Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) If the reason you enunciate was a large part of the administration's rationale for the war in Iraq, it was well-hidden and little discussed publicly beforehand.
|
It was discussed, but not as the only rationale for the war. The WMDs were another rationale and we have found chemical weapons in Iraq just as predicted.
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) The war in Iraq most assuredly changed the environment in the Middle East, but the positive change desired _may_ flow in the long term, in a best case scenario, if Iraq becomes a peaceful, stable, well-governed, and non-agresssive state. The negative influences of the events of the war and its aftermath on the U.S. position in the Middle East serve as powerful counterweghts and have ripple effects that are very difficult to measure and predict.
|
I think in the short term, there have been both negative and positive effects on the US position in the middle east because of the war. One example of a positive effect is Libya's agreement to stop its nuclear program. That was done in direct response to Libya's fear that they were next.
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(c) While you may be correct that the potential rewards for this exercise remain great, that does not mean that the policy should have been adopted. You must weigh and balance the upside gains and down-side risks, along with the likelihood of the various outcomes.
|
Agreed that you have to weigh and balance the ups and downs and the various outcomes. I think that was done beforehand. You may disagree with the outcome of the analysis reached by the administration, but I have no doubt that they looked at this decision critically before going forward.
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(d) The administration's calculus in that regard _may_ have been fundamentally flawed because it now appears that the administration operated under a number of false assumptions, based in part on intelligence from untrustworthy sources, and that many key pre-war predictions did not pan out.
|
That may be true. However, that doesn't preclude a good outcome in the long term.
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(e) Undertaking the Iraq war as the means to accomplish your stated goal would have been taking an extraordinary risk with a low likelihood of success and high potential for severe negative consequences. At the same time, other, less drastic alternatives may have been preferable to achieve a similar goal.
|
Only time will tell. June 30th will arrive soon enough at which time we will all begin to see how things might play out in the long term.
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think Will understands all that very well -- and would say it prettier.
|
Will's point as I read his article is that our goal before the war was to establish democracy for democracy's sake. I don't think that was the case. I think along with the WMDs, the admin realized that unless the middle east becomes more secular and less oppressive with better distribution of economic resources, terrorism will only get worse. This wasn't about democracy for the sake of love of democracy as Will was claiming. It was about democracy as a means to reduce terrorism. I don't think Will understood that, or at least he didn't convey that he understood that in that column.
