An Excellent Article on WMD

[alchemize]

Link

A relatively long article. The best I've seen from an relatively apolitical and "historical" perspective..

Diehard partisans and tinfoil fanatics of either side need not apply. That will exclude many of you, but maybe my pipe dream of reasonable discussion can come true Logical analysis just isn't as sexy as a 9/11 poll.

 

[chess9]

Alchemize:

Ok, that's a very nice piece, and a good summary of who knew what and when. There is some half-stepping on his part, probably due to his early support for the war, but it is tertiary to his central points.

The important issue he raises is how do we fix our obviously broken intelligence network? The CIA is hopelessly mired in political issues on many fronts and can obviously be pressured to sing on command any tune an adminstration desires.

Also, he demonstrates how easy it was for Bush to launch this pretext war and blame the mistakes on the CIA. Clinton could have done the same. We know Johnson and Nixon manipulated the CIA for their own purposes and I doubt they were the earliest adopters of that approach.

In sum, this is scary business. America must have more reliable, and less politically influenced, intelligence.

Thanks for the excellent post.

-Robert

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Good read. I disagree with his solution and also think it's premature for an article like this, but, nevertheless, he made a lot of good points about the failings of both the administration and the international community.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Good read. I disagree with his solution and also think it's premature for an article like this, but, nevertheless, he made a lot of good points about the failings of both the administration and the international community.

So the whole thing is an Oz event, "Nevermind the Man behind the curtain" , but Bush didn't bother to look behind the Curtian, instead believed in the Almighty Oz.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Good read. I disagree with his solution and also think it's premature for an article like this, but, nevertheless, he made a lot of good points about the failings of both the administration and the international community.

So the whole thing is an Oz event, "Nevermind the Man behind the curtain" , but Bush didn't bother to look behind the Curtian, instead believed in the Almighty Oz.

Diehard partisans and tinfoil fanatics of either side need not apply.

 

[Czar]

almost half way through it and I must say, excelent article

Both sides appear to be at least partly right. The intelligence community did overestimate the scope and progress of Iraq's WMD programs, although not to the extent that many people believe. The Administration stretched those estimates to make a case not only for going to war but for doing so at once, rather than taking the time to build regional and international support for military action.

this summaries what I have read so far, there is no one to blame but this is a series of events that lead to where we are now

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Good article, thnx alchemize.

As best I can tell, these officials were guilty not of lying but of creative omission. They discussed only those elements of intelligence estimates that served their cause.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So the whole thing is an Oz event, "Nevermind the Man behind the curtain" , but Bush didn't bother to look behind the Curtian, instead believed in the Almighty Oz.

Despite the flippant nature, this statement is partially correct. If you buy Pollack's argument then Bushies received "summaries" from OSP and summaries from State et al. Ultimately, only material that met "Cheney/Rumsfeld" criteria likely made it's way up to Bush . . . which at that point was likely reduced to bullets on a PowerPoint (or one page summary in 16pt).

By his own admission, Bush likes to manage not micromanage. The "men" behind the curtain (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Bolton, et al) were not challenged by Bush b/c IMHO 1) Bush trusted them to tell him the truth, 2) they typically told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, and 3) Bush has a low tolerance for complexity and nuance.

Pollack makes an excellent case for a cooperative approach to evaluate (and then disarm) Iraq. Ultimately, the French position (more intrusive inspections) was the right position if the French were committed to transparency and total WMD disarmament of Saddam. If not then the French position was just intransigence. The Germans were against war under any circumstances while the British and Spanish appeared to be eager to fight but I doubt they would have opposed a truly cooperative/coordinated inspections regime with an international mandate. In sum the only obstinate ones were the US and Germany.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So the whole thing is an Oz event, "Nevermind the Man behind the curtain" , but Bush didn't bother to look behind the Curtian, instead believed in the Almighty Oz.

If the "man behind the curtain" would have micromanaged you at your last job, you probably wouldn't have installed the distributed clients like you did. While you'll never understand this, when you run a large organization, you hire people you trust. You trust these people to make decisions, because one person cannot. Just like you made a mistake, other people do to. It's hard to tell when you hire a computer guy if he's going to actually do his job or if he's going to spend his time stealing your electricity and bandwidth to further his own personal interests.

 

[dirtboy]

When we invaded and started not finding things, I began to think that perhaps Saddam was playing poker with a poor hand and that he was trying to bluff his way to winning the hand. Looks like he made a pretty big mistake.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
When we invaded and started not finding things, I began to think that perhaps Saddam was playing poker with a poor hand and that he was trying to bluff his way to winning the hand. Looks like he made a pretty big mistake.

Heh, it seems to be so. Good article. He knows what he is talking about, if you do any investigating on what he did

 

[glenn1]

Good job posting this. I found it while i was at work today, and was going to post it when i got home (can't visit Anandtech from work unfortunately) and was happy to see you already had.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is an excellent article. I haven't seen anything else with this much breadth and depth, presented by someone so obviously well-informed and thoughtful. He also seems to be pretty fair and balanced, if you'll pardon the expression. I don't agree with all of his opinions and speculation, but I came out of it respecting them.

I discussed the article with a staunchly conservative friend. It was fascinating to note the differences in what we took away from it. There's something in it for everyone. Overall, however, it shifted both of us a little closer to center. Thanks, alchemize.

 

[Dari]

I guess it makes Howard the Duck's whole campaign worthless, right? As many, including myself, have stated on this board countless times, everyone thought Iraq had WMDs. The French were never "right" on anything. But since we can't find WMDs, people start calling Bush a liar, which is totally unfair.

As I've stated many times, and this article vouches for it, the reason why we invaded Iraq and used the WMDs as a reason was because Hussein had violated so many international laws, the most important ones being 16 Article VII resolutions that came about after Desert Storm. If he, Hussein, had been a good boy and minded his own business and didn't bother his neighbors, there wouldn't be so much noise about his legal (but not illegal) WMDs. But his very recklessness made him a target.

While I don't have the credibility (on this topic) of the author of this article, I've pointed to many other articles similar to this by senior figures countless times. I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari
I guess it makes Howard the Duck's whole campaign worthless, right? As many, including myself, have stated on this board countless times, everyone thought Iraq had WMDs. The French were never "right" on anything. But since we can't find WMDs, people start calling Bush a liar, which is totally unfair.

As I've stated many times, and this article vouches for it, the reason why we invaded Iraq and used the WMDs as a reason was because Hussein had violated so many international laws, the most important ones being 16 Article VII resolutions that came about after Desert Storm. If he, Hussein, had been a good boy and minded his own business and didn't bother his neighbors, there wouldn't be so much noise about his legal (but not illegal) WMDs. But his very recklessness made him a target.

Where, specifically, does the article vouch for your theory? Can you quote the corroborating paragraph(s)? It doesn't seem to mesh with this comment, near the conclusion: "That said, the case for war?and for war sooner rather than later?was certainly less compelling than it appeared at the time. At the very least we should recognize that the Administration's rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003. It appears even more reckless in light of what we know today."

 

[glenn1]

At the very least we should recognize that the Administration's rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003.

Bush formally laid out the case for war in his "Axis of Evil" January 2002 State of the Union speech, if not earlier (other threads are saying he took office planning for it). January 2002 to March 2003 is 14 months. That's an awfully slow "rush" to war if you ask me.

 

[burnedout]

A superbly written piece that seeks to explain a number of assertions, perceptions and misconceptions. Thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: glenn1

At the very least we should recognize that the Administration's rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003.

Bush formally laid out the case for war in his "Axis of Evil" January 2002 State of the Union speech, if not earlier (other threads are saying he took office planning for it). January 2002 to March 2003 is 14 months. That's an awfully slow "rush" to war if you ask me.

This reinforces the claim there was a rush to war, in my opinion. It suggests Bush & Co. were eager to invade Iraq, that the decision came before the justification.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: glenn1

At the very least we should recognize that the Administration's rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003.

Bush formally laid out the case for war in his "Axis of Evil" January 2002 State of the Union speech, if not earlier (other threads are saying he took office planning for it). January 2002 to March 2003 is 14 months. That's an awfully slow "rush" to war if you ask me.

This reinforces the claim there was a rush to war, in my opinion. It suggests Bush & Co. were eager to invade Iraq, that the decision came before the justification.

There was a justification?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ignorance and arrogance . . . the Bush administration's position compelled them to act despite a lack of good information and even when proven wrong (on the majority of issues) they cannot admit to the obvious flaws in their reasoning and methods.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
I guess it makes Howard the Duck's whole campaign worthless, right? As many, including myself, have stated on this board countless times, everyone thought Iraq had WMDs. The French were never "right" on anything. But since we can't find WMDs, people start calling Bush a liar, which is totally unfair.

As I've stated many times, and this article vouches for it, the reason why we invaded Iraq and used the WMDs as a reason was because Hussein had violated so many international laws, the most important ones being 16 Article VII resolutions that came about after Desert Storm. If he, Hussein, had been a good boy and minded his own business and didn't bother his neighbors, there wouldn't be so much noise about his legal (but not illegal) WMDs. But his very recklessness made him a target.

Where, specifically, does the article vouch for your theory? Can you quote the corroborating paragraph(s)? It doesn't seem to mesh with this comment, near the conclusion: "That said, the case for war?and for war sooner rather than later?was certainly less compelling than it appeared at the time. At the very least we should recognize that the Administration's rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003. It appears even more reckless in light of what we know today."

Reckless is such a strong word. I prefer "eager." After 12 years of non-cooperation, 16 UN resolutions, and 9/11, the Bush Administration was eager to get rid of this problem before it became an even bigger headache.

 

[DealMonkey]

A truly great article.

My cliff notes: U.S. and Int'l intel agencies missed many important internal shifts inside Iraq. Over-reliance on UNSCOM and not enough of our own hard intel resulted in an overestimation of Iraq's WMDs, especially after 1998. Inspections worked to a degree and so did sanctions, however Saddam tried to hang on to at least a bare minimum needed to restart WMD programs after sanctions and inspections were ended. Pollack spends some time discussing how the current administration sensationalized the worst-case scenarios based on speculous intel cherry-picked by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Finally, I agree most strongly with some of his final comments:

"Finally, the U.S. government must admit to the world that it was wrong about Iraq's WMD and show that it is taking far-reaching action to correct the problems that led to this error."

Sadly, I doubt that will happen with this adminstration.

 

[Dari]

Let's not see this article as a final conclusion to the Iraqi WMD debate. It is currently a work in progress. If anything, I won't doubt that this author will be revising this article, not unlike what Francis Fukuyama did with his End of History dictum.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

No doubt Pollack will make revisions as we know more but curiously the Bush administration has made NONE. That's the most damning aspect of this BS policy . . . even when virtually all available evidence points in the opposite direction the administration merely massages it's talking points into "today's rationale for invading Iraq."

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
No doubt Pollack will make revisions as we know more but curiously the Bush administration has made NONE. That's the most damning aspect of this BS policy . . . even when virtually all available evidence points in the opposite direction the administration merely massages it's talking points into "today's rationale for invading Iraq."

The assessments are probably internal. And, as the author points out, such things should stay private.

As for the WMDs, it has had wide-ranging consequences from the Maghreb, to the Middle East, to Northeast Asia. It's difficult work, but Bush has gotten people acting as opposed to just talking.