The decade long build-up to the Iraq War

[Taco John]

There's been some debate here over the build-up to the Iraq war. Some contend that it's a phenomenon that materialized due to 9/11. Others (myself included) recognize that this has been a war a decade in the making by key players behind the scenes.

I wanted to eliminate this confusion by posting a documentary by PBS Frontline which peels back the layers and shows what (and WHO) got us to the point we are today. And neither Republicans or Democrats come away from this thing clean.

If anything, this documentary is fair to the actors involved.

It is broken up into 6 ten minute "acts." I highly recommend everybody watch the program.

Click "View the Full Program Online" to see the video (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/)

[patteeu]

I'm curious about who was saying "it's a phenomenon that materialized due to 9/11" and what that means? It's common knowledge, AFAIK, that there were serious foreign policy intellectuals from both parties who argued for regime change in Iraq long before 9/11.

[Taco John]

Just watch it... There are some gems on both sides that everybody will appreciate.

[patteeu]

Just watch it... There are some gems on both sides that everybody will appreciate.

OK, I'll have to try to catch it tomorrow.

[BucEyedPea]

When are you going to get cable?
Cripes, you're a Republican and you're on dial-up! :hmmm: :p

[Taco John]

BTW... In post 4 of this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=167593&page=1&pp=15), you disputed "the narrative about how the administration came to power gunning for Iraq."

[Cochise]

I'm curious about who was saying "it's a phenomenon that materialized due to 9/11" and what that means? It's common knowledge, AFAIK, that there were serious foreign policy intellectuals from both parties who argued for regime change in Iraq long before 9/11.

I think history down the road may write it as a continuation of the first gulf war, in the same way that one could see WW2 as something of a continuation of WW1 as the latter was lacking a tenable long-term resolution.

As in WW1, the winning side did not go on to topple the offending regime and the losing side was stuck with a ceasefire they did not agree with, and was weakened but left capable of eventually resuming the same belligerent behavior and the two sides ended up with the same basic disagreements in some ways.

[Adept Havelock]

When are you going to get cable?
Cripes, you're a Republican and you're on dial-up! :hmmm: :p

If only the telegraph supported TCP/IP...

[MahiMike]

No one wins a war

[Adept Havelock]

No one wins a war

The city fathers of Carthage would beg to differ. [/Du Bois]

[StcChief]

10 years... how about since ~1967

[BucEyedPea]

No one wins a war
In many ways this is true. Each side loses something even if one wins the physical battle. You have to also win the peace not just the physical battles. This doesn't seem to happen when a war is unjust.It just plays out in other ways.

[patteeu]

BTW... In post 4 of this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=167593&page=1&pp=15), you disputed "the narrative about how the administration came to power gunning for Iraq."

Well, to be accurate, that's not really a case of disputing the theory. It's a case of pointing out a potential inconsistency in two different narratives. My own view is that the apparent inconsistency is easily resolvable, but I doubt that many Cheney critics accept that nuanced resolution. I think Cheney believed what he said in support of the original decision to stop short of Baghdad in GW I but that at some point during the intervening years, he decided that the sanctions and containment strategy were failing and that regime change was necessary, one way or another. I don't think Bush came to power gunning for Iraq although he may have been receptive to the neocon view of the middle east and I don't think Cheney or any of the other key administration officials are insincere in their view of the GWoT and Iraq's centrality to their GWoT strategy.

P.S. IOW, I don't think the administration used 9/11 as an excuse for the Iraq war, I think they saw it as confirmation of their view of the big picture in the middle east (involving radical islamists, terrorism, rogue states, and the Israeli/palestinian conflict) and they saw Iraq as a key step toward addressing that big picture. Disrupting al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the equivalent of treating a symptom. Cheney and others wanted to address the disease.

[patteeu]

No one wins a war

:spock:

I'm so glad you decided to post today. Every circus needs a clown.

[Taco John]

Just wanted to give this a bump. I think it's an important documentary. Put it on in the background while you work.