7000 dead, 40,000 wounded

[Ron]

Pat asks some good questions and makes some good observations.

Some time ago I repented and asked God for forgiveness for my support of the warmongering.

That doesn’t do anything to undue the damage done. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to be gaslighted by the warmongers any longer.

Other than direct action against the 9/11 perpetrators the rest was illegitimate.

https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2019/01/01/how-the-war-party-lost-the-middle-east-n2538314

[makattak]

I'm not surprised by this take from Pat Buchanan.

I think we most definitely should have invaded Afghanistan (if we weren't willing to nuke them) and Iraq as an example of what happens when you anger the U.S.

And, unless we were willing to go full colonization, we should have wiped out the governments and left. (With a warning to Iran that we'll be back if they try anything.)

But, since we have people who want a "kinder, gentler" war, we get half measures and compromise that doesn't help the people on the ground long-term and costs our military lives and limbs.

If we don't have the moral fortitude to do what needs to be done (and, as a country, we don't), we shouldn't use half-measures.

[slugcatcher]

This is what happens when you fight a war half-ass.  War is horrible.  That's the point.  Making it as sanitary as possible kind of takes away a lot of the negative impact.  If were going to go to war then we need to go to war.  It would be shorter and less expensive in American lives and money than what we've done since 9/11.  The middle east only understands brute force and violence of action.  It's their way and has been for a very long time.  Anything else is seen as weakness.  

[MechAg94]

I can't disagree.  We have done a lot of intervention over there for good and bad reasons and often made things worse and less stable.  I think it would be a good idea to pull back and see what lack of intervention achieves.  I am tired of these "occupation wars".  I am just happy to see we have brave men and women still willing to volunteer for our military despite all these foreign wars over the last 20 years.

One thing I recall hearing a while back was comparing current US activities versus China.  They mentioned that if you see US organizations overseas it is govt groups or some sort of charity or govt funded group.  If you see Chinese, it is Chinese businessmen doing business.  The guy mentioned it used to be US businessmen all over the world with less govt involvement.  Just something I thought I would add.

[Ben]

This is what happens when you fight a war half-ass.  War is horrible.  That's the point.  Making it as sanitary as possible kind of takes away a lot of the negative impact.  If were going to go to war then we need to go to war.  It would be shorter and less expensive in American lives and money than what we've done since 9/11.  The middle east only understands brute force and violence of action.  It's their way and has been for a very long time.  Anything else is seen as weakness.  

That's a philosophy that has been written about by most of the great military leaders throughout history. Nobody ever listens. It sounds awful to consider killing a million people in a single engagement, but it's okay to kill 5 million people over ten or twenty years.

I don't believe the US will ever again be in a political/social culture where we consider using a Fat Man and Little Boy, unless it's all out planetary nuclear war, and then it will be too late. Plus our enemies are becoming less and less geographically defined. If you have a dispersed enemy, it's kinda difficult to "shock and awe".

[Hawkmoon]

This is what happens when you fight a war half-ass.  War is horrible.  That's the point.  Making it as sanitary as possible kind of takes away a lot of the negative impact.  If were going to go to war then we need to go to war.  It would be shorter and less expensive in American lives and money than what we've done since 9/11.  The middle east only understands brute force and violence of action.  It's their way and has been for a very long time.  Anything else is seen as weakness.  

Truth.

The take-away line from the article:

Correction: Make that "the wreckage Mr. Trump inherited."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/gAbKV6lmvDM?start=115&end=137

[Ron]

What if South Korea and North Korea agree to allowing some opening between their border?

What if both Koreas agree to a demilitarization of the border?

This will not be acceptable to our deepstate/permanent government.

[Scout26]

You mean just like we prevented from happening in Germany ??  I think we'd welcome an reduction in tensions on the Korean peninsula.

And yes, we should have gotten out of A-stan right after we overthrew the Taliban.   I have no problem with us doing an Operation "Wrath of God" against those that plotted and planned the 9/11 attacks.   

[HankB]

. . . But, since we have people who want a "kinder, gentler" war, we get half measures and compromise that doesn't help the people on the ground long-term and costs our military lives and limbs.

This has been our problem since Vietnam. As my Dad (a WWII Air Commando) said, with all the bombs we dropped over there we shouldn't have been negotiating with Hanoi at all, since the place where Hanoi used to be should have been a plain of overlapping bomb craters. Same with Haiphong and every other city, village, harbor, and hamlet with more than 100 people. Especially once it became clear that the VC themselves weren't shy about staging attacks in cities like Saigon, Hmong villages, etc.

BUT . . . we didn't drop the bombs where they'd do the most good.

And we lost both the war and 58,000 men.

I remember LBJ talked to Eisenhower about Vietnam, and Ike told him not to get involved unless he was willing to do everything - EVERYTHING! - necessary to win. LBJ didn't listen.

[Ron]

You mean just like we prevented from happening in Germany ??  I think we'd welcome an reduction in tensions on the Korean peninsula.

And yes, we should have gotten out of A-stan right after we overthrew the Taliban.   I have no problem with us doing an Operation "Wrath of God" against those that plotted and planned the 9/11 attacks.   

Maybe you are right and the warmongers don’t have as much sway as I think they have.

Yea, Afghanistan really went off the rails for us when we thought we could use 4th gen warfare and turn them into a functioning democracy.

[Scout26]

One of the other things I pointed out when we were going into A-stan is that "It is the country where Armies go to die."  And the story of Dr William Brydon, the sole survivor of the 1842 British Invasion...  

See also:   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299043/Incredible-story-British-soldier-survivor-19th-century-Afghan-conquest--warnings-today-s-military-missions.html

Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Brits (several times), Soviets, and now us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan

I would recommend  Kipling's The Drums of the Fore and Aft

Even though the Gloucestershire Regiment is allowed to wear its cap badge on the front and back of it's headgear (for actions against the French in Egypt), it's actually the 59th Regiment of Foot (2nd Nottinghamshire) that Kipling immortalizes in the story...

[Jocassee]

Our government, and the pipeline of advisors it funds and hires, are incredibly powerful, incredibly incompetent, and completely apathetic on both aspects.

[Perd Hapley]

Pat asks some good questions and makes some good observations.

Some time ago I repented and asked God for forgiveness for my support of the warmongering.

That doesn’t do anything to undue the damage done. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to be gaslighted by the warmongers any longer.

Other than direct action against the 9/11 perpetrators the rest was illegitimate.

https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2019/01/01/how-the-war-party-lost-the-middle-east-n2538314

I have no regrets about supporting the war in Iraq. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, even if not as many as we had cause to think that he did. The problem wasn't the casus belli. The problem with both the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions was the same. However the invasions began, or for what reasons, the West doesn't have the willingness to wage war, and conclude war, the way it ought. So the Middle East exploits that.  

I'm beyond tired of the idea that we need to show Iraq had some involvement in the 11 Sept attacks, to justify going to war there. That has never been the standard. Pre-emptive war is not some new doctrine. It's just common sense, and everyone knew that, until 2003. I don't recall the war being sold as some kind of pay-back, anyway. The issue, according to the "war-mongers" was that Iraq had the potential to become another Afghan-style terrorist breeding ground. That it did so anyway is more a function of anti-war soft-headedness than "war-mongering."

[Pb]

Fistful is right about something.  The motive for the Iraq war was this: the biggest terrorist danger to the USA was WMD 2) Saddam had an active WMD program 3) He was the most likely source of WMD to terrorist groups.


#2 apparently wasn't correct though.

[Ron]

I suppose I could google it but I’ll ask here anyway.

Is there a link available that discusses where they found active WMD facilities in Iraq that would justify toppling the government, breaking the infrastructure, occupying the country not to mention killing a couple hundred thousand of Iraqis in the process?

Back when this stuff was recent history every supposed WMD facility touted by the war crowd didn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Certainly nothing was found that matched the scale and rhetoric of prewar propaganda.

We have been lied to, we’re being lied to and we will continue to be lied to. This is the only sane position to take regarding our government.

[dogmush]

I suppose I could google it but I’ll ask here anyway.

Is there a link available that discusses where they found active WMD facilities in Iraq that would justify toppling the government, breaking the infrastructure, occupying the country not to mention killing a couple hundred thousand of Iraqis in the process?

Back when this stuff was recent history every supposed WMD facility touted by the war crowd didn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Certainly nothing was found that matched the scale and rhetoric of prewar propaganda.

We have been lied to, we’re being lied to and we will continue to be lied to. This is the only sane position to take regarding our government.

Define "scrutiny".

We found large stockpiles of existing Chemical Weapons,  some of which were actually loaded into shells and warheads.

We found precursor chemicals to making more if they needed to, and Iraq was a reasonably modern country with chemical manufacturing infrastructure. The "Bush Lied!!" folks rightly pointed out that they weren't making gas when we rolled in, but a plant that makes Clorox is only a couple of adjusted machines away from a plant that makes Chlorine gas.

I know several of the Chemical Warrant Officers that were the folks inspecting the found munitions and relevant factories, and I was assured over many beers that any halfway competent chemist could have been making more WMD in under a week at any number of plants around Iraq, and that there were plenty of existent munitions to use for that week.

I have personally seen some of the munitions we found, so I know that they existed.  We were still finding smaller caches in the sticks as late as late 2007, early 2008.  Maybe later, as I haven't been in those circles since my second deployment in 2008.

[Ron]

So mostly old ordinance from the Iraq/Iran war and greater than third world manufacturing capacity that could be repurposed.

That’s not what we were sold on.

I refuse to post rationalize my support.

They wanted Saddam gone. The country wouldn’t have supported invasion for that purpose alone.

They cooked up an exaggerated threat and used the fear from 9/11 to push the war narrative.

Just because the far left was correct (broken clock...) that doesn’t mean I have to dig in and double down on my previous support.

[dogmush]

So mostly old ordinance from the Iraq/Iran war and greater than third world manufacturing capacity that could be repurposed.

That’s not what we were sold on.

I refuse to post rationalize my support.

They wanted Saddam gone. The country wouldn’t have supported invasion for that purpose alone.

They cooked up an exaggerated threat and used the fear from 9/11 to push the war narrative.

Just because the far left was correct (broken clock...) that doesn’t mean I have to dig in and double down on my previous support.

Pretty much everyone on both sides of this debate has dug down into a position and refuses to consider they are wrong.  One of the reasons I don't really argue it anymore, just say what I saw and know.

I will ask this however:  How many active chemical weapons plants do you think exist in the US?  Or active Nuke manufacturing plants?  How old is our Nuclear Warhead inventory?  Would you describe the US as having active WMD capability, or "Mostly old ordinance from the Iraq/Irancold war and greater than third world manufacturing capacity"?

On the day we invaded in 2003 Iraq had the capability to deploy chemical weapons on very short (probably hours, certainly days) notice, and manufacture more before their stock ran out.  How is that not WMD capability?

[Ben]

On the day we invaded in 2003 Iraq had the capability to deploy chemical weapons on very short (probably hours, certainly days) notice, and manufacture more before their stock ran out.  How is that not WMD capability?

That is how I looked at it then, and still look at it now. Plus what you mentioned in your previous post about still finding stuff in the sticks. I'm actually a firm believer that there continue to be WMD in Iraq. Not manufacturing (heck, maybe even that on a micro scale), but stored. There's a lot of diverse geography there.

[Ron]

Pretty much everyone on both sides of this debate has dug down into a position and refuses to consider they are wrong.  One of the reasons I don't really argue it anymore, just say what I saw and know.

I will ask this however:  How many active chemical weapons plants do you think exist in the US?  Or active Nuke manufacturing plants?  How old is our Nuclear Warhead inventory?  Would you describe the US as having active WMD capability, or "Mostly old ordinance from the Iraq/Irancold war and greater than third world manufacturing capacity"?

On the day we invaded in 2003 Iraq had the capability to deploy chemical weapons on very short (probably hours, certainly days) notice, and manufacture more before their stock ran out.  How is that not WMD capability?

What was found wasn’t what we were told they had.

I don’t dispute that technically they had chemical weapons in the form of old ordinance. I don’t dispute that they had reasonably modern production facilities that could be repurposed if desired.

That wasn’t what the war rhetoric was claiming.

The invasion of Iraq was pushed as necessary to our national security. I think we were lied to about that and that is my point.

It didn’t “feel” cut and dried when it went down and I believe the history favors my interpretation.

Reasonable people can disagree of course.

[Perd Hapley]

What was found wasn’t what we were told they had.

I don’t dispute that technically they had chemical weapons in the form of old ordinance. I don’t dispute that they had reasonably modern production facilities that could be repurposed if desired.

That wasn’t what the war rhetoric was claiming.

The invasion of Iraq was pushed as necessary to our national security. I think we were lied to about that and that is my point.

It didn’t “feel” cut and dried when it went down and I believe the history favors my interpretation.

Reasonable people can disagree of course.

OK, but the high casualty figures you cite are happening not just in the more questionable wars (Iraq, Syria) but also in Afghanistan, the home base of those responsible for the 11 Sept. attacks. Seventeen years later, we're as hopelessly mired in one place as in another. That seems like a clue that the problem is not so much which evil dictatorship we topple, or whether or not they hit us first, as what we bring with us once we're in charge. And not just the U.S., of course, but whether the rest of the world was going to have our back, as we had their back in conflicts past.

[Scout26]

I suppose I could google it but I’ll ask here anyway.

Is there a link available that discusses where they found active WMD facilities in Iraq that would justify toppling the government, breaking the infrastructure, occupying the country not to mention killing a couple hundred thousand of Iraqis in the process?

Back when this stuff was recent history every supposed WMD facility touted by the war crowd didn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Certainly nothing was found that matched the scale and rhetoric of prewar propaganda.

We have been lied to, we’re being lied to and we will continue to be lied to. This is the only sane position to take regarding our government.

Even the New York Times reported that WMD's were found in Iraq.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-documents-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html



Plus that doesn't include what was shipped to Syria when we invaded.  And again.  Just because you aren't actively making it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Iraq still had enough to make the Western Front of WWI look like child's play.  

And we hadn't made any chemical weapons since the 1969, yet we had absolute metric Revloads of the things in Meisau^@, Deseret*, Newport Chemical Depot^%, Blue Grass Army Depot^&, Johnston Island (from Okinawa in the 1960's)^# among others.


@- Meisau had the following:
Mustard (HD) Gas - 49 tons plus 5,779 8 Inch, and 43,660 155mm Artillery Shells.
GB (Sarin) - 47,735 tons plus 6,388 8 Inch, and 13,020 155mm Artillery Shells.
VX - 42,682 tons plus 14,519 155mm shells and 13,302 M55 Rockets.

* - Disposed of 54,453 projectiles of mustard gas and 7,593 tons of GB Nerve agent

& - 523 short tons of nerve agents GB (sarin) and VX

% -1,269 short tons (1,151 metric tons) of VX

# - 1,900 tons of VX, 150 tons of distilled mustard, and 10,450 tons of Sarin

And here's a map of estimates of what was in the US.  As of October 2018, 90% of the chemical weapons stockpiles have already been destroyed at the sites marked with green checkmarks.   Work is ongoing at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Sites to destroy the remainder 10%.






So you would say that our chemical stockpile was not a credible threat because we destroyed our manufacturing capability in 1969 ??

[De Selby]

Seriously, can someone who thinks Iraq was a good idea outline any realistic scenario for a good outcome?

Smashing Saddam and leaving? Looks likely it’d have been ISIS ten years earlier or a client of Iran. Or both.

“Taking the gloves off” - what does that even mean? Mass carpet bombing of civilians would’ve generated a terrorism problem the likes of which the world has never seen, and probably motivated even reasonable societies to believe America had to be taken down. The Nazis never successfully brutalised local resistence away, it’s not going to happen in the real world. 

The entire premise of these wars never had anything to do with common sense. That’s why we are stuck arguing vagaries that roughly echo Vietnam recriminations about “taking the gloves off.”

It’s sheer madness to try and achieve all objectives through force. If the objective however is to maintain instability and keep low grade conflict going, well then the policy settings that gave rise to these wars make a lot of sense. Institutional views about foreign policy and strategy tend to be more like what you’d have found in the British empire and they often do not line up with the interests of majority votes.

Trump announced a common sense and beneficial to the majority policy on Mideast wars. It’s not surprising that institutions are lining up to blast him for it, but it proves yet again that he’s more accountable to voters than he is to anyone else.

[De Selby]

Fistful is right about something.  The motive for the Iraq war was this: the biggest terrorist danger to the USA was WMD 2) Saddam had an active WMD program 3) He was the most likely source of WMD to terrorist groups.


#2 apparently wasn't correct though.

#3 was similarly incorrect. Iraq became a haven for terrorists only after the war - not one single international terror attack was tied back to Iraq in all that work after the war to uncover Saddam a crimes.

[Scout26]

And just as an aside, Iraq was supposed to have ZERO chemical weapons as part of the 1991 Desert Storm ceasefire agreement.