Iraq War – Most People Do Not Know When Exactly the Wrong Path Was Taken or What to Do Now

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_061219_iraq_war__96_when_the_.htm
Iraq War – Most People Do Not Know When Exactly the Wrong Path Was Taken or What to Do Now
by Steven Leser

December 19, 2006 at 16:54:10

I spend a lot of time listening to people talk about Iraq. When I say people, I mean people on the left in the various Blogs and forums out there, in local Democratic club meetings, etc. I also spend a fair amount of time reading threads on Free Republic on the subject and other right leaning forums. I watch politicians and pundits of all stripes on the news and the political talk shows. There is so much incorrect information on Iraq that passes for news or talking points on both sides of the ideological aisle. No wonder we have made so many mistakes.

Other than the lies that the administration told linking Iraq and Hussein to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, the administration’s policy toward Iraq, and Democratic support thereof was correct right up until March 7, 2003. The prevailing wisdom up until that time was that there was good reason to fear that Iraq may have had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The Clinton administration believed that Iraq had them. The UN and its Weapons inspectors suspected the same and were eager to get into the country to check. Iraq had agreed to various resolutions that indicated it must destroy its weapons of mass destruction and it had to agree not to resume production of WMD as well as to agree to independent verification by the appropriate UN groups.

For a number of years, Saddam Hussein had not been allowing UN Weapons Inspectors into the country to do their jobs. One of the two events that reversed that was the Iraq War Resolution http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html passed by congress on October 2, 2002. Among other things, the Resolution said:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------

In addition to this join congressional resolution, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 whose intent was to give Iraq one last chance to come clean on its WMD programs.

Faced with the US Congressional and UN Security Council Resolutions, Iraq relented and allowed UN Weapons Inspectors back into the country on November 13, 2002.

Much more at Oped News
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_061219_iraq_war__96_when_the_.htm

[niyad]

1. WHEN is easy--the minute that the lying, thieving thugs of the murderous cabal currently soiling the

people's house decided to wage war on a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, or al-qaeda, or osama bin forgotten, but IS sitting on the second largest deposit of oil in the world. how freaking hard is that to understand?

[stevenleser]

2. Read the whole article...

... there is much more to it than that.

[niyad]

3. just skmming the article and seeing the lie about saddam not letting the weapons inspectors in is

all I need to see to know I am not going to bother.

[stevenleser]

4. You mean it was ok for those years and they decided not to go

until Nov 12, 2003? Do you have any sources for that? I'd like to see them.

[niyad]

6. please. go read up on it--this is nothing but reichwing spin and BS.

[stevenleser]

7. I'm the author, so ,no it certainly isn't Reichwing spin...

You can google me, I am most certainly a Democrat.

Everything I have read from the Weapons Inspectors themselves indicates they were certainly not able to go to Iraq prior to November 12, 2003. As I said, I would love to see any evidence you have otherwise. If necessary, I will talk to Blix and El Baredei or their spokespeople myself.

You have presented an allegation I have never heard before and find hard to believe. Any other DU'ers ever hear this before?

[DavidDvorkin]

5. The wrong path was taken in December 2000

That was the true beginning of the end.

[stevenleser]

8. Yes, I'll buy that

:D of course, I am talking a little more specifically with regard to Iraq policy

[MadMaddie]

9. It really doesn't matter when the wrong path was taken does it?

Because this administration's choice of war has set off a catalyst in the Middle East. This war of choice is destroying our military as we speak...(and they were warned)

* wanted this war long before he got into office to show up his daddy...he got his war and the world is paying for it...

Even though Saddam was a menace there are many more potentially dangerous rogue states out there....that should be addressed...but our government as it exists today neither has the time or the experienced personel to effectively deal with those world isssues....

North Korea doesn't have inspectors....why didn't we attack them? No oil, no family connections no war......

That's my two cents...

[stevenleser]

13. I think it is important for every possible thing regarding the decision-making process

to be known. When, Where, What, Why, How, everything. People need to be able to look back on this and understand every part of it.

I did not address Bush/GOP/Neocon reasoning for the war in this article. I have written about my opinion of that in past articles, see http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060116_iraq___why_we_really.htm .

Each time I write about the subject, I try very hard to divorce myself from emotion or the prevailing beliefs or rhetoric of any side and just examine the facts we know and see what opinions the facts support. I obviously have my own beliefs and prejudices that will influence what I write no matter what I try to do, but I work hard to minimize that if possible.

[stillcool]

10. If the word 'oil' is not included in a discussion...

concerning Iraq...it is not a discussion worth having...

Page 1 of 3
THE ROVING EYE
US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq
By Pepe Escobar

Washington at large and President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in particular may apply every contortionist trick in the geopolitical book to save their skins in Iraq - and the reasons are not entirely political.

In addition to the recently released report by the Iraq Study Group, any other Washington establishment report - Pentagon, State Department, think-tanks - considered by the White House cannot deviate from much of the ISG. There can be no firm timeline for a complete US withdrawal because it all depends on Iraq's new oil law being passed and US troops being able to defend Big Oil's investment.

Once again, it's the oil. The Bush-Cheney system by all accounts went to Iraq to grab those fabulous reserves. The only way for an overall solution to the Iraqi tragedy would be for the Bush administration to give up the oil - with no preconditions, turning the US into an honest broker. Realpolitik practitioners know this is not going to happen.

Instead, the ISG is explicitly in favor of privatizing Iraq's oil industry - to the benefit of Anglo-American Big Oil - after the impending passage of a new oil law that was initially scheduled to be passed this month by the Iraqi Parliament.

For Big Oil, the new oil law is the holiest of holies: once the exploitation of Iraq's fabulous resources is in the bag, "security" is just a minor detail. Enter the ISG's much-hyped provision of US troops remaining in Iraq until an unclear date to protect not the Iraqi population, but Big Oil's supreme interests. This is really what ISG co-head James Baker means by "responsible transition".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL14Ak01.html

It's still about oil in Iraq
A centerpiece of the Iraq Study Group's report is its advocacy for securing foreign companies' long-term access to Iraqi oil fields.
By Antonia Juhasz, ANTONIA JUHASZ is a visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time."
December 8, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/a...
WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.
Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields,Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.
This is a crucial issue, with trillions of dollars at stake, because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed. Recommendation No. 26 of the Iraq Study Group calls for a review of the constitution to be "pursued on an urgent basis." Recommendation No. 28 calls for putting control of Iraq's oil revenues in the hands of the central government. Recommendation No. 63 also calls on the U.S. government to "provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law."
This last step is already underway. The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law.
Plans for this new law were first made public at a news conference in late 2004 in Washington. Flanked by State Department officials, Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (who is now vice president) explained how this law would open Iraq's oil industry to private foreign investment. This, in turn, would be "very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies." The law would implement production-sharing agreements.
Much to the deep frustration of the U.S. government and American oil companies, that law has still not been passed.
In July, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq.

Further, the Iraq Study Group would commit U.S. troops to Iraq for several more years to, among other duties, provide security for Iraq's oil infrastructure. Finally, the report unequivocally declares that the 79 total recommendations "are comprehensive and need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. They should not be separated or carried out in isolation."
All told, the Iraq Study Group has simply made the case for extending the war until foreign oil companies — presumably American ones — have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields and until they are assured the best legal and financial terms possible.
We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we wish to spill more blood for oil.

"Can't Stay the Course, Can't End the War, But We'll Call It 'Bipartisan'..."
By Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver *
Foreign Policy In Focus
December 7, 2006
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3767
Despite the breathless hype, the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group (ISG) report did not include any dramatic new ideas for ending the war in Iraq. In fact, it did not include a call to end the war at all. Rather, the report's recommendations focus on transforming the U.S. occupation of Iraq into a long-term, sustainable, off-the-front-page occupation with a lower rate of U.S. casualties. Despite its title, it does not provide "A New Approach: A Way Forward."

While the ISG is eager to have Iraqis take up security issues by themselves, they are not so quick to have Iraqis take charge of their economy or more importantly, the development of their massive oil reserves. The ISG team advocates for the sharing of oil revenues throughout the country, a departure from the current Iraqi constitution that states revenue from new oil fields goes to local provinces. If carried out, this reform would help lessen the pressure for division within the country.

Following this sensible proposal is one much more radical--complete privatization of the oil industry, combined with foreign investment, and technical assistance by the U.S. government. This directly contradicts the ISG's earlier recommendation that, "The President should restate that the U.S. does not seek to control Iraq's oil" and guarantees that the U.S. and multinational corporations will be vying for control and power in Iraq for decades. Clearly this section of the report was heavily influenced by commission members James A. Baker III and Lawrence Eagleburger, whom have sought access to Iraqi's oil for most of their political careers, as well as by the longstanding consensus of U.S. corporate and government opinion about the importance and claimed legitimacy of maintaining U.S. control of Iraqi oil.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...

[yurbud]

11. no, it was truly a crock of shit from start to finish. Even the CIA said before the war that if

Saddam had WMD, an intentionally inflammatory replacement term for the perfectly servicable NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) warfare terminology used by the military for decades,even if Saddam had them he would not use them unless there was an actual attack on his hold on power, and even then he probably wouldn't, because he is not stupid. At best, Saddam would get what, a dozen, 20-30 nukes? If he launched a missile at us and it miraculously made it over here, before the mushroom cloud cleared, Iraq would be burned off the map.

If he gave them to terrorist, something the CIA also said was unlikely to happen, and that group used them against us, the result for Iraq would have been the same. In the summer of 2005, Dick Cheney commissioned war plans against Iran to be launched in response to a nuclear or conventional terrorist attack whether or not Iran was responsible. The bad guys in the Gulf are perfectly aware that Bush and Cheney will use any excuse to relieve them of their oil, and know it would be stupid to provide the excuse to them. The neocon argument that whole nations, not just a handful of fanatics, would commit suicide together has no historical precendent.

Likewise, every member of congress is old enought to remember the Cold War when we stared down an enemy who had as many or more nukes than us. No one fired because both sides knew neither would be left standing if they did. The calculus for rogue nations is even more obvious: they could hurt us at best, but their reward for that one or handful of lucky shots would be extinction.

Congressmen and senators are not retarded. They knew what the real deal was and either signed on out of cowardice, political expedience, or in hopes of being rewarded by those who profited from the war. Any of them who say otherwise are fucking liars, and you should put one hand over your wallet and the other over the orifice you cherish most, because someone lying like that is going to screw you in other ways too.

[stevenleser]

12. Much of what you say is very possibly true...

... but I also buy the argument that once you have a state like his in a position where they have agreed with both the US and the UN to not have WMD and agreed to an inspection regimen that they should be held to it. There is nothing bullshit about that and you dont have to be retarted to agree with that.

The IWR got inspectors back into Iraq who did their jobs according to applicable UN Resolutions and international law. Iraq allowing them in also represents obeying UN and UN Security Council Resolutions. Do you agree with the UN as a body that represents peace and international law or not? You cannot point to the UN and UN Resolutions as your moral authority backing for things in one instance and claim they are complete bullshit in another. That doesnt work.

Contrary to the spin you have put on it, the Democratic Representatives and Senators I spoke with said they were guaranteed by the administration that if they voted for IWR and Iraq allowed back the inspectors and cooperated, there would be no war. Many have said as much publicly. They tried to implement amendments to IWR that had a little more teeth concerning constraining the Presidents actions, but they were, after all, in the minority and such amendments were rejected by the GOP congress. People like Howard Dean have said that had those amendments passed, they would have, if they had been in a position to do so, voted for IWR. But we can all see now that even had such amendments been passed, the President would have ignored them and the GOP congress would have let him do so without consequences. Even with the Iraq War Resolution as weak as it is regarding Presidential responsibilities, I contend the President failed to live up to his end and broke the law.

The Iraq War Resolution is not the damning instrument regarding Democrats many wish it was, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

I find it very interesting to see those who object to my article and on which points. There are many who are hellbent on punishing the Democrats who voted for IWR. You see many of these same people happy to bash the Democrats every opportunity they get for every real or imagined slight.