWO legal basis for war set forth in the UN Charter, one of which is self-defense. And it does not say that you have to get UN permission to defend yourself. Are we in Libya defending ourselves?

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amazing. Did I miss something, or did someone remove the phrases "UN","UNSC","United Nations" and "Arab League" from this piece? I'm hoping Roi, Icarus, Tristran, Aaron and the rest are joining the discussion at 4pm. I had hoped, perhaps foolishly, that Foer and Just meant the end of this nonsense.

- ClumsyMohel

March 21, 2011 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid:"Those who insist that no fingers be pointed when colossal mistakes have been made are merely insisting that we make the same mistakes. It is hardly "painful honesty" that we are summoned to when that is taken to mean ignorance of history and all of the things that brought us to the current pass. No, what is being asked of us rather is dishonesty, that we pretend that the past did not occur as it did so that we are free to ignore it and do the same thing all over again. Just better this time." I think you might be skewing my intent. When I say "no finger pointing" I am referring to the tendency toward a narrowly-focused drum beating. Were there mistakes in the past? Yes. Will there be in the future? Yes. To continually do the bush-bashing thing robs you of credibility because you give the appearance of being obsessed. Once that obsession is sensed by other people, most of your legitimate arguments are lost or discarded as agenda-building. "Painful honesty" is in reference to recognizing that a beloved leader has made a misstep. When political affiliation, such as liberals being loyal to Obama or Conservatives being loyal to Reagan, cloud our ability to admit to a misstep that that leader may have made.....it brings about a distrust among people who might otherwise be able to find common ground. This kind of atmosphere is very prevalent right now, and it is irrational and counter-productive. You seem to have a sharp mind. You could accomplish a lot of good.

- John_Hart

March 21, 2011 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Seattle pretty much proves my point that the greatest stake that the unilateralists have in Libya is proving retroactively that they were REALLY right all along about Iraq, just had a bad day." You do that a lot, Roid. Carte Blanche on the takedown. It isn't honest. I guess there isn't any harm in your imagining that you have just slain the collective 'neocon'. But.... I suspect that you after all is said and done would have George Bush answer to charges before some sort of UN tribunal especially if you were to be in on it in some capacity. I would rather you direct your passion to Hussein. But then there was a domestic election going on and other various extenuations, I suppose. Hey. I love the concept of the UN. Not so much its real world practicality. Personally I wanted Husein's butt in 91. I knew beyond the shadow of doubt I wanted him when in the shadows of cease-fire continued to slaughter his own people for the purpose of consolidating his kingdom according to his auspices. He earned the target on his head. Q is a kissing cousin to Hussein. Lest you accuse me of lies, that kissing cousin thing was just a figure of speech.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suppose obsession is in the eye of the beholder, John. To my mind, it is apologists for the Iraq war who repeatedly insist in trying to wash away Bush's sins in the light of whatever happens to be going on today. Up above, Powell is claiming that the Iraq invasion was within international law: "Even massive violations of human rights of the sort rarely seen since WWII, and the comprehensive violation of the ceasefire terms carried on while combat operations continued and hundreds of thousands died from the embargo (also an act of war), didn't prevent some International Law enthusiasts from declaring the pursuit of a definitive resolution by the Coalition to be "illegal"." I think this sort of thing deserves a response because it is wrong and because the re-writing of history does indeed allow us to do the same thing all over again. So, who is obsessed, me or Powell? Then we have seattle going so far as to insist that Libya proves that Obama would have invaded Iraq as Bush did. Who is obsesssed? Me or seattle? It appears to me that neocons and those of that inclination are obsessed with finding any opportunity to justify the shambles of Iraq and exploit any occasion, no matter how tangential, that presents a chance to do so. And that does seem to me to be a large part of their motivation with regard to Libya, a large part of what motivates the arguments for unilateralism. They seem finally to think they have a "good" case with which to destroy the regime of international law and are hell-bent to do it. For that very reason, I think it essential to keep track of what international law does or does not allow and the reasons why. We see here repeatedly, such as jacko immediately above, the insistence that we have a brief to trot around the world taking out bad guys. I don't think so. Hence, Iraq gets bound up with Libya. My obession or theirs?

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Q is a kissing cousin to Hussein." Jacko: by 2002, Hussein had started two regional wars, violated repeatedly a dozen UNSC resolutions, and attempted or committed, at least twice, genocide. Gadhafi is an international terrorist-funder and a lunatic. There is no evidence at all that he was engaged in, or even thought of, genocide; for all his bluster, Libya is not a menace to the region or to international peace and security, and until his bombardment of his cities, his actions, though evidently not "democratic", barely even touched notions of international crime - certainly, aside from oil and dress, there is little to distinguish his thuggery from that of amy other potentates around the globe. Tenth cousin three-times removed, perhaps, but let us not exaggeate.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good advice from Mr Hart. You'd do well to heed it roi. On "legality", UN, UN Charter, in actual practice there's no difference. The Charter is interpreted and applied at the UN where, in 1950 it took exactly one (1) SC Resolution to authorize the Korean War. By 2003 this process had turned into a swamp that only benefitted monsters like Saddam Hussein and his collaborators in Russia, China, France, Germany and other places. The record clearly shows that no lies were needed in 2002 to obtain the overwhelming support of the American people and their Congress for the realization of Clinton's policy of "regime change" in Iraq--they'd been there since 1991, and everyone who was paying attention at the time knew it. Please report the name of the dictionary which defines "lies" as: "Repeating what you have been told by the most prominent authorities on the subject, and believe to be true". The real irony here is that I am not looking at this history as a "unilateral interventionist". I am anything but. I'm one who'd like to see the UN live up to its original chartered duty, and see it frustrated most effectively by those who claim to be its supporters. Remember the League of Nations--if there is little or no ability to enforce Resolutions, the game is up and it's back to the Law of the Jungle. Playing sophistic games to the effect that language like "final opportunity to comply" really means "one more chance ad infinitum", and that the response to violated Chapter VII Resolutions is...more Resolutions!--results in League of Nations II. Everyone should check the record on how that worked out. Libya will be a good test. If Obama uses a too-strict adherence to the details and sure to come pedantic parsing of Resolution 1973 to let Qadaffi off the hook, we're right back where we were in 1991. If we persist to a conclusive end game, there's hope yet for the UN process.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poster Roid will be banned in the near future.

- GillGavin

March 21, 2011 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think it is a matter of "your" obsession or "theirs". It is a collective obsession that prevents us from seeing the truth. We get so engrossed in trying to prove our side....on both sides...that we accomplish nothing. There's a real war going on. In some places, it is just as deadly, but very quiet. As long as we squabble...the war rages. And as long as we narrow our focus, we are blind to the root cause of what inevitably will happen.

- John_Hart

March 21, 2011 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid says " To my mind, it is apologists for the Iraq war who repeatedly insist in trying to wash away Bush's sins" Nobody is apologizing for Bush. But do you honestly believe Clinton and Gore wouldn't have done the same? If at least 25% of presidents would have responded similarly, then there wasn't malice involved. It was instead a very costly miscalculation. At the end of the day, Sadaam must take responsibility for deceiving the world. I don't blame the cop who shoots a suspected murderer he just cornered, when that suspected murderer reaches into his jacket in a menacing manner even if the suspected murdered was just pulling out a lighter. That is exactly what Sadaam did: He did everything he could to convince the world he had serious amounts of WMD. And 9/11 made most decide we couldn't trust the crazies anymore.

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hussein was a special bad guy. He wrote his own resume. I agree with seattle that any president of any party would have been very hard pressed to deal with Iraq as things stood at the time. Powell is dead on. I'll stand by my convictions and never apologize for my support of the effort to rid the world of Hussein and his Bathist obscenity. And I won't shed a tear for Qaddafi when he leaves the scene. In its unique and unrelated capacity I support Obama and the multilateral efforts now engaged. Sorry (not really) to have brought up the 12 year NFZ and body count tolerances. But I knew that you would likely be there Roid. Ta-Da.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "Sorry seattle, but that yellowcake was under UN control." Nope, it wasn't. That is what prompted UN resolution 1205. Item 1 was the UN condemning the decision of Iraq to cease operations with the Special Commission. The other items remind me of Barney Fife explaining the rules of his jail, which he called "The Rock" "Here at The Rock, we have 3 rules. Rule #1: Obey all rules" But then the UN is funny that way.

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With all due respect to your lawyerly education roi, you should leave history to the historians. See John Keegan "The Iraq War"; Andrew Bacevich (hardly a Bush supporter) in TNR; and others, nevermind obvious facts and common sense. The simple facts are that the US went to war against Iraq in 1991, and this war continued in fits and starts until the fall of Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein. All the rest of the shucking and jiving about the details of the last couple of UNSC Resolutions, not even considering the tabloid nonsense about Bush lies, is in serious academic historical terms, risible partisan political propaganda. It's not going to help us negotiate the current or any future crisis.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my experience, nr is frequently gunning for roid and trying to provoke him into an exchange of flaming. Today, unlike some other days, I want to acknowledge roid for mostly parrying and ducking. Also for reminding us of the legal structure that undergirds international relations. In my book, roid's substantive contributions invariably add value to the discussion; nr's not so much.

- JackR

March 21, 2011 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Tenth cousin three-times removed, perhaps, but let us not exaggeate." Roger that.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"On "legality", UN, UN Charter, in actual practice there's no difference. The Charter is interpreted and applied at the UN where, in 1950 it took exactly one (1) SC Resolution to authorize the Korean War." And it arose because of a stupid mistake by the Soviet delegation, and because China was not sitting in China's seat. The Soviets literally left the room in protest; the President of the UNSC called for a vote, and the Korean War was born. We should be thankful that the machinery of international law and use of force is more sophisticated.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Incidentally, only one chapter of the UN Charter is applied by the UNSC. UN General Assembly resolutions do not have the force of law - and the International Court of Justice has already ruled on that as well.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hoped we wouldn't have to relitigate this, but in the light of the some comments above I think it's important to grasp fully that Resolution 1441 specifically reserved the right of the Security Council to take further decisions on the matter, and at no point was the U.S. or any other member state empowered to take action, whether invasion or otherwise, as it alone saw fit. The text of the last five paragraphs of the resolution are as follows: 10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including onIraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA; 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution; 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. On less legalistic and more common-sense terms here, it should be obvious that the Resolution did not contain an automatic permission to launch an armed invasion of Iraq, otherwise the Council would not have determined to reconvene to "consider the situation" and more generally "remain seized of the matter." One way of remaining "seized" was to have UNMOVIC complete its inspection and report on Iraqi nukes. However, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis was justifiably worried that UNMOVIC would report that they could find no or very limited evidence of a nuclear arsenal of any kind, and they wanted to pre-empt that. To put it another way, if the previous resolutions were a clear basis for a U.S. or "coalition" invasion of Iraq, then there was no need for 1441; if 1441 was indeed required because of a new situation in 2001/2, then its provisions should have been followed.

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Robert Powell, For the record, I object. We've discussed your curious history of the Iraq war before, and to such a degree that it is sufficient here simply to note that we disagree completely. If you insist on making the same assertions over and over, assertions as risible as the views you disdain, it seems necessary, now and then, to remind you that your point of view is on shakier ground than your rhetoric admits. If there were any basis for what you say, then George W. Bush wasted a lot of time seeking UN support and Congressional authorization, on false pretenses in both cases, prior to launching the invasion of Iraq. Your claim that none of this was necessary, no doubt in order to moot the accusation of dishonest justifications, strikes me as an extreme delusion, putting it as nicely as I can. I don't wish to re-open an old and boring debate, but do wish that you would not assume that we all buy your nonsense if in the future nobody raises an objection. Neil

- purcellneil

March 21, 2011 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, Irony. The UN was seized alright.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your obsession is showing, Powell. Doesn't seem like you are much for taking Mr. Hurt's advice. The "simple fact" is that the notion that there was but one war in Iraq and that Bush was merely continuing that war to its conclusion is hogwash, nonsense, a bit of invented history. Actually, Bush did his best to invent this history with his claim that the 1991 resolutions authorized his invasion. This was thoroughly debunked by the UK AG in his memorandum to Blair, a memo that was kept secret because it might have spiked the whole illegal scheme to have the UK AG publicly declare that there was no basis. As you know, that memo also ran through the other possible legal bases and dismissed them out of hand. As I recall, he noted that even Bush wouldn't make those claims. There was, quite simply, no sane reason to invade Iraq. It was a colossal error the costs of which have been enormous. Hussein posed no immediate threat, there was slow progress on the inspections and would have been more as Hussein dragged his feet and the world grew frustrated. Try with a straight face to tell me today that, if the American public were informed with the benefit of hindsight of what it would cost in lives and treasure to remove Saddam Hussein who had no nuclear weapons and no near prospects of acquiring the same, that more than a revanchist few would say it had been a good idea. The problem is that you, and seattle I believe, think it was a good idea and would have invaded Iraq with all its costs just to remove Saddam Hussein. You would do it again today. You want us to do it in Libya if we cannot get UN backing to do it. You simply do not accept the idea of collective responsibility for security beyond the boundaries of immediate self-defense, the core idea of the UN Charter. That's it. You want the US or someone to be free to go around the world popping off dictators as and when convenient. End of story. The only utility for the UN that you can see is in allowing us to do that. If it doesn't allow us to do that, if it restrains our use of power as well as other nations, then the UN is by your lights a failure. Well, I reject utterly and completely your premise that it is desirable for the world or for the US for us to have this license and even worse for us to use it. Where there is some international consensus on action, I support contributing because that is part of what it takes to maintain international order, and we should not shirk. But it is not desirable, unless we want endless war, to return to a world of radical insecurity in which states are liable at any time to invasion. Far less so today than in the past when the range and capacity of weaponry was far more limited. That is what people learned in WWI, that we cannot afford industrial war. And in WWII they learned, again, that "private" alliances are insufficient to prevent war on a mass scale. To the extent that the UN charter restrains us from doing this, from crusading against despots or whomever, it is in my view a huge success not a failure. But if we proceed to behave as you and Dick Cheney want, it will fail and then we will be right back in the world I don't want to be in. I do not want American sons and daughters sent around the world trying to rid it of despots in some endless international crusade. I do not agree with the liberal interventionists or the neo-con interventionists. I consider them morally bankrupt and in prudential terms more or less nuts. It has never been the case, even in World War II, that a primary purpose or even a tertiary purpose of the US armed forces has been ridding the world of bad actors and it should not be now. It will be the end of us. The blow-back alone will be the end of us not to mention the exhaustion of our resources and the fires we will light, not of freedom, but of war and terrorism, a nightmare of industrial war. Our armed forces are for the purpose of protecting us. The UN is for the purpose of setting boundaries on the behavior of states, including us, so that we and the rest of the world are not overwhelmed by the costs of defense or thrust back into unstable alliances that, when they fail, fail spectacularly. If you want to make the case for ridding the world of the UN, go ahead. But when you misstate history or law, you are not doing that argument any good. You are merely demonstrating that you yourself don't believe you can carry it.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is nothing curious about Powell's recollections of history. He calls it square.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, jacko, sure. Just go back and read the posts above that pretty well trash Mr. Powell's views of both history and law. The world into which Powell and Wieseltier would thrust us is in one in which any state that can obtain nuclear weapons must, the technology will proliferate, the market for fuel will grow into a raging black market, and the day will come when smuggled nuclear arms go off in New York and Washington. That day may come anyway, but one of our greatest hopes for avoiding that outcome is to strengthen, not weaken, the machinery of international security. For that purpose, we need to accept the idea of collective security, our own idea to begin with.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Au contraire, nr. I never throw the first punch." As usual you lie.

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm quite familiar with Powell's arguments. I have no complaints. I think you're being pretty damned dramatic with all of this ' because the neocons thus nuclear proliferation' thing. There are plenty of good reasons for pursuing collective security. Is that what your main complaint with Bush et al is? That they upset your vision of efficient UN mechanics?

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Iraqi yellowcake was still under IAEA seal, seattle. Do you want to give us the citation of the report that the seals had been breached? Do you think that when Hans Blix was sent for the last time to Iraq by the Security Council they forgot to check? Sure, they are going to conduct inspections to determine the status of Hussein's nuclear efforts but while they are in town they are not going to check a known cache of 500 tons of uranium that they themselves had put under seal.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The US should bow before blatant obscenity out of fear that they won't be well regarded by those jilted or snubbed?

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

or imagine themselves to have been dissed?

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 5:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Au contraire, nr. I never throw the first punch." As usual you lie. Well then, go find an instance somewhere, come back, and report your findings, nr. ________________________ "I'm quite familiar with Powell's arguments. I have no complaints." Well then, now we better understand how to interpret your posts, jacko. "I think you're being pretty damned dramatic with all of this ' because the neocons thus nuclear proliferation' thing. There are plenty of good reasons for pursuing collective security." Perhaps I haven't made the point clearly enough that if we return to a state of international affairs where every state must constantly be concerned about invasion, then any state that can obtain nuclear weapons will. "Is that what your main complaint with Bush et al is? That they upset your vision of efficient UN mechanics?" Main complaint? Hmmm. Well we have to consider the failure to pay attention to intelligence on al Qaeda, American dead and wounded in Iraq for no purpose, the financial cost of the Iraq war, the erosion of our military capability, huge budget deficits, huge income and tax inequities, the epic bust of the economy and consequent losses and joblessness, the abandonment of enforcement at the SEC, FDA, and pretty much every other Federal agency. Hard to say in a list of such epic accomplishments what would constitute my "main complaint." How about we just say that Bush completely fucked up everything he did on an enormous scale?

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The US should bow before blatant obscenity out of fear that they won't be well regarded by those jilted or snubbed?" No, jacko, not. But the U.S. should not play the three-card trick with international institutions that we ourselves largely created for purposes that went further than pure national interest. That's my problem with RP's theory: in fact, rather than assuming that all we needed was the accumulated justification of previous resolutions on Iraq, we went to great trouble to get a new resolution through the Security Council; we achieved that aim; then we turned around and said more or less, Goodbye Suckers!

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With all due respect roi, when it comes to history you're out of your depth. Consult some of the sources I've already cited. This is a matter that's not in doubt--Lord Goldsmith submitted only one substantive and official finding, and it's the one that squares with common sense and the legal findings of Congress, Parliament, and most of the rest of the world's rule-of-law democracies. Your theory has residual support in Russia, China, Iran, and Hollywood. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of collective responsibility for security. I just want it to actually function rather than continually bog down in pedantic sophistry exploited by the world's worst governments.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are too polite, Robert Powell, he deserves no respect, the psycho. "With all due respect roi, when it comes to history you're out of your depth." He's out of his depth when it comes to all subjects except law, and that's because he focuses on a narrow slice of legality with the intensity of a fanatic. He turns law into an illicit subject.

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 6:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On one level it is a sign of progress when the casualty counts of a collision between armies the likes and size of the US and Iraq collide can be considered reprobate. Once upon a time it would have been looked at as a minor skirmish. That's good. Hey, there are many problems I have with the way the war was conducted. The entire Shock and Awe thing was cartoonishly obscene and condescending. As if these people weren't already very familiar with bottom line dynamics. They had lived with them for years already. Between the wars that they were forced to fight and the knowledge that they could be snatched in the night with a wrong word put them a tad beyond shock and awe. Embarrassing. Franks looked and acted like a clown. The inability of that admin to imagine the push back that was quite likely, given the psychological terrain, was really something I had a hard time getting my head around. None of what I assumed was going to happen would have changed my opinion about what needed to be done. As Long as Hussein was in power it was going to be a very sick region of the world. Yeah. I thought the ME to be a sick puppy. It WAS. Still is in many ways. This is not cultural conceit. Just observation. Do they love and hope and dream?.... Of course. Part of what all of these movements are all about. The 21st century is rockin. Maybe something good is around the corner? Perhaps we can shout through all of this Islamist bullshit and find a common ground in freedom and the responsibility it demands? I don't have a lot of hope but then a little can go a long way. That's where I'm putting my money.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"continually bog down in pedantic sophistry exploited by the world's worst governments" Now, I admit, I never liked Shady Chirac, Dapper Dominique and Gazprom Gerhard, but even on the least charitable interpretation, to describe Joschka Fischer as engaging in "pedantic sophistry" is a bit, well, unfair. IMHO.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 6:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In Libya, Obama Finally Did the Right Thing" Yes, he did.

- luispc

March 21, 2011 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No, jacko, not. But the U.S. should not play the three-card trick with international institutions that we ourselves largely created for purposes that went further than pure national interest." That is duly noted, good sir.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacko: listening to the Killers, came across this line in their "This is Your Life": "And the sky is full of dreams/but you don't know how to fly." By the time of Bremer/Sanchez/theotherstoopidgeneral/AbuGhraib/Franks/"stuff happens", I came to the only conclusion possible. If conservatives disdain government ability of competence to deliver healthcare or regulate light bulbs in the United States, how in the name of all that is holy to conservatism can they entrust the government to spend $700 billion a year and invade, control and rebuild a country of 30 million on the other side of the world? You can't and you shouldn't, hence my repentance for supporting the war and my hesitation in supporting more adventures.

- icarusr

March 21, 2011 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

GilGavin: "Poster Roid will be banned in the near future." Sorry GilGavin. When someone else here muttered something about Roi being banned, I e-mailed TNR to find out if this were true, and if it were true, that I objected. And it turns out Roi is not in any way, shape, or form being banned or about to be banned. Sorry to ruin your daydream. Roi: I have answers/more questions for you later, but I am catching up on this thread. And of course didn't want Gill to be operating under any illusions. Could be dangerous.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luispc. You are a rascal. Long time no see. Great that you might drop in and kick it a bit.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Powell, we know that memorandum of law was kept secret because it might well have blown up the whole venture. That memorandum of the applicable law is not history written after the fact, it is what happened. With all due respect, you are just making shit up. No evidence of WMDs, no WMDs, no legal justification, lies told to the UN and the world, and a giant cock-up in the event -- and you are still defending it as if your life depended on it. You keep your invented history. I'll keep mine.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think we’re forgetting what this is all about. Let’s take a look at what is happening in the Arab world. This is not a collection of UN member states in turmoil. It is a collection of people. In the past, we could make arguments about stability in the world by negotiating terms with heads of state. But what we’re seeing right now is not the same thing as a despot trying to influence or take over another country or region. What we’re seeing right now is the result of people (who are normally considered to be the nameless and faceless cannon-fodder of a third world country)…people who are setting their sights on freedom. Now those of us who are Americans, live the spoiled life in a country that others see as “the shining city on a hill”. You know, “"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free….” Couple that burning desire with a global communications network that gives these people instantaneous knowledge of world events….instantaneous knowledge of lifestyle, hopes, dreams, fears, and hobbies of people who previously they only heard about on State TV. They now know that the poorest Americans live better than 85% of the world population. Why? Because they are free. These people know that American stands for freedom. I don’t give a crap about the media trying to brainwash us into thinking that the world looks down their noses at Americans. I know through my own experiences that the people, the cannon-fodder, love the idea of having what Americans have. They covet that freedom. They see a possibility. A possibility that their grandchildren can have freedom. And they see others…their neighbors…on the internet, taking the first precarious steps to demand just a little taste of that freedom. Then they see the people of Libya, oppressed by the number one nutcase of all, standing up and charging into a barrage of bullets and shrapnel for the hope of freedom for those they’d leave behind. Then what happens? Just when the chips are down, the international community comes and plows the road. The international community…led by America…destroys an insurmountable force in a couple days with quiet professionalism, poise, and don’t even take a hit. Now, I know that sounds very poetic and romantic, and a bit over the top. But, I think, for the first time, we need to see things from the cannon-fodder point of view. These aren’t countries we’re talking about. These are people. People who are organizing themselves and basing their actions on a promise of freedom. And if you don’t think they’re watching what is going on in Libya….and I’m talking about every move we make…you best think again. This is not about unseating despots. This is about people….and freedom….and a new precedent is being set.

- John_Hart

March 21, 2011 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay, molly. I shall be attending class shortly (econometrics, ugh!) but back later.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A new precedent is being set because Obama, unlike his predecessor, had the sense to recognize that we need these international institutions.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi: "A new precedent is being set because Obama, unlike his predecessor, had the sense to recognize that we need these international institutions." I'll have to respectfully disagree. Obama didn't have the sense to recognize the need. He recognizes that there is turmoil in countries, like Yemen, where the existing government has U.S. backing. And when the Yemeni people cry, "Help us", the U.S., being the bastion of freedom, can't just turn her back now. That was what was so key about the French being first in the theater and Obama's statement and insistence that we are not leading this fight. He is creating an "out" for himself. I don't like the guy...but he is a savvy politician.

- John_Hart

March 21, 2011 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're welcome to your invented history roi. I've got the good company of real historians in recognizing the real thing. Confidential memos for internal discussion described by their authors as "a grab-bag of all possible objections" leaked to and distorted by the yellow press can be compared to official findings and legislative conclusions by a who's who of rule-of-law democracies only in ignorance of the standards of historical fact-finding, or bad faith. Even you by now should acknowledge that the only real significance of "wmd's" was in Iraq's signal defiance of the ceasefire terms concerning them. It was indeed a giant cock-up in the event, but that's a different story. So is Libya. It's late here in the Former Evil Empire. Good night to all.

- Robert Powell

March 21, 2011 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ick. I get your point. I appreciate your appreciation of well thought out and purposed designs. The complaint that the right has is that this planned beneficience ultimately serves itself and is economically undemocratic. I take these advisements as well considered. The pub party as constituted now is truly an ugly thing to behold. I would have supported going into Iraq with Mickey Mouse as president and Donald Duck as SecDef....... wait.... I just saw a very present need to remove this guy from power given his absolute disregard for anything but his power quotient. Which was bereft of anything decent. I saw the likelihood of having to fight a larger and more complicated war with him at the wheel somewhere down the road. He had an eye to extorting the entire ME as a means to acquire absolute mastery of his security and accumulation of power. There was another regular poster here by the handle of chanrobt (channy) that was intellectually aligned with your concerns about the orchestrations hence apposed. Really liked that guy. Had many interesting things to say but his position was that if you can't pull it off with competence don't go. We disagreed on that. Oh well.

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: You know, I think I've twigged to why debating with you can sometimes leave one with an uncomfortable feeling. It appears that you are un-acquainted with Argumentation theory. In a nutshell, when someone makes a statement of the structure because of A, then B, this is a statement in which the premise and logical construction can be debated. So for example, when Roi says "the Bush administration already knew that the yellowcake story was a phony" to respond with "You are aware that 550 tons of yellowcake was found and removed from Iraq in 2008 right?" makes no sense at all, as a) It's not the yellow cake Bush was talking about b) It's irrelevant to the original statement (Bush knew the yellowcake story was phony, therefore he was using lies to justify the argument for invasion). However much other yellowcake Saddam already had is also irrelevant, as it does not pertain in any way to the original statement. You may feel that it was another justification for the the invasion (and well it might be, but then that should have been Bush's argument), but that's also irrelevant to the original statement. Making a tangential statement like this is referred to as the "Red Herring" fallacy (whoever said that logic was colourless!). Now we could look at the premise and logical conclusion of another statement, say this one "Evidence says he didn't need to--the world believed Sadaam had WMD" This is a statement that Argumentation Theory would say contains faulty reasoning, as the the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. In other words, whether or not the world believed that Saddam had WMD is irrelevant to whether Bush needed to lie or not. The two are not logically connected. Even better, given that you have not demonstrated a problem in the premise or the logic in Roi's original statement (Bush lied), we can also observe that even if your conclusion and premise were logically connected, the premise can be brought into doubt by Roi's earlier reasoning, disallowing the conclusion. You should try this some time. It's a lot of fun.

- Nari224

March 21, 2011 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nightie night, Robert. Sweet dreams..........zzzzzzzzzz

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One should also note that the aluminum tubes and yellowcake stories were not mere footnotes but the two key pieces of evidence trotted out before the world. one can infer that if Bush had amthing better he would have used it. Thus, the two key pieces of evidence were both known to be false. Contrary to Powell's claim above, the Goldsmith memo was not throwing every argument against the wall. It was a classic legal memorandum, laying out the arguments on both sides and reaching conclusions. Of course, the official open record was written differently. What were they supposed to say? We are in flagrant violation of law? But the arguments are quite cogent. That is what matters about them, their intellectual force, not what was read into the official record.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oy, one of my kids just closed the window to a long post I was writing to Icarus, so it is forever lost. But here, Icarus, are some of my objections to a much earlier--probably written in a politer tone. First off, the Arab league heard our intentions and the wiggle room we gave ourselves well before the first bomb was dropped. They damn well knew what they were getting and any surprise they express is shite. We've been tricked. And if there's a subtext in the word "trick," I just might agree it's there. And this trickery makes me that much angrier that any American blood will be spilled. Like Noga says, let them take care of their own people. And if you need a reason for that, just look at their latest reversal. They don't care how many of our lives are lost. And let's say they "had" to put on this new face because of the Arab street. Then the Arab street isn't worth fighting for. They hate us; I'm not interested in losing lives for people who hate us. And especially for people who reserve an especially noxious hatred for people of my religious ilk. For you to take anything the Arab League says on face value seems way more naive than the Icarus I know.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, I was actually working on a response to Icarus earlier on. My response to you is that Jacko's earliest questions for you were not meant to be seen from a legal perspective. Now that we've gone through so many of the legalities or non-legalities on this thread, why not answer his questions as if you weren't a lawyer, but merely an average roi giving his opinion. As you can see from my comments to Icarus above, I'm completely against having gone into Libya. And I will add one more reason for my being against this move: I have children in public school. The cost of this intervention, if we stick to current plans (and we all know how likely that is) is said to be $200 to $400 million (and we all know how much we can count on those numbers). Do you know what seeing a number like that does to a parent who can't afford private school--or simply doesn't want to pay that $30,000 expense? Never mind schools. Let's talk social services. Mentally ill people who can't find a hospital bed. Old and handi-capped people who will no longer get the same services. You can say, well, lots of this is at a state level, but the fact is, the federal government often helps fund these programs. Now we have $400 million less to spend on actual, uh, Americans, while doing the bidding of two-faced despots.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, your original assertion was "Sorry seattle, but that yellowcake was under UN control." And then you asserted "The Iraqi yellowcake was still under IAEA seal, seattle." Those are not the same. Under UN control implies someone standing guard. Under IAEA seal means someone didn't tamper with it while the UN was away. In October 2001, the IAEA wrote "For nearly three years, the Agency has not been in a position to implement its mandate in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 and related resolutions. As a consequence, we cannot at present provide any assurance that Iraq is in compliance with its obligations under these resolutions. " The didn't feel they were in control of the material either.

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah Molly. I'm just coming out the other end of a round-about with 4 youngsters, 3 in college and intimately familiar with what you are going through. We are a pretty well off nation. I think it's time to come to grips with that. The worst it gets around here is high life elsewhere. I know it doesn't feel like that when you're working your ass off and seeing to these kids every needs. It seems as if you don't have a moment of your own... and some days you don't... but that's life.... and would you have it otherwise? You'll make it. I promise. there is light at the end of that tunnel. My wife and I are proof that there IS life after boogers. Private school v another person life? Books are great and all. Private schools do in fact do a better job in educating your child but dammit ....

- jacko

March 21, 2011 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nari224, you write: "the Bush administration already knew that the yellowcake story was a phony" to respond with "You are aware that 550 tons of yellowcake was found and removed from Iraq in 2008 right?" Nari, I work in a job that requires exacting precision. Sorry to disappoint. But words means things and getting to a common understanding will require a push and pull. It's important. There are two points here. If I already have 100 illegal guns, trying to buy a few more of the same guns doesn't matter much, does it? That is why I pointed that out. If a parolee is caught buying a gun and he has no guns, then OK, that is news. If a parolee is caught buying a gun, and he has a hundred guns at his house, then the big story is the hundred guns. The existing cache of yellowcake is the big story. Bush's words on the topics were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." If there was no intelligence agency that claimed this, then it was a lie. But if there was an intelligence source that did claim this, then the statement isn't at all a lie. And in fact, the British have stood by the first statement. And in fact, a guy named Curveball (former engineering working in Iraq's nuclear program) has come forward and was noted as the source on the tubes statement through German intelligence. Ergo, the statement wasn't at all a lie.

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 9:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "Thus, the two key pieces of evidence were both known to be false." That is not correct.

- seattleeng

March 21, 2011 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "I shall be attending class shortly.." I didn't know that the resident psycho is a "student" but if he is that explians his long winded posts in which he repeats what his leftist profs tell him. He is too stupid to question what he is being told in class.

- nr106646

March 21, 2011 at 10:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle, you are getting involved in discussions with folks who have been around the block on this several times. The question of Iraq's nuclear assets or capabilities in 2002/3 was under extensive and close inspection by UNMOVIC working under the enhanced authority of 1441, which had already pulled a lot of stuff out of the shadows. The invasion pre-empted Blix's final report to the UNSC, which probably would have said that Iraq only had a minimal capability to manufacture nuclear weapons but a large system in place that gave the impression that there was an actual active capability or close to it. This does not, in and of itself, predict what the Security Council's decision on military action would have been, but the fact is that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis rendered the entire operation -- achieved with 1441 at great diplomatic effort -- moot around two months before they would have completed their work.

- ironyroad

March 21, 2011 at 10:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacko: Did you do private school? I'm considering but not thrilled. There's a lot of affluence in Los Angeles, and I'm not sure my kids need that much exposure. They're already exposed by dint of our neighborhood and my husband's profession. But at least at our public school there are kids from most (unfortunately not all) socio-economic classes. We have kids from other neighborhoods and also lots of apartments. So I'd say it's lots of strivers there, but definitely not all rich. I'm not suggesting a human life versus a book. I'm saying, we've got two wars, and no money for this country. I don't see that 33 kids in an English or math class is that great (I've actually seen the number 50 in some states). It wasn't like that when I was in high school. When you say we need to get over it, that things here are fine, then I can only assume you don't keep up with current research/stats. The Chinese are way ahead of us, I think at number one or two. We're at 17, just above Lithuania, for God's sakes. And our ranking doesn't really get better when you do comparisons of kids at top public schools versus the rest of the world. We're falling behind. I'm not going into what this means long-term for the U.S. I can't get past my own two.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.S. Jack: Two wars in which we are trying to save lives and keep the countries from turning into full-on slaughter houses.

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WASHINGTON — Days before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was to present the case for war with Iraq to the United Nations, State Department analysts found dozens of factual problems in drafts of his speech, according to new documents contained in the Senate report on intelligence failures released last week. Two memos included with the Senate report listed objections that State Department experts lodged as they reviewed successive drafts of the Powell speech. Although many of the claims considered inflated or unsupported were removed through painstaking debate by Powell and intelligence officials, the speech he ultimately presented contained material that was in dispute among State Department experts. Powell's Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the U.N. Security Council was crafted by the CIA at the behest of the White House. Intended to be the Bush administration's most compelling case by one of its most credible spokesmen that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein was necessary, the speech has become a central moment in the lead-up to war. The speech also has become a point of reference in the failure of U.S. intelligence. Although Powell has said he struggled to ensure that all of his arguments were sound and backed by intelligence from several sources, it nonetheless became a key example of how the administration advanced false claims to justify war. Powell has expressed disappointment that, after working to remove dubious claims, the intelligence backing the remaining points of his U.N. speech has turned out to be flawed. "It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading, and for that I am disappointed and I regret it," Powell said in May. A State Department spokesman said late Wednesday, however, that the United States made the right decision "to go into Iraq, and the world today is safer because we did." Offering the first detailed look at claims that were stripped from the case for war advanced by Powell, a Jan. 31, 2003, memo cataloged 38 claims to which State Department analysts objected. In response, 28 were either removed from the draft or altered, according to the Senate report, which was released Friday and included scathing criticism of the CIA and other U.S. intelligence services. The analysts, describing many of the claims as "weak" and assigning grades to arguments on a 5-star scale, warned Powell against making an array of allegations they deemed implausible. They also warned against including Iraqi communications intercepts they deemed ambiguous and against speculating that terrorists might "come through Baghdad and pick-up biological weapons" as if they were stocked on store shelves. The documents underscore the extent to which administration and intelligence officials were culling a vast collection of thinly sourced claims as they sought to assemble the case for war. But the origin and full scope of some errors remain unclear because Senate investigators were denied access to a number of relevant documents, according to aides involved in the probe. _________________ The way in which nuclear materials are secured, seattle, is by sealing them and checking the seals. Not generally by standing guard. It is an inspection system. While the inspections had been halted for a considerable period, they had resumed under UNSC pressure. Bush aborted them. Withal, there was no reported diversion of the existing yellowcake stock. Had there been, you can be sure the Bush would have used that. He made a point of conveying, falsely, that Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear fuel in Africa. Had he said that there were 500 tons sitting there in Iraq untouched his claim would have had no weight at all. Regarding the aluminum tubes, the DOE had examined this claim and found the tubes unsuitable for centrifuges and most likely intended for rocketry. That memo is available online if you look. As for Curveball, he had already been discredited by the DIA. Basically, the Bush administration was publishing a whole bunch of unsupported crap to scare the bejeezus out of everyone, crap that had in many cases already been discredited internally. They didn't care. They were going to scare us into war. It doesn't matter to you and Powell because you would have gone to war to remove Hussein with or without WMDs. But, particularly given the effort the administration devoted to selling the WMD story, I find it incredible that there would have been political support for a costly invasion in the absence of perceived imminent threat to the US. Certainly Bush didn't think he could get the necessary support without that threat. Again regarding the legalities, it is absurd to suggest that the 1991 resolutions were still in force when the UNSC had just considered the question of force again, had been pressed by the US for language that pre-authorized the use of force, and had declined to use such language, specifically reserving to itself the power to consider next steps following the conclusion of the round of inspections. Thus, in effect, the UNSC had already issued a resolution rendering moot Bush's claims about the continuing effects of the resolutions of 1991 even if his interpretation had been plausible withe contemporaneous UNSC decision which it was not. There was no reason not to await the conclusion of the ongoing inspections other than that they would likely have revealed no reason grounded in WMDs for the invasion of Iraq, and Bush wanted to invade Iraq to remove Hussein. The WMDs were a pretext.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 11:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NR: Have you said one thing that's about the topic under discussion? Or have you spent your whole time here today flame warring with Roi? What purpose do you serve?

- MOLLYSIMON

March 21, 2011 at 11:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wish you had been in class today, nr, where my leftist profs talked about matrix algebra, the derivations of the methods of Ordinary Least Squares and Generalized Least Squares, various mathematical proofs of relevant theories, such as Best Linear Unbiased Estimator, and such. I came out singing the Internationale. You would have loved it. I would share with you here, but I don't think I can reproduce the mathematical notation without sending the TNR website into outer space. Your record of unremitting slurs and nothing else remains unblemished. I salute you. ________________ Molly, I don't think Jacko's questions can be answered as he framed them. The best protection that I can see against excessive action is the UNSC itself. Given that five permanent members have to refrain from using their veto and a broad range of representatives must approve, the UNSC process protects against excess or against action that, for example, is really intended to remove a government hostile to the US as was the case in Iraq. I think that the mission of the UN is peace, not war, except where there is no alternative. Hence, I think the scope of what the UN authorized, limited to preventing Qaddafi from committing atrocities, is just right. If he were in fact currently to be engaging in atrocities, then I think the first course of action is that which will prevent him from doing so, not seeking regime change which would provoke a fight to the death with inevitable casualties, as we saw in Iraq. I do not think it is our moral right to decide that Libyans must die for the removal of Qaddafi in the absence of threat to ourselves or international peace or immediate threat of humanitarian disaster. The Libyans may have the right to decide to put their lives at risk for regime change. I do not believe it is for us to do that for them or to sacrifice their lives to arrest a war criminal. We do not kill hundreds of people to arrest even the worst criminal. We may do so if there is no other means of preventing that criminal from causing even more harm than we will in effecting the arrest. This is why the standards of self-defense and UNSC authorization are so sound. The first assures the right of self-defense, but also prevents countries from going to war not in their own or collective self-defense. The second is a political control, the very fact of the diversity of the UNSC making it unlikely that war would be authorized for partisan reasons. This is exactly what Powell and jacko and seattle don't like, the fact that there has to be broad international consensus for "peacekeeping" war. But that is just as it should be. In the absence of either of these, it is not for us to go killing people elsewhere so that they can have the government we think they deserve, particularly when it is highly uncertain that that will be the outcome. I hope that is responsive. I cannot think of another way to say it.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is a one-sided flame war, molly, as I have chosen today to ignore nr just to make the point about his behavior. And his flames are mere sputters. He only has any good material when he is repeating back the things that I say and I haven't given him any today. Hence the poor little efforts of his that you see here.

- roidubouloi

March 21, 2011 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The editors say, under the tease, "In Libya, Obama Finally Did the Right Thing," ...Over the past few days, President Obama has surprised us. For weeks, he seemed committed to avoiding military action against Libya—even though Libyans were imploring America and the West to come to their aid... This statement and the tease itself have inspired much wrath, larded with imprecations having to do with how hard it is, and how long it takes, to get U.N. S.C. approval and to organize all the logisitics of a no fly zone. But the reporting I read in the Washington Post and in Time has it that until the evening of March 15, 2011 Obama was undecided just as his national security principals were sharply divided. on the question of U.S. involvement. As at that afternoon, at a meeting of his Security principals, he was firmly undecided. What I read discloses that it was only on the evening of the 15th at a further convened meeting of these principals that Obama finally came to a decision and then authorized Susan Rice to go forward with it to the U.N., where, hitherto, other diplomats, working on getting a resolution, reported the U.S. as somewhat detached. As late as March 13, 2011, Ann-Marie Slaughter op edded, saying effectively that Obama was indecisive and dithering. The reporting has it that Obama’s decision on the evening of the 15th was a sharp turnaround to his previous thinking about U.S. involvement. If this reporting is accurate I am hard put to see: 1. why the editors come in for so much grief here for saying what I cited; and 2. what all the carfeul planning to get a resolution and organize a no fly zone--which all seems to have been put together quickly once Obama decided-- has logically to do with anything here. That seems a point going to nothing relevant as revealed by the above reporting.

- basman

March 22, 2011 at 1:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good morning. A few modest points: --Did the Bush Administration decide that it was past time to remove the aggressive, genocidal totalitarian police state sitting on the fulcrum of the world economy with which we had been in a state of war for a dozen years, then throw every argument they could find up in the air resulting in more "justification fatigue" than consensus? Regrettably, yes. --Did they include some things that weren't unanimously seen to be true? Yes, but that certainly doesn't fit any known definition of "lie". They chose to accept the (clear majority) analysis that supported their position, like pretty much every politician in history has done or would do. --Was any of this necessary to obtain public and Congressional support for implementing the standing US policy of "regime change"? Clearly not--support in Congress and the public had been consistently very high for over a decade. --Hans Blix in his final report stated unequivocally that Iraq remained in manifest "defiance of it's obligations" as it had been for a dozen years. I'm sure that he would have liked to make inspections in Iraq into a never-ending occupation, as would have Saddam's collaborators in Paris and Berlin; but leaders responsible for hundreds of thousands of troops perched precariously on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula with its potentially lethal summer coming on didn't have that luxury. Timing is everything in military action, and our troops were sitting ducks for chemical weapon strikes (we went into combat burdened with chem suits, which was hardly done for propaganda reasons); and terrorist action (several Marines had already been killed by terrorists in Kuwait before the invasion started). It's unsurprising that posters like roi and irony would be unaware of or skeptical about such considerations, but military leaders couldn't be. History is replete with examples of catastrophic results in kinetic actions delayed beyond their "sell by date". --Is there a striking contrast between Obama's decision-making process in Libya and Bush's in Iraq? Obviously. I think Obama's worked better, but at the end of the day let's see what actually emerges from the Libyan revolt. It may not look much different from Baghdad 2006. I strongly believe we should have a Congressional Resolution as this is a much more important legal matter than UN Resolutions where the deployment of US combat forces is concerned.

- Robert Powell

March 22, 2011 at 4:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What an extraordinarily lucky fellow is Barack Obama. His critics may even believe he walks on water, as they have so often accused his supporters of believing. Think about it. Only moments after he decides to commit to participation in a joint effort against Qaddafi, he has in place the military assets he needs, the targeting, the coordination, the works. He knows, as people like the editors of TNR appear not to have known, that a no-fly-zone by itself will be ineffectual raising the possibility of ineffective US involvement, the worst of of outcomes politically, diplomatically, and for the Libyans too (remember them?). But, lucky guy that he is, he not only discovers in that instant that he can get a UNSC resolution approved with no veto, but that he can get stronger language than what even the interventionists have been demanding. And he gets it. Just like that! He may even know that he has no chance of getting a resolution out of the Congress, or is at great risk of protracted debate and/or ultimate failure. After all, by now he may have noticed that Republicans are far more concerned to destroy him politically than they are about the fate of the United States and can only reliably be expected to vote in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy or the destruction of the social security system, neither of which he is willing to do in order to support the Libyan rebellion. So, he must structure any action so that he can live within the War Powers Act. Lucky fellow that he is, the French and British are willing to take the major responsibility. But he knows that they cannot themselves take out Libyan air defenses. Lucky fellow that he is, he has the means to do just that and then quickly end active US participation so that he does not have to deal with hostile Republicans. As all this occurs, he is none-the-less waiting to see if the situation in Libya can stabilize without US intervention. At the end, it doesn't appear so, but, lucky fellow that he is, he manages to have everything necessary in place in just the nick of time to avoid seeing Benghazi overrun and the likelihood of atrocities. It is these he says he wants to prevent. But, of course, neo-con and so-called liberal interventionists want nothing of that expecting nothing less than invasion and regime change. None-the-less, lucky fellow that he is, he manages to stave off the outcome that he says he wants to avoid without thereby committing himself to a larger engagement that he says he doesn't want even though though neo-cons and intervento-libs do. Afterwards, he kicks back, turns a little water into wine, and relaxes in the White House.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 7:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Robert Powell: Excellent post. Each and every point was very present in the real world, real time way that it all played out.

- jacko

March 22, 2011 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Molly. We had the good fortune of being able to get in on the ground floor of an elementary charter school effort which became very successful. From the best I can gather from experience is that school performance has little to do with provisioning and more to do with priority as evidenced by efforts. My kids were going to school at a time when self esteem seemed to be the priority. This had the perverse effect of down playing achievement as the means to acquiring said esteem. It didn't require much effort to get a B. You had A students and B students. As if a teacher had the ability to consign esteem with the bestowal of gold stars and good grades. The truth is that kids are smarter than that, the devious little buggers. They will adjust their energies and efforts according to their own priorities. Game the system. Now that is a lesson which is available in any environment. My high achieving daughter once put forth a pathetic effort for a science project and received accolades. She knew that all that was required would be a theme of environmentalism and a few pretty pictures confessing devotion to mother earth. There wasn't the slightest hint of scientific inquiry in her project yet she passed with flying colors and awards of wonder and encouragement. Anyway, the wife and I determined to go a different direction and it worked out well for us. The degree of parental involvement is a big determining factor for school success. Public or private. Esteem is not conferred. It is earned. Just like in the real world. I don't know if any of this is helpful to you beyond letting you know that it is possible to navigate these trying times and come out the other side relatively undamaged. Relatively....Good Luck, Molly.

- jacko

March 22, 2011 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What played out was that Bush was determined to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein and was not going to let the realities on the ground as far as WMDs or international law stand in the way. Period. He positioned himself to do that and to frustrate the efforts of the rest of the world to avoid it. When necessary, he used lies to move forward. For waging aggressive war without legal justification, Bush is a war criminal under the applicable conventions. Quite simple really. Hans Blix had a far better understanding of his role than Bush did. He made quite clear that he understood his duty to be to report accurately to the UNSC what was found and what was not found, what was clear and what was unclear, the level of cooperation he received, and what was or was not plausible speculation. It was, he said quite clearly, for the Security Council, not he, to decide what the consequences should be. The attack on Blix as somehow standing in the way of what was necessary or proper is completely unwarranted. There is not a shred of evidence that I have ever seen or heard that he was ever anything but the faithful and effective servant of the UNSC, a rare person who subordinated whatever personal agenda he might have had to the performance of his duty.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: indeed.

- icarusr

March 22, 2011 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the only means of explaining the unwillingness of the UNSC to give Bush carte blanche was that the French and Germans were "collaborators" of Hussein's, it is manifest that there is no responsible argument to be made. In the event, the French and Germans were right and we were wrong. To cast them as the villains is absurd. Their failure was the failure to fall for Bush's lies, no doubt because they had, unlike the public, analysts of their own. Kudos to them for a display of nerve and sanity in the face of Bush's pressure on them to share responsibility for his impending misdeeds.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that attacks on Hans Blix are baseless. He did exactly what he was tasked with doing, culminating in his final report that stated unequivocally that Iraq continued to obstruct and resist rather than comply with its obligations. It was widely and accurately acknowledged that without Iraq's active cooperation we would never be sure about compliance--that was a major reason Clinton made "regime change" official US policy. Careful reading of the Duelfer Report vis a vis Saddam's plans for the collapse of sanctions, inevitable in the event of the "surrender" option advocated by criminally conflicted leaders in France and Germany, is highly recommended for those seeking historical facts rather than political talking points. The intelligence services of these states, by the way, were on board for the consensus conclusion that Iraq retained wmd capabilities in violation of the ceasefire and SC Resolutions terms. The French and German governments, to their everlasting shame, took the side of the profoundly criminal Ba'athist regime against the clear will of the UN, and more particularly most of its democratic, rule-of-law states from Japan and South Korea, through most of Europe, to the usual Commonwealth stalwarts. Fortunately the collaborationist governments in France and Germany were rejected by the voters. Where will fans of genocidal totalitarianism get nation-state support for the campaign to rescue Qaddaffi?

- Robert Powell

March 22, 2011 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ignorance of history, culture, traditions of the Arab nations is what guides the Obama gang. Add to this his 20 years absorbing Liberation Theology and what do you get? Weird appreciation of The Muslim Brotherhood as "Moderates." The Brotherhood members can't stop laughing. Then the US attacking Libya only brings up a few questions: Are you sure that you are not supporting Al Qaeda supporters that you think are pro-Democracy? Why Libya and not Bahrain where it is even more dramatic. A small island where the majority Shia is subjugated by a Sunni King and the protest squashed by an external power, Saudi military. Why during all this time didn't Obama bomb Sudan to end the continuous genocide of Black African by Arabs? It is very puzzling!

- Poupic

March 22, 2011 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read huge swaths of the Duelfer report a couple of years ago. It did not much alter my understanding of the public events. The French and the Germans did not "side with the Baathists." The sided with the sane few, not driven in fear by Bush's disinformation campaign like lemmings over a cliff, with the view that there was much to be gained and nothing much to be lost by pressing forward with sanctions and inspections notwithstanding the incomplete cooperation. It was not be any means total stonewalling on the part of the Iraqis. Considering that there were no WMDs, not much positive indication that there might be, and that the war turned into an epic disaster, French and German prudence are to be admired, in sharp contrast to the criminal Bush who is responsible for taking tens of thousands of lives and maiming thousands more on the basis of a bunch of lies and nonsense.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NPR February 17, 2011 On Tuesday, as Mark reported, the defector who convinced the U.S. government that Iraq had a secret biological weapons program confessed for the first time that he lied. Now, The Guardian reports, Germany's former foreign minister Joschka Fischer is saying that the BND, Germany's intelligence agency, "realised some time before the war that Curveball was not a watertight source, and passed on his testimony to the CIA with warnings attached." Curveball, as he was codenamed by intelligence officials, told The Guardian that he fabricated stories of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories. That intelligence made it into President George W. Bush's State of The Union address and Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations with it in February of 2003, six weeks before the war began.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What am I missing? Did Obama's decision to involve the U.S. in Libya mark a notable departure from his previous position or not, all contingency planning notwithstanding? I.E. did he effectively change his mind? My impression is that it id and he did. Or is the suggestion that he at all times meant to involve U.S. force but was sotto voce while working covertly to put something together internationally and militarily? My impression is that the former is the answer and not the latter and the former grounds the criticism by some at TNR, including the editors, and others, that he should have *acted* sooner. I don't see other readings of his, arguably, evolving position. So I still can't see the beef against the editors' decalaration of "surprise"and "better late than never."

- basman

March 22, 2011 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Welcome to the real world of "intelligence" roi. Individual sources, even if their stuff (by fuckup) makes it into high level speeches, is paltry drivel usually lost in the hurricane of data from myriad other sources, most of them suspect for one reason or another. "Curveball" notwithstanding, the BND, the French and British agencies, Mossad, the Russian FSB, and virtually everybody else did the arithmetic on Iraq's inventoried wmd materials minus what was verifiably accounted for, and came up with discrepancies in the hundreds of tons. Just because some folks connect some dots ex post facto and race to drastic conclusions doesn't explain very much about anything. Your idea that an unwilling public was stampeded into supporting the invasion of Iraq by some clever Bush/Cheney subterfuge is frankly absurd, and unsupportable by any evidence. As you know, tabloid journalism isn't evidence. There is a great deal of evidence to support the assertion that there was enormous public and Congressional support for invasion stretching back over a decade, and increasing after 2001 as a last-ditch attempt to finally resolve an appalling fiasco in Iraq that had been going from bad to worse for a decade. The attacks of 9/11 certainly caused a spike in this support, less because people thought Iraq was behind the attacks than that at this point the country nearly as a whole had had quite enough of being jerked around by Arabs. Saddam Hussein, as the poster boy for miserable Arab leaders, and Ba'athist Iraq as a repeat offender against all of the most important norms of international behavior and a country costing the US significant blood and treasure over the entire period in a failing attempt at containment, were unsurprisingly seen as an enemies that needed to be, finally, defeated. Whether this decision by the US was correct or not, incredible incompetence and malfeasance in the execution notwithstanding, is a question open to legitimate debate. The scenario that has the entire episode explained as some kind of clever ruse perpetrated by perhaps the dumbest president in history, is not.

- Robert Powell

March 22, 2011 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The beef Itzik is that although the editors are entitled to be surprised by whatever they like, it seems churlish to get what you've been asking for, with the whipped cream and cherry on top of robust UNSC language and actual meaningful French participation, and still complain. It seems unlikely that all this could have happened without at least some version of your latter scenario. Don't worry. As this drags on endlessly, at least as I expect, there will be plenty of opportunities for enterprising folks to devise clever plots, shady informants, vast conspiracies, charismatic leaders, sub rosa factions, tribal dynamics, and clever theories about who really engineered what. Most of it will be politically motivated speculation.

- Robert Powell

March 22, 2011 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush, Cheney et alia spent a year or more on a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and had nuclear weapons. By the time the Second Iraq War started, they had largely succeeded. Americans believed both although both were untrue. You play the Bush game of conflating nuclear weapons with biological and chemical weapons. The counting of material was no evidence of nuclear weapons which were the overwhelming concern. Without the nuclear weapons story, there would have been no war. You also seem to think that being a "poster boy" for bad Arab is sufficient reason to invade a country and cause tens of thousands of deaths. Well, I don't. American impatience and frustration, however justified, is not a sufficient reason to kill thousands of people in the absence of imminent threat. That is the law of war in the modern world. You guilelessly disclose the reality of what the Iraq war was all about. Bush wanted a demonstration case of what would happen to "bad Arabs" if they didn't start to play ball. He figured that Hussein was militarily incapable - as it had taken only four days to defeat him when his military was not degraded by years of sanctions. Hence the "cake-walk" to Baghdad. He also figured that Hussein was so odious that no one would raise much objection. And he assumed he would find WMDs just because he assumed he would, vindicating all of what would otherwise be crimes. That he would be destroying a country mattered not at all. And that is where your little tale goes sadly and badly awry, Mr. Powell. The war in Iraq was not one on one combat between Bush and the odious Saddam Hussein. It was not a war against Saddam Hussein. It was a war against an entire people without defensive justification and without Security Council authorization. That makes it a war crime, and it doesn't cease to be a war crime even if every living breathing American wanted this war for 100 years, any more than the crimes of Hamas cease to be crimes because they were elected by the Gazans or the crimes of the Nazis were not crimes because Hitler was elected and was very popular as long as the Germans themselves were not suffering. Public support for the Iraq war was bought with lies, but even if it were not necessary to lie to that end, the crime is still a crime. Public opinion changes nothing in that regard. Whether Hussein's footdragging was sufficient basis for war in the absence of threat to the US (something even Bush would not claim) was not for the US to decide.

- roidubouloi

March 22, 2011 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This will be my last post on this subject here roi. Your priority is demonizing Bush, and ignores all the historical evidence and context. No amount of repeating your assumptions based on hate and mind-reading about the "real" motives of the Administration covers up the gaping holes in your arguments. You don't have anything new to say, and little to no evidence to support your repeated assertions. The so-called "propaganda campaign" is nowhere in evidence from the record, and of course fails miserably to explain widespread support for an invasion stretching back over twelve years, the Congressional resolutions and military actions undertaken during the Clinton years, and the blood and treasure we expended during this time. The statement "no nuclear weapons, no war" is preposterous given the historical record, including the language of the Resolutions. Being a bad Arab leader is certainly no justification for war, but then no one ever said it was. There was quite a bit more, again not in my theories but in the historical record. And that historical record includes the grim toll extracted from the Iraqi people by the collusion between Saddam Hussein and principals on the Security Council between 1991-2003. All of this actual historical evidence finds no place in your constructions. It may very well be the case that Bush wanted a "demonstration project", but there was quite a bit more in the way of justification that's much easier to substantiate with evidence. Widespread, long-term public and Congressional approval for the invasion doesn't constitute grounds for war, but it does make a nonsense of your baseless assertions that this was all a clever ruse by the decidedly un-clever Bush Administration. That's why I cite it, as I believe you already know.

- Robert Powell

March 23, 2011 at 4:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps this should be your last post. Your declarations about evidence have no weight, Mr, Powell, at least not with me, as I don't discern that you ever show any interest in evidence at all. When there is evidence you don't like, you simply come up with some obfuscating rationalizations, e.g, that everything was obscure when many things were known, including that evidence put before the public was false or unsupported or considered unreliable by responsible parties. Or you make extravagant claims such as that the French and Germans were simply "collaborators" with Hussein. Equally unsupported by evidence are your claims about my state of mind, that I am moved by "hate." This sort of thing shows that you have run out of anything persuasive to say and that you know it. The "so-called propaganda campaign" is already a matter of public record. One need only look at the newspapers at the time and the long history of public statements by high officials in the Bush administration. That you are dismissive not only of particular evidence but of that which is quite public tells us more about your claimed devotion to history. No, widespread support for a war does not say anything at all about whether the reasons that were given by the Bush administration to persuade the public were false. We know they were persuasive or we would not have gone to war. Whether they were lies is quite a different question. What we know from public opinion is that they were persuasive lies. And that indeed is the whole point. The truth was not adequate to the task of persuading the public. Finally, you do not accept that all of the justifications that you cite, all of the bad deeds, fell well short of imminent threat to the United States. In the absence of such threat, it was not for the US to decide, it was for the UNSC to decide, that the behavior was sufficiently gross, that Hussein's present threat to international security was sufficiently grave, to justify a war that would inevitably kill thousands. My priority is clarity about the principles of justice and international law, principles that do not permit the United States to decide for itself how to dispense justice in the world at the cost of other people's and nation's lives. Your evasions show that the need is great and make it that much more urgent that we not be allowed to forget that the United States, led by George Bush, bears responsibility for war crimes against Iraq. If we constantly excuse ourselves by corrupting the historical record as you do, it is sure that there will be more such crimes.

- roidubouloi

March 23, 2011 at 7:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...even though Libyans were imploring America and the West to come to their aid." So, this is what it's come to. Libyan rebels should be driving U.S. foreign policy?

- pistolpete

March 23, 2011 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, you ignore that Blix himself believed Sadaam had WMD. The entire world believed it (except for the Russians). While we might wish that Bush was 99% certain instead of 70% certain, the fact is that presidents can't always wait for such certainty to develop. That is what sucks about these issues. Madman make their living by forcing you to make decisions you wouldn't ordinarily want to make. Sadaam was 100% the cause of this. The person threatening cops with a hand hidden inside his jacket will always lose, rightfully or not. Trying to make this 100% Bush'sfault is a fools errand. Especially when Gore, Biden, Clinton and Obama would have followed the exact same path. Blix noted to the LA Times: "Blix conceded that his own gut feeling at the time, based on Hussein's past intentions and capabilities, was that Iraq did have unconventional weapons. "I thought that there were weapons of mass destruction like everyone else." The fact that Hussein's Republican Guards were equipped with gas masks and biohazard suits suggests that the Iraqi leader's own scientists had misled him about the military's capabilities. "It seems that, at any rate, he might not have been all that well-informed, that they might have fooled him a bit about what they were doing, that he was more optimistic about getting new weapons and so forth," Blix said. "I think there's always a risk that in a totalitarian state that people will tell the dictator what they think he wants to hear."

- seattleeng

March 23, 2011 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Save the nonsense about risk, blah, blah, blah. We did not go to war in Iraq over chemical and biological weapons. We went to war because the Bush administration persuaded the American people, the Congress, and plenty of others around the world that, if we didn't, we would be facing mushroom clouds in the near future. It was a fraud, and Bush, knowing it, was going to make damn sure his war plans were not upset by nuclear arms inspectors coming back with a report that it was highly unlikely there was anything significant left of Hussein's nuclear program. Everything else is just smoke.

- roidubouloi

March 23, 2011 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "We went to war because the Bush administration persuaded the American people, the Congress, and plenty of others around the world that, if we didn't, we would be facing mushroom clouds in the near future" Not true. As previously noted, the dem leadership overwhelmingly believed Iraq had WMD before Bush took office. Read Biden talking about long-range nukes and chemical weapons. Read about Clinton talking about Iraq giving WMD to terrorists to blow up in our cities. Listen to Alright say the same. This was not started by Bush. Biden in 1998: "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." clinton in 1998: ""The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." albright in 1998: ""Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." You are a fool to assert over and over that nobody believed Iraq had WMD and that nobody believed Iraq a threat. Albright said they were the greatest threat we faced. Tell me, if any of the above were in charge on 9/11, would they have softened or steeled their opinions? The day congress signed the war resolution, Hillary said "Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. <...> He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. <...> Now this much is undisputed." And nobody from the Bush administration disputed her on that. Bush or Cheney had one slip that was corrected in 24 hours a few years later. But in all the years, I don't think you can find any assertion from the administration that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Fact: The world believed iraq had WMD before Bush took office. Fact: Bush never tied Iraq to 9/11 BTW, I saw your other comment about matrix algebra. Hehe, what on earth are you doing dabbling in first year engineering curriculum? :)

- seattleeng

March 23, 2011 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I did not assert that nobody believed Iraq had WMD. I asserted that near everyone believed Iraq had not merely biological and chemical weapons but was in imminent possession of nuclear weapons but that the evidence used to persuade people of this was known by Bush to be false. I also assert that, but for the belief that Iraq was in imminent possession of nuclear weapons, the war would have been politically impossible. It would not have been fought over chemical and biological weapons. It would not have been fought to enforce UN resolutions. It would not have been fought to remove Saddam Hussein. The nuclear arms story was the sine qua non. You want to disagree, seattle, fine. But when you have to invent claims I don't make and place them in my mouth in order to try to make a point, it is clear that you cannot make a respectable argument. This is, of course, what we have come to expect from you. Bush constantly tied Iraq to 9/11. Does your claim here make you a fool or a liar? Both? Whatever Clinton thought about that claim, the American people demonstrably had accepted it, which was exactly what Bush wanted and needed. The basis of the war was the belief cultivated by Bush, on false evidence and tendentious claims, that, in light of 9/11, Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the safety of the United States. This was not the case at that time and there was no substantial, RELIABLE evidence that he was. That makes the invasion aggressive war and Bush a war criminal. The war was fought for nothing about which this country would have gone to war if the truth of the matter had been known to and understood by the American people. And Bush knew that full well.

- roidubouloi

March 24, 2011 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, do tell, Roid. Find Bush's top 5 statements linking Iraq and 9/11.

- seattleeng

March 26, 2011 at 3:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If I'm not misremembering, I think there was a 2004 minority staff report (D) in the House Governmental Affairs Committee that listed about 50+ misleading statements by the president, the VP, Condi Rice, and other key officials.

- ironyroad

March 26, 2011 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Then please, post them. If this was so pervasive, it should take no more than 30 seconds to find it. Bush made quotes linking AQ to Iraq. But that isn't the same as saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And yes, I think he still stands by that AQ had ties to Iraq. But Clinton also emphasized those ties as far back as 1998 in justify their bombing or Iraq.

- seattleeng

March 27, 2011 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close