I guess I'll try again. I'm not sure why. But I'd like to point out the Boston Globe's article that answers the nasty charges about faked evidence of Iraq seeking Uranium in Africa. I'll even point out that, as with all intelligence work, some sources were much more confident than others, in the always-uncertain game of espionage.
I find myself wondering why I bother, though. Because those who operate under axiomatic and a priori assumptions will simply find something else to support those assumptions. Indeed, you can already tell what most of the responses will be.
Mostly, it will be to say it isn't good enough. Or they'll tortuously suggest that somehow, some way, the fact that bogus evidence got into the mix somewhere along the line is not in any way understandable. Instead, it will be A Very Serious Problem Pointing To Chronic Dishonesty, or At Least Incompetence, By This Administration. Our Trust Has Been Violated.
That's the axiomatic, a priori assumption, you see.
Those who point out that intelligence work is never perfect, and that bogus and conflicting information often gets into the mix of even very good intelligence work will be laughed off or ignored. It won't matter that 100% reliable intelligence information is as rare as hen's teeth. It won't matter that you can't point to any war in which bogus and even fraudulent material didn't wind up accepted as real.
After all, Bush was confident. And confidence means "lies." At least, that's what it means when you work with that as your axiomatic, a priori assumption.
Isn't it interesting, though, that so many of these people are acting as if the administration didn't advance over a dozen arguments for war with Iraq? Instead, they claim that mass quantities of WMDs were the main reason for war sold to American voters.
Well, it makes sense if you think about it. Because it makes it easier to support the axiomatic, a priori assumption that Bush lied.
Isn't it also interesting how many of these people were saying that "Bush lied to us about how long this war would take and how hard it would be! They told us it would be a cake walk!" That was false, but they were saying it days into the conflict. Not just that the war was going to be a disaster, mind you, but that Bush lied and said it would be easy.
Well, I'm sure they believed it. After all, that's their axiomatic, a priori assumption.
Many of these folks also suggest that the Bush administration said that the threat from Iraq was immediate. In fact, what the administration said most often (I'm sure someone can find an exception or two if they look hard enough) was that we can't afford to wait until the threat is immediate.
Omitting that detail also makes the axiomatic, a priori assumption much easier to sell.
What's also strange is that many such people were, just one year ago, saying that Bush was "unfocused" and "dishonest" because he gave too many reasons for war. Now, the claim is that there was only one reason, and the reason was a lie.
Gotta sell that axiomatic, a priori assumption.
They said Clinton was blessed with his enemies. The mouth-frothing, raw-meat chomping nasties who called everything he did lies, who hated him even when they got 90% of what they wanted out of him. But perhaps such people are always to be found no matter who's in charge.
In any case, just remember, you can always spot the irrational ones. They aren't interested in open and honest inquiry. They start with axiomatic, a priori assumptions, and they go from there.
Another important thing to remember: They can never be satisfied.
Ever.
Dean,
These people hate the unelected smirking chimp that you and I call President, and nothing you can say, no proof you can show them, will change the fact that Bush is in the White House.
You're just feeding the trolls.
Gary, I respectfully disagree. Dean is testifying, in a near-Biblical sense.
He attests to the truths around us; he speaks for the light against the darkness; he faces the unbeliever fearlessly.
If nothing else he provides useful talking points that we can pass along, to counter the disinformation... :)
" In fact, what the administration said most often (I'm sure someone can find an exception or two if they look hard enough) was that we can't afford to wait until the threat is immediate"
Splendid point. In the barrage of propaganda,
even I had forgotten that fact!!!!!
Of course, the collaborators didn't like that, either; taking out a threat BEFORE it's fully developed was called "pre-emptive" and (according to the senile Pope) was going to destroy the world's entire moral order. Now the evidence seems to support the idea that we did in fact catch the cancer before it fully metastasized.
ockham:
There's a difference between pre-emptive war and preventive war. The Six-Day War was pre-emptive; Pearl Harbor was preventive.
There is an established tradition allowing pre-emptive war. There is no such tradition for preventive war. In fact, Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy, when given the choice of waging preventive war on the Soviet Union, rejected that recommendation.
One of the central questions to be answered (now or later) is whether POTUS chose (via lies, exaggeration or spin) to fight a preventive war under the rationale of pre-emption.
Ara,
That's easy, he didn't. No sane human being could have taken, from our year-long "rush to war", the notion that we were going to be attacked in the next few days. At no point was it ever suggested, at no point did anyone act like the threat was imminent as in "a matter of days or at most weeks".
There is in fact no reason to even speculate that POTUS did such a thing. Imminent attack on the US by Iraq was never mentioned (other than -- perhaps -- the fact that it's always possible to hand something off to a terrorist at any time).
Ara's tactic of confusion #3: making artificial distinctions between terms to advance a weak position.
There is no real difference between preemptive and preventive, at least after you leave out narrow, highly specific definitions such as for bridge or TV. There is especially no difference when you are talking about a war.
From Miram-Webster online:
Main Entry: 2preventive
Function: adjective
Date: 1639
1 : devoted to or concerned with prevention : PRECAUTIONARY (preventive steps against soil erosion>
2 : undertaken to forestall anticipated hostile action (a preventive coup)
- pre·ven·tive·ly adverb
- pre·ven·tive·ness noun
(emphasis added)
Main Entry: pre·empt
Pronunciation: prE-'em(p)t
Function: verb
Etymology: back-formation from preemption
Date: 1850
transitive senses
1 : to acquire (as land) by preemption
2 : to seize upon to the exclusion of others : take for oneself (the movement was then preempted by a lunatic fringe)
3 : to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority : take precedence over (the program did not appear, having been preempted by a baseball game -- Robert MacNeil)
4 : to gain a commanding or preeminent place in
5 : to prevent from happening or taking place : FORESTALL, PRECLUDE
intransitive senses : to make a preemptive bid in bridge
- pre·emp·tor /-'em(p)-t&r/ noun
(emphasis added)
And, I'd just love to hear how "There is an established tradition allowing pre-emptive war!" Did you read that at West Point, or Annapolis, Ara? Funny, in the 25+ years I've been digging around through different volumes of military history I seemed to have missed that "established tradition" in America. Especially when the words mean basically the same thing.
And, as usual, you are arguing from conclusion. Again.
We should have an investigation.
Why?
Because the president lied!
How can you prove that?
Well, won't an investigation establish that?
Circular reasoning. The president lied, so we should have an investigation; we should have an investigation, because the president lied.
God forbid we should do anything like, bring facts into the case. And the only fact right now is: we ain't found diddly. That's it. No mas.
And all you've ever brought forward are editorials, opinions, innuendo, partial quotations (as Maureen Dowd about creative quoting, she could probably give you some pointers), and attempts to create artificial distinctions.
Oh, you have also brought forward the fact that you really don't have a clue about military operations. Really. Anyone who is willing to say anything to the effect of "100% sure intelligence" has just very obviously demonstrated their own ignorance of intel analysis.
Casey:
I really, really, really hope you are gonna drive up for our party on July 19th!!!!!!!
Casey:
Start by reading David Horowitz.
He'll tell you what you need to know about the tradition of pre-emptive war.
The Six-Day War was pre-emptive.
Then read Jane McCartney on the recent history of preventive war.
Pearl Harbor was preventive.
Regardless of what your dictionary says, in the real world of history, it isn't hard to see the distinction between these two examples.
Anyone who is willing to say anything to the effect of "100% sure intelligence" has just very obviously demonstrated their own ignorance of intel analysis.
I'm the first to admit I don't have a background in military intelligence. [insert your own punchline here].
So I will graciously accept your comment above at face value.
That said, isn't it true that you are suggesting that the perception of threat is in the eye of the beholder?
Ara: If do not miscontstrue, Mr. Horowitz is a civil rights activist and writer, yes?
Where does he write about a tradition of pre-emptive war? (not combative here) It is something online, in a magazine? I'd be glad to read it. I have to say that what I know of his background does not cause me to view him has an authority on military history. :)
Ms. Jane McCartney I have not heard of, and a Google search turns up nothing useful with that spelling, even with 'Jane McCartney war'. Can't comment. Specific links?
In the real world, the only difference between preemptive and preventive is who takes the initiative. Strategically, tactically, operationally, they are the same.
To answer your question: it is possible that perception of threat may be "in the eye of the beholder," as you say. Certainly the Japanese teach that the attack on Pearl was a reaction to the "aggresive" American act of cutting off oil to Japan.
I try to avoid such definitions because I mistrust relativistic references. There can be percieved (but invalid) threats, percieved (but valid, i.e. a true threat) non-threats, or a confusion whether a threat exists.
Right now I can't take your sources as very authoritative, especially Horowitz.
If you want to start quoting some reliable sources for military history, you might try: S.E. Morison, Cornelius Ryan, T.R. Fehrenbach, Williamson Murray, Jerry Pournelle, Stefan Possony, James F. Dunnigan, Albert Nofi, David Palmer, or Barbara Tuchman.
Just for a start. :)
Just a quick fisk of our nation's wars:
1776: rebellious fervor, but restraint: let the British fire the first shot.
1812: a reaction to British provocation.
c. 1840's: putatively a reaction to Mexican provocation, can be termed a war of agression, or conquest. Certainly not preemtpive or preventive.
1865: again, a reaction Southern rebellion. The South started shooting first, and agressive maneuvers first (which, BTW, is why Kentucky went Union).
1898: putatively a reaction to the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine (in this case, another reaction), again this can be argued to be an agressive war. Not a reaction.
1916: Yet Another Case of Reaction to Provocation; this time when Germany starts unrestricted submarine warfare.
1941. US attacked by Japan, then Germany. AGAIN, a reaction to attack (is a pattern showing, yet??)
1950: defend Korea in face of Communist attack.
1964: defend Vietnam in face of Communist attack.
1991: defend Kuwait by driving out Iraqi agressors.
2003: defend Western civilization against against Islamofascist terrorists by removing a major supporter.
Now, do the words "react" and "defend" show up quite frequently? Why, yes, they do.
Can you cite any war in the above list that started with the United States attacking first? No. Even the two wars one can argue to be aggressive were justified by earlier attacks on US soil or citizens.
Sorry, Ara: in the face of no reputable military historian supporting your claim, and the above series of facts, one must conclude that the United States has acted neither preemptively nor preventively. They have always fought after being attacked.
Nope. You still haven't done it. Sorry. Heh.
Rose: love to, but doubt it, considering my summer class load and the need to work weekends, alas. Right now I'm working on ways to make $1500 pay for $2500 worth of summer classes. :(
I'll figure something out...
Good stuff. Thanks.
Horowitz here.
Sorry, Macartney here.
...but Casey, Casey, Casey:
1941. US attacked by Japan, then Germany.
Not sure I read about that anywhere.
1964: defend Vietnam in face of Communist attack.
Er, do you really want to discuss this within, or without, the context of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Just asking. Doesn't change the rationale for that war,mind you, but then WMD didn't change the rationale for this one.
Another thing about your list: It doesn't mention all the wars we didn't fight because they were rejected by the Commander in Chief as being, um, preventive wars.
Read about Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy rejecting preventive wars with the Soviet Union during the worst days of the Cold War.
Can you say, "Cuban Missile Crisis?"
That's all for now. My kids are taking me out to breakfast then a shopping spree at the bookstore.
Cheers!
oh, Ack, ack. :(
Yep, Germany did not attack the US; they "merely" (heh) declared war on the US.
I plead late night post...
Ara: thanks for the links, I'll check them out when I get some time soon.
As for the Germany "oops": they did declare war on the US before we did on them. In fact, I think it was the only time Hitler officially declared war on anyone, according to one author.
In fact fact: this has always been one of my favorite "what if"s: what if Hitler not declared war on the US? A large number of important members of his administration, as well as the public, was all for jumping on Japan with both feet, and worrying about Europe later.
Anyway, back to the thread. Your remark about undeclared wars begs the question. The question at hand was whether there is a "tradition" of preemptive/preventive war in the United States. By definiton, wars not fought don't count. :)
Not sure where you're going with the Vietnam example? My position is that the US intervened in Vietnam in response to Communist agression. Perhaps I should have used that word instead of attack, to describe the motivation. Is that what you are asking about?
Hmmm. Kennedy's actions during the Cuban Missle Crisis were certainly preventive; he wanted to keep IRBMs out of Cuba. Can that be considered preemptive? First reaction is, no. Russia/Cuba made the first move by installing them, so JFKs moves were in reaction to that.
On the other hand, he did act before they were completely installed, sooo... :)
On the gripping hand, some of the motivations for US concern were the missle and bomber "gaps" percieved at the time. US intelligence was convinced that the Soviets had many, many more bombers (then, later ICBMs) than was the case. This made the IRBMs in Cuba the proverbial last straw for the US. The actual disproportion in favor of America was one of the main reasons Kruschev backed down (and, some say, a major motivation for the next twenty years of Soviet missle construction).
Point here being that the intel analysis was severely different from the reality.
And... Just because it segues back into the current topic so neatly; does this mean that Eisenhower or Kennedy lied about the number of Soviet bombers (and later, missles)? Or just that they accepted current evaluations which indicated that the Soviets had matched, or passed, American production in these spheres? Which evaluations turned out to be, well, not correct in any way...
Remind me to thank you for an an example which undermines your position... :)
Oh, almost forgot: hope you had a good Father's Day.
Did you get the new Benford Mark IX 2,000 hp lawn mower, with the custom afterburner? :)
Casey:
[Print this post]
You're not getting it, my good friend.
Maybe you knowledge of 1960's geopolitics is simply incomplete. If so, go back and read some more about it.
Also, I don't think you're still not getting the distinction between preventive and pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is in response to an imminent threat; think "Six Day War."
Preventive war is war to eliminate the future possibility that the enemy will develop a capability of attack. Think "Pearl Harbor."
Wars not fought don't count."
That's just simply a whacky comment. You're simply wrong.
You must read the accounts of the Cuban Missile Crisis for one. Robert Kennedy couseled POTUS not to acede to the wishes of the Joint Chiefs to launch a strike against Soviet/Cuban forces simply because it would be a preventive war. In fact, by all accounts, he used the Pearl Harbor example as his rationale.
In so doing Robert Kennedy might have averted World War III.
Furthermore, you seem to think that Jack Kennedy's actions were an example of preventive war. Kennedy's actions during the CMC were not war of any kind under any definition of the word that I know of. It was a blockade, etc.
The fact that he did NOT attack is what history notes with such clarity. That is why we call it the "Cuban Missile CRISIS" not the "Cuban WAR." Read more about it, then let's talk.
Re: your comments about intel in that period -- Fareed Zakaria points out that there IS a rich tradition of CIA, etc. OVERestimating the military capability (present and future) (see my list of links posted on DW).
I guess that's better than UNDERestimating it, but in the context of preventive war it can be a dangerous misperception.
And... does this mean that Eisenhower or Kennedy lied about the number of Soviet bombers (and later, missles)?
Could be. But they DIDN'T launch a preventive war based on the assessments. They specifically RESISTED IT.
Perhaps they knew that intel of that sort is potentially illusory, i.e., "threat is in the eye of the beholder."
Maybe they didn't want to risk that their perception was wrong, maybe they thought the consequences of a wrong decision were too horrible to contemplate.
I simply don't know; I'll leave that to the historians.
What I do know is that they (and Truman) rejected preventive war every time it was presented to them.
Remind me to thank you for an an example which undermines your position... :)
Casey, the first time I actually DO that I'll remind you, you can rest assured....
...but until then, you have a lot of studying to do. Maybe after finals are over.
Re: the Hitler example, Horowitz presents a case that the war against Germany WAS pre-emptive as we had not yet been attacked, etc. Seemed kind of dicey to me, Horowitz not being a military historian and all. But, I figured you'd listen to his rationale, him being a high-profile conservative intellectual and all.
Re: the reference to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution -- That was a tangential reference to the proven phoniness of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It was a manufactured event, largely overblown by POTUS and bought by Congress as an excuse to escalate the war in Vietnam.
It is viewed by many historians as a particularly egregious act of, um, spinning and exaggeration and perhaps even lies by POTUS.
It's not a great episode in US history.
Yes, of course, the war in Vietnam was justified, especially given the 20-20 hindsight of history. But that doesn't excuse what POTUS did in his presentation of the Incident as a rationale for the escalation of the war at that time.
Do you understand why I bring it up in the context of WMD argument for war in Iraq?
I'm certainly not the only one who does, although no good deed goes unpunished; I get accused by your crowd of "living in the past" and viewing everything "through the prism of Vietnam" blah blah blah.
But like the guy said, "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it."
Casey,
Before I forget...
I did have a nice Father's Day. Thanks.
Did you get the new Benford Mark IX 2,000 hp lawn mower, with the custom afterburner? :)
Er, no.
:^(
But that does remind me of the time I convinced my kid sister that our vacuum cleaner had an attachment that made it possible to cut our lawn with it.
She didn't speak to me for years after that.
Ara, maybe they rejected it because it would have meant WWIII?
Now, I'm on Casey's side in this tussle, but he's ignoring all of the times we've sent in the Marines to topple pissant dictatorships in this Hemisphere...and as my history professor liked to point out, Polk effectively ran on a one-plank platform of "If I'm elected, by hook or by crook, I'm start a war with Mexico and take the northern half of it, and not run for re-election if I succeed".
I think the preemptive vs. preventitive distinction is slim to vanishing, as I can't even keep it straight in my head for the duration of this thread!
And Ara, guess what? Just like with Korea, we never officially ended hostilities with Iraq, and were bombing them nice and regular for 12 years. We had legal cover for what we did any time we chose 2 months after the damned cease fire. You know what a cease fire is, right? It's different than this thing called a peace treaty...Saddam was begging to get his ass whacked for 12 years, get over it.
David:
"If the ends don't justify the means, what does?"
Ara, I had just finished a long piece replying to you, when I accidentally hit the Escape key, along with some other key. Control-Z didn't bring anything back, nor did anything else. Grrrrr!!!! Too bad there isn't some sort of "intermediate save" function for blogs.
I can't get it back. I'm tired, and I'm NOT about to spend 20 minutes typing it all up again!
I'm happy you had a good Father's Day. I enjoyed your story about the vacuum cleaner! :))
Bottom line is that I know you won't change my mind, and I'm 99.99% sure I'm not going to change yours. I feel you spend too much time changing arguents and (usually) splitting semantic hairs. I recall how you got Dean chasing his own tail over the definition of "racism." Sorry, not going for it. ;-)
David: recall the Marines used to be called the State Department Troops. The motto was: "If they send in the Marines, it's an incident; if they send in the Army, it's a war." Heh.
I'm burnt out on this topic. 86...
I feel you spend too much time changing arguments
Nah. If anything I am stubbornly rigid. Ask anyone who knows me. Especially my kids. I'm your classic broken record.
and (usually) splitting semantic hairs.
Hey dude, words means something. Check it out.
I recall how you got Dean chasing his own tail over the definition of "racism."
As if!