PDA

View Full Version : Devestating: 500 Natl. Security Specialists call Bush Iraq policy a "disaster."


Taco John
10-14-2004, 02:58 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=14&u=/oneworld/4536958861097601506


Security Scholars Say Iraq War Most Misguided Policy Since Vietnam

Tue Oct 12, 1:21 PM ET World - OneWorld.net


Jim Lobe, OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct 12 (OneWorld) – The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) has been the “most misguided” policy since the Vietnam War, according to an open letter signed by some 500 U.S. national-security specialists.


The letter, released Tuesday by a Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy (S3FP), said that the current situation in Iraq could have been much better had the Bush administration heeded the advice of some of its most experienced career military and foreign service officers.


But the administration’s failure to do so has actually fueled “the violent opposition to the U.S. military presence,” as well as the intervention of terrorists from outside Iraq.


“The results of this policy have been overwhelmingly negative for U.S. interests,” according to the group which called for a “fundamental reassessment” in both the U.S. strategy in Iraq and its implementation.


“We’re advising the administration, which is already in a deep hole, to stop digging,” said Prof. Barry Posen, the Ford International Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites) (MIT), one of the organizers of S3FP which includes some of the most eminent U.S. experts on both national-security policy and on the Middle East and the Arab world.


Among the signers are six of the last seven presidents of the American Political Science Association (APSA) and professors teach in more than 150 colleges and universities in 40 states.


Besides Posen, the main organizers included Stanley Kaufman of the University of Delaware; Michael Brown, director of Security Studies at Georgetown University; Michael Desch, who holds the Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security Decision-Making at the Bush School of government at Texas A & M University; and Jessica Stern, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, who also served in a senior counter-terrorism post in the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.


“I think it is telling that so many specialists on international relations, who rarely agree on anything, are unified in their position on the high costs that the U.S. is incurring from this war,” said Prof. Robert Keohane of Duke University in North Carolina.


Their critique mirrors an unprecedented statement released by 27 retired top-ranking foreign service and military officials last June, any of whom said they had voted for Bush in the 2000 election.


The 27, called Diplomats for Change, accused the administration of the country “into an ill-planned and costly war from which exist is uncertain and charged that the March 2003 invasion.” As their name suggested, they called for Bush to be defeated in 2004.


The new statement’s signatories also includes a number of retired government officials – some career military and foreign-service officers, other political appointees in Democratic and Republican administrations – who are currently working at colleges and universities.


Much of their critique echoes arguments voiced by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) who, in recent weeks, has pounded way at alleged failures in the way Bush has prosecuted the “war on terrorism,” particularly with respect to Iraq.


“We judge that the current American policy centered around the war in Iraq is the most misguided one since the Vietnam period, one which harms the cause of the struggle against extreme Islamist terrorists,” S3FP writes.


“One result has been a great distortion instead of facts, on mythology instead of calculation, and on misplaced moralizing over considerations of national interest,” they wrote.


The scholars applauded the Bush administration for its initial focus on destroying al-Qaida’s bases in Afghanistan (news - web sites), they charged that its subsequent “failure to engage sufficient U.S. troops to capture or kill the mass of al-Qaida fighters in the alter stages of that war was a great blunder.”


“It is a fact that the early shift of U.S. focus to Iraq diverted U.S. resources, including special operations forces and intelligence capabilities, away from direct pursuit of the fight against the terrorists.”


The letter noted that “many of the justifications” provided by the administration for the Iraq war, including an operational relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and Iraq’s programs for weapons of mass destruction (WMD), have proven “untrue” and that North Korea (news - web sites) and Pakistan pose much greater risks of nuclear proliferation to terrorists.





“Even on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious: the war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and unknown thousands of Iraqis, and if the threat of civil war becomes reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein.”

Since the invasion, “policy errors …have created a situation in Iraq worse than it needed to be,” according to the letter which noted that the administration ignored advice from the Army Chief of Staff on the need for many more U.S. troops to provide security and from the State Department and other U.S. agencies on how reconstruction could be carried out.

“As a result, Iraqi popular dismay at the lack of security, jobs or reliable electric power fuels much of the violent opposition to the U.S. military presence, while the war itself has drawn in terrorists from outside Iraq.”

While Saddam’s removal was “desirable,” according to the scholars, the actual benefit to the United States was “small,” particular in light of the fact that Iraq posed far less of a threat to the U.S. or its allies than the administration had asserted.

“On the negative side, the excessive U.S. focus on Iraq led to weak and inadequate responses to the greater challenges posed by North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear programs, and diverted resources from the economic and diplomatic efforts needed to fight terrorism in its breeding grounds in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East.”

Worse, the occupation’s failures, such as the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere, have acted as a recruitment tool for al-Qaida and similar groups throughout the region, according to the letter.

“Recognizing these negative consequences of the Iraq war, in addition to the cost in lives and money, we believe that a fundamental reassessment is in order,” the letter said.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 03:00 AM
Boy if you thought a letter signed by 45 smear-boaters was bad, you probably don't like the looks of this at all...

It's going to be amusing watching 500 U.S. national-security specialists get their credentials bashed without a single comment to the substance that they've raised.

Kraut
10-14-2004, 03:21 AM
Sure it is easy to say it was a mistake now that things are bad. Where were these people before we went into war. It seemed everybody was for it. Nobody brought up the fact that we could get caught in a Vietnam type situation. It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback.

the Talking Can
10-14-2004, 05:37 AM
Sure it is easy to say it was a mistake now that things are bad. Where were these people before we went into war. It seemed everybody was for it. Nobody brought up the fact that we could get caught in a Vietnam type situation. It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback.

uh, everybody was not for the war....the polls made that clear, that's why they had to tell so many lies...

jspchief
10-14-2004, 06:18 AM
Strange that a bunch of college professors are bashing a Republican President. I wonder how many of them are registered Democrats? Just ignore those shoes that are 8 inches taller on the left foot...they hide the severe lean.

and Jessica Stern, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, who also served in a senior counter-terrorism post in the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.
And we all know how well Clinton handled the terrorists under her guidance....


In other shocking news....Peace organizations in America strongly oppose war.

KCTitus
10-14-2004, 06:34 AM
“Even on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious: the war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and unknown thousands of Iraqis, and if the threat of civil war becomes reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein.”

I find it ironic that the useage of 'moral grounds' is used in this statement considering they stated that Iraq was 'safer' under Saddam...that's just awful--even on moral grounds.

“As a result, Iraqi popular dismay at the lack of security, jobs or reliable electric power fuels much of the violent opposition to the U.S. military presence, while the war itself has drawn in terrorists from outside Iraq.”

That's not the reason for the opposition. This is ludicrous

While Saddam’s removal was “desirable,” according to the scholars, the actual benefit to the United States was “small,” particular in light of the fact that Iraq posed far less of a threat to the U.S. or its allies than the administration had asserted.

This contradicts the first quoted paragraph.

I guess it's not comforting to me, to understand more about this situation than these 500 people who consider themselves 'specialists'.

Thanks for the info, Teej.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 06:42 AM
500 liberal "security specialists" get together to predictably criticize the President....how surprising!

What are their credentials, party affiliation, and track record?

Aren't these largely that same criticisms we've been hearing for over a year now....how is this anything "new?"

Bet I could get 500 conservatives to do the same...

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 07:07 AM
500 liberal "security specialists" get together to predictably criticize the President....how surprising!

What are their credentials, party affiliation, and track record?

Aren't these largely that same criticisms we've been hearing for over a year now....how is this anything "new?"

Bet I could get 500 conservatives to do the same...

An increasing number of conservatives have come out against the war or were against it from the beginning. Michael Savage Tucker Carlson a few in the press. Brent Scrowcoft, Lawrence Eagleberger, Pat Buchanan before the invasion. The numbers are increasing...

I doubt you could 500 conservatives willing to risk their creditials by saying this war was an effective use of force or even a productive foreign policy.

Radar Chief
10-14-2004, 07:23 AM
An increasing number of conservatives have come out against the war or were against it from the beginning. Michael Savage Tucker Carlson a few in the press. Brent Scrowcoft, Lawrence Eagleberger, Pat Buchanan before the invasion. The numbers are increasing...

I doubt you could 500 conservatives willing to risk their creditials by saying this war was an effective use of force or even a productive foreign policy.

:spock: Not to pick at nits, but I take it you haven’t listened his show?

penchief
10-14-2004, 07:26 AM
Sure it is easy to say it was a mistake now that things are bad. Where were these people before we went into war. It seemed everybody was for it. Nobody brought up the fact that we could get caught in a Vietnam type situation. It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback.

Excuse me? There were people everywhere who second-guessed the wisdom of this administration at the time they were blundering. This article even points that out. Those who dared question their policies, their statements, or their tact were mercilessly crucified by right-wing nut jobs and attacked by the administration itself.

Ignoring the pragmatic advice of many a career public servant in almost any arena has been one of the staples of this administration. In fact, they wear their contempt for expertise and science as a badge of honor.

What goes around comes around. Unfortunately, innocent people will continue to suffer the consequences of this administration's self-righteous, yet misguided (and sometimes amazingly ignorant) approach to governance.

Cochise
10-14-2004, 07:33 AM
DEVATSTATING!!!11

:rolleyes:

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 08:03 AM
:spock: Not to pick at nits, but I take it you haven’t listened his show?


I absolutely have. He rants on the 'Islamofacists' but also takes exception with the policy that DUHbya has implemented and the 'disaster' (his word) that has become Iraq.

Radar Chief
10-14-2004, 08:40 AM
I absolutely have. He rants on the 'Islamofacists' but also takes exception with the policy that DUHbya has implemented and the 'disaster' (his word) that has become Iraq.

Then you also know that he’s a huge backer of the Iraq theater of the WOT. He’s just biatching about how it’s being waged, course Savage just loves to biatch period so take that for what it’s worth.

RINGLEADER
10-14-2004, 09:05 AM
Why didn't you call them "scholars" like the original story did Taco?

Securing democracy in the middle east is the most misguided plan since Vietnam? Seems to me if you change all the countries currently supporting terrorism into democracies that no longer support terrorism then that's a pretty good idea and one that prevents state-sponsored terrorism.

Invading Iraq doesn't solve the problem on its own, but it is a step in the right direction.

Ugly Duck
10-14-2004, 09:08 AM
I find it ironic that the useage of 'moral grounds' is used in this statement considering they stated that Iraq was 'safer' under Saddam...that's just awful--even on moral grounds

?? They didn't "state that Iraq was safer under Sodom".... they said "if civil war becomes a reality, ordinary Iraqis could be worse off than they were under Sodom." Big difference.

Unless you're a BushCo supporter and are used to treating distortion as fact.

Hel'n
10-14-2004, 09:08 AM
Boy if you thought a letter signed by 45 smear-boaters was bad, you probably don't like the looks of this at all...

It's going to be amusing watching 500 U.S. national-security specialists get their credentials bashed without a single comment to the substance that they've raised.


shhhh... they don't wanna hear that...

Cochise
10-14-2004, 09:09 AM
:spock: Not to pick at nits, but I take it you haven’t listened his show?

I think what is eluding her is that he is the the Republican party what Ralph Nader is to the Democrats.

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:11 AM
?? They didn't "state that Iraq was safer under Sodom".... they said "if civil war becomes a reality, ordinary Iraqis could be worse off than they were under Sodom." Big difference.

Unless you're a BushCo supporter and are used to treating distortion as fact.

pavlov's littter.

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:12 AM
shhhh... they don't wanna hear that...

pavlov's litter.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 09:15 AM
Nobody brought up the fact that we could get caught in a Vietnam type situation.



Uh... That was exactly the argument people made who were against the war. I wasn't one of them. I was fooled by the "45-minute" capability and all the other stuff that was trumped up.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 09:18 AM
Why didn't you call them "scholars" like the original story did Taco?




ROFL



The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) has been the “most misguided” policy since the Vietnam War, according to an open letter signed by some 500 U.S. national-security specialists.



You can almost see the foam coming out of Wingleader's mouth...

Brock
10-14-2004, 09:20 AM
Something tells me nobody cares.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:26 AM
ROFL





You can almost see the foam coming out of Wingleader's mouth...

Are you serious?

You post an article clearly designed to promote your point of view...and one that objective people can disagree about the credibility of....and RL points that out, and you launch into personal attacks couched in humor?

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:27 AM
Are you serious?

You post an article clearly designed to promote your point of view...and one that objective people can disagree about the credibility of....and RL points that out, and you launch into personal attacks couched in humor?

smart kid.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:29 AM
smart kid.

I get that a lot; if only you knew....

Taco John
10-14-2004, 09:41 AM
Are you serious?

You post an article clearly designed to promote your point of view...and one that objective people can disagree about the credibility of....and RL points that out, and you launch into personal attacks couched in humor?



Yeah, I'm serious. I think it's hilarious.

An article designed to promote my point of view? Yeah, that doesn't get done around here, does it kid? People disagree with the credibility of? It's EXACTLY what I predicted:

Boy if you thought a letter signed by 45 smear-boaters was bad, you probably don't like the looks of this at all...

It's going to be amusing watching 500 U.S. national-security specialists get their credentials bashed without a single comment to the substance that they've raised.


If "foam coming out of Wingleader's mouth" is the worst personal attack couched in humor that this board sees, we should all be thankful.

Nice try, kid. You're a good little lamb, of that there is no doubt.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 09:42 AM
I get that a lot; if only you knew....


ROFL


Everybody falls all over themselves to tell you how smart you are when you toe the line.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 09:43 AM
Something tells me nobody cares.



You do. See post #22.

stevieray
10-14-2004, 09:45 AM
ROFL


Everybody falls all over themselves to tell you how smart you are when you toe the line.

Keep up the good work jenson, the response and veiled insult shows you that you read him like a book.

jettio
10-14-2004, 09:47 AM
Somebody needs to tell those pinheads that Freedom is on the March now that major military combat operations are over and that the insurgency will die after Saddam's capture.

It is all the media's fault that the only report today is off a terrorist attack in the Green Zone and that if it would only cover the grand opening of the Baghdad montesorri school these know-it-alls would shut up.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:47 AM
Keep up the good work jenson, the response and veiled insult shows you that you read him like a book.

Anyone who has lurked here as long as I have knows what Taco is; a baiting troll who tries to hide his insults behind rhetoric and pseudo-intellectual garbage that he is masquerading as reasoned and objective analysis. He obviously gets a daily copy of Kerry's talking points.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 09:49 AM
Somebody needs to tell those pinheads that Freedom is on the March now that major military combat operations are over and that the insurgency will die after Saddam's capture.

It is all the media's fault that the only report today is off a terrorist attack in the Green Zone and that if it would only cover the grand opening of the Baghdad montesorri school these know-it-alls would shut up.

You honestly didn't EXPECT an increase in terrorism leading up to our November election, AND the Iraqi election early next year?

Wow; that's blind.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 09:53 AM
Keep up the good work jenson, the response and veiled insult shows you that you read him like a book.



The old "It's true because I said it."

Read me like a book! ROFL

What an empty statement. Empty statements aren't empty indicators though. So by that regard, I appreciate them.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 09:54 AM
Anyone who has lurked here as long as I have knows what Taco is; a baiting troll who tries to hide his insults behind rhetoric and pseudo-intellectual garbage that he is masquerading as reasoned and objective analysis. He obviously gets a daily copy of Kerry's talking points.


Wow... He even got in the "Kerry's talking points" jab. The Farce is strong in this one. Wingleader has taught you well.

Nice job kid.

Kraut
10-14-2004, 10:03 AM
Excuse me? There were people everywhere who second-guessed the wisdom of this administration at the time they were blundering. This article even points that out. Those who dared question their policies, their statements, or their tact were mercilessly crucified by right-wing nut jobs and attacked by the administration itself.

Ignoring the pragmatic advice of many a career public servant in almost any arena has been one of the staples of this administration. In fact, they wear their contempt for expertise and science as a badge of honor.

What goes around comes around. Unfortunately, innocent people will continue to suffer the consequences of this administration's self-righteous, yet misguided (and sometimes amazingly ignorant) approach to governance.
When was the point of blunder in your eyes? All I know is that Bush's approval ratings when we were going into Iraq and kicking ass to start the war was high. If there were so many people out there against war then why were his numbers high? If I was against it i would not have given him a good rating. Even Bush basher Howard Stern was in favor of going into Iraq.

Brock
10-14-2004, 10:05 AM
Anyone who has lurked here as long as I have knows what Taco is; a baiting troll who tries to hide his insults behind rhetoric and pseudo-intellectual garbage that he is masquerading as reasoned and objective analysis. He obviously gets a daily copy of Kerry's talking points.

Funny because it's true.

Kraut
10-14-2004, 10:07 AM
Uh... That was exactly the argument people made who were against the war. I wasn't one of them. I was fooled by the "45-minute" capability and all the other stuff that was trumped up.
And the number of people who argued that before the war were small. The talk was that we had learned our lesson in Nam. The anti war movement is always lurking no matter what war or conflict we get into.

penchief
10-14-2004, 10:29 AM
When was the point of blunder in your eyes? All I know is that Bush's approval ratings when we were going into Iraq and kicking ass to start the war was high. If there were so many people out there against war then why were his numbers high? If I was against it i would not have given him a good rating. Even Bush basher Howard Stern was in favor of going into Iraq.

His prosecution of the entire episode is what is at question. Many of US believed that Saddam had to be dealt with but not in the haphazard and incompetent manner in which it was done by the White House.

Many of us complained about the way in which they belittled and demeaned those career servants in the military, the intelligence agencies, foreign affairs and Mid-Eastern experts, and members of both political parties who disagreed with their ideologically driven prosecution of the war.

Besides, this goes way beyond Iraq. This is about their approach to everything. Whether it is the environment, the economy, or anything else for that matter they simply have no regard for any opinion that does not fall directly in line with their very narrow and rigid ideology designed to cater to their corporate allies or their moral self-righteousness.

Experts in all fields, our traditional allies, and American citizens have all been on the receiving end of this administration's misguided contempt. All you have to do is ask "Old Europe," Joseph Wilson, or those unpatriotic and traitorous American citizens who "gave aid and comfort to the terrorists" by speaking out against Bush/Cheney's gross mismanagement of the war.

Yet there are many who are content to eat their freedom fries and become drunk with self-righteous indignation instead of opening their eyes to the reality of the situation, ala Bush and Cheney themselves.

Brock
10-14-2004, 10:31 AM
Experts in all fields, our traditional allies, and American citizens have all been on the receiving end of this administration's misguided contempt. All you have to do is ask "Old Europe," Joseph Wilson, or those unpatriotic and traitorous American citizens who "gave aid and comfort to the terrorists" by speaking out against Bush/Cheney's gross mismanagement of the war.

yeah - ask Old Europe, especially the ones who had their lips firmly around Saddam's wang for oil.

unlurking
10-14-2004, 10:35 AM
yeah - ask Old Europe, especially the ones who had their lips firmly around Saddam's wang for oil.
As did Cheney, lest we forget Haliburton's role in the oil-for-food program.

Brock
10-14-2004, 10:36 AM
As did Cheney, lest we forget Haliburton's role in the oil-for-food program.

Was Halliburton trading guns for oil?

unlurking
10-14-2004, 10:45 AM
Was Halliburton trading guns for oil?
Rebuilding and supplying oil-industry equipment so that Iraq could make money selling oil in attempts to buy WMD (as seems to be the gist of the attacks against those who purchased oil or provided infrastructure support).

For the record, I agree with holding foreign entities responsible involved with this program. I just think we should view domestic entities in the same light.

penchief
10-14-2004, 10:48 AM
yeah - ask Old Europe, especially the ones who had their lips firmly around Saddam's wang for oil.

Yeah, they had to nudge Cheney and Halliburton aside to get to that teet.

penchief
10-14-2004, 10:56 AM
yeah - ask Old Europe, especially the ones who had their lips firmly around Saddam's wang for oil.

That doesn't explain away the fact that they treat everyone that disagrees with them in the same manner. Did Valerie Plame deserve what she got? Did Americans deserve to be lied to? Did Americans that disagreed with the president's approach deserve to be marginalized?

When there is a clear pattern of behavior it becomes very difficult to justify that consistent pattern as simply reactions to the individual conditions related to a particular issue. It is more likely that it is a direct result of their standard operating procedure.

If you need any other proof all you have to do is look at how this administration has never once take responsibility for anything that has gone wrong. Instead they alway found a way to point the finger at someone else.

You can't always be right. And you can't always be a horse's ass in the way you conduct the people's business or else you are going to find yourself in the type of predicament that this president has put our country in, both internationally and domestically.

6 Iron
10-14-2004, 11:08 AM
Taco,

I also was misled by the thread title; I thought it would be referring to former state dept officials, ambassadors, etc. Reading the posted article and seeing that it is actually the Poli Sci departments of 140 universities, clearly implies a different perspective.

You often make good points, even if I disagree with many of them. The patronizing tone of your responses here does nothing for your argument.

Jenson17
10-14-2004, 11:10 AM
...You often make good points, even if I disagree with many of them. The patronizing tone of your responses here does nothing for your argument.

His arrogance and condescension is only exceeded by his ideological zealotry and moral naivite'.

Kraut
10-14-2004, 11:30 AM
That doesn't explain away the fact that they treat everyone that disagrees with them in the same manner. Did Valerie Plame deserve what she got? Did Americans deserve to be lied to? Did Americans that disagreed with the president's approach deserve to be marginalized?

When there is a clear pattern of behavior it becomes very difficult to justify that consistent pattern as simply reactions to the individual conditions related to a particular issue. It is more likely that it is a direct result of their standard operating procedure.

If you need any other proof all you have to do is look at how this administration has never once take responsibility for anything that has gone wrong. Instead they alway found a way to point the finger at someone else.

You can't always be right. And you can't always be a horse's ass in the way you conduct the people's business or else you are going to find yourself in the type of predicament that this president has put our country in, both internationally and domestically.
blah blah blah blah...... :rolleyes:

KCWolfman
10-14-2004, 11:32 AM
Damn, I agree with Taco, 100%

Taco John
10-14-2004, 05:37 PM
His arrogance and condescension is only exceeded by his ideological zealotry and moral naivite'.



ROFL


The kid is on a rohllllll....

Too bad the boy couldn't give any examples of what he charges me with. But the fact that he could get the words out will be enough to get him some pats on the head.

You go, kid.

I'll tell you what, boy... When I want to be lectured by a little kid about ideological zealotry and moral naivite by a snot-nosed brat, I'll take Slayer off ignore.

Taco John
10-14-2004, 05:38 PM
Oh wait... Let me guess... You're just as mature as a 30-year old, just without the full-time job, paying taxes, or having a mortgage...

Got it... ROFL