Who's Running This War?

[Mad Mike]

Who's Running This War?

By Orson Scott Card

April 4, 2004

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-04-04-1.html

It's no secret that I believe the War on Terror is essential, for us and for the future of Western Civilization.

It's also no secret that the standard "intellectual" position on the war is virulent opposition -- at least to the campaign in Iraq.

There are sensible reasons to have opposed the Iraq campaign from the start, and sensible reasons to regret it now.

Unfortunately, I hear almost none of the sensible reasons. Instead, I hear the kind of vitriol spewed in -- sadly -- John Le Carré's latest novel, Absolute Friends.

It's a moving story of how a disaffected young Pakistani-born Englishman and a very odd young German become involved in spying and counter-spying during the Cold War. But at the end, in a series of events that strain credulity, Le Carré deforms his story in order to deliver a screed against the War in Iraq, America, religion, and big business -- basically, the devil's pantheon of the P.C. establishment.

Le Carré's literary reputation was created by his refusal to take sides in his spy novels, devoting himself instead to creating well-rounded characters on both sides of the Cold War struggle.

But that's gone now. Filled with rage, apparently, he makes his fiction a servant to the political ideas of the people around him, which he apparently does not question, as he actually calls the Iraq War (if I remember the phrase correctly) "the most immoral war in history."

It would take a very strange definition of "immoral," "war," or "history" to justify such a statement. But that is the kind of thing we're hearing from the mouth-frothing wing of anti-American and/or anti-Bush intellectual crowd.

It goes right along with paranoid rumors like the one in Parade on Sunday, in a letter from a reader who repeated the rumor that the Bush administration already knows where Osama is, and they plan to "capture" him just in time for the election.

That's how weird the fanaticism has become. The opponents of the present administration have reached such a level of paranoid hatred that there is no action or motive so evil that they are not willing to ascribe it to their enemies.

It makes the wackiest accusations against Clinton during the Monica years look almost sane by contrast.

The sad thing is that real intellectuals would actually try to find out who the people are who are running this war, what their ideas are, how they got to the position they're in, and what we can likely expect to happen in the future, if this administration remains in power.

Just in case there is someone -- on either side of the debate about the war -- who actually would like to find the answers to such questions, let me recommend a couple of books.

Rumsfeld's War: The Untold Story of America's Anti-Terrorist Commander is written by Rowan Scarborough, and he is, to put it kindly, an enthusiast for Mr. Rumsfeld.

But this does not mean that he is not reliable in the facts he presents.

In fact, the title of the book, which is a less-than-sly jab at President Bush -- whose war? Really? -- gives us a clue: Scarborough is so gung-ho about Rumsfeld that he apparently loves everything Rumsfeld does, and therefore conceals nothing, since he thinks it all makes Rumsfeld look good.

Well, there are things about Rumsfeld that do look good. The guy is smart and capable. When he's in charge of the Pentagon, the Pentagon is definitely under civilian control. And when the President decides against him, he swallows hard and obeys.

But Rumsfeld is also unusually ambitious, even in a city that is the world's geographic center of ambition. When coupled with his extraordinary ability to turn the normal workings of government into a bureaucratic turf war, it makes Rumsfeld a tough fellow to work with.

And a tough boss to work for. Indeed, the message is clear: He loves to surround himself with smart people -- but his definition of "smart" seems to include the phrase "agrees with Donald Rumsfeld." Once he decides you're not smart, there is little chance of redemption.

By the end of this book, while I admired many things about Rumsfeld, I was glad I don't work for him.

I was also very glad that he is not and never will be President. Because he'd be lousy at it.

Governing, as opposed to heading a bureaucracy, depends on the ability to build consensus, not just shut down or shut out everyone who disagrees with you. A ruthless bureaucratic infighter can be quite effective by doing the latter; but that's the quickest road to failure that you can imagine for a President.

Still, it doesn't stop me from enjoying Rumsfeld's wit at press conferences; nor does it stop me from appreciating the good aspects of his transformation of the Pentagon.

While a few people whose toes he has stepped on have come back to lash out at the President -- one thinks of the star witness at the recent hearings -- the fact remains that he has been able to effect some important and beneficial changes in our military, and our victories in the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq are not unrelated to his efforts.

In times of war, a leader who is tough and effective can also be unlikeable and ambitious, and the nation is, on balance, well-served -- as long as he doesn't pull a MacArthur and decide the President should work for him. And there has been no hint of this in Rumsfeld's past.

Ultimately, though, Scarborough's gung-ho view cloys. There is less to learn from Mr. Rumsfeld's life and career than Scarborough thinks.

A much more illuminating and valuable book is James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet.

Mann does a masterful job of tracing the interlocking careers of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condaleezza Rice, and the less well-known but scarcely less influential Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage.

For instance, did you know that the fault line in the administration between those who dragged their feet on going into Iraq and those who pressed for it is one that is perhaps not terribly surprising: Colin Powell and Richard Armitage are the only ones in this list who both served in real combat in Vietnam, and they were the ones least willing to see us enter a war, however justified, without a plan for how to get out if our rosiest assumptions turned out wrong.

There are other patterns revealed by this book. It's interesting to see how entering government service can lead to extraordinary wealth. After serving at certain levels of government, if you have won the favor of influential people you can find yourself sought after as an executive or board member of important corporations, where your bonuses and stock options can make you independently wealthy in a surprisingly short time.

There are those who assume that these relationships are a corrupt bargain -- look at all the wild accusations about various corporations getting favored treatment because high administration figures once worked for them.

But I don't think there's necessarily any corruption. The payments these favored people received were not bribes -- they were standard corporate compensation for people who provide valuable services, and there is no hint that they are expected to go on providing such services after they move on to other positions. By contemporary business standards, they already earned, in full, everything they were paid. They owe nothing.

Their service is valuable to business because of the experience, knowledge, and network of acquaintanceship they gained in government service -- but it would be unreasonable to ban former government workers from taking their brains with them when they go.

It can even be argued that it's not a bad thing for such useful civil servants to become independently wealthy before returning to even higher positions in government. It means they are free to concentrate on their jobs without worrying about how they're going to provide for their families; it means they have nothing to fear from resigning or being fired; and it means they are virtually impervious to any attempt to bribe them. They just don't need any money now.

Of course, not all of these powerful people have found their way onto the corporate gravy train, in part because not all of them would have anything to offer a corporation. They serve in government, not because they're as ambitious or skilled at infighting as Rumsfeld, but because they are so doggone smart that even people who don't like them know that the country would be ill-served if they were not in key positions.

What is most interesting in this book is what these six leaders believe about foreign policy, why they believe it, and how it differs from the theories that have guided previous administrations. This cabinet is definitely not a legacy from Bush Sr., or from any other previous cabinet. They have a new set of ideas, and despite the important differences among them, there are key issues on which they see eye to eye.

To me, at least, the writing in Rise of the Vulcans seems impartial enough to be trusted. I'm not sure whether Mann agrees with any or all of them on anything. He has made the effort to understand them.

Those who read this book will be considerably better educated about recent American foreign policy in general and current policy in particular. They will also be extremely unlikely to make foolish and unfounded accusations or listen to paranoid rumors.

Because, even when I think the decisions of this administration have been wrong, they were wrong for a reason, not because they "love war" or want to "benefit oil interests" or any of the other ridiculous accusations we've been hearing.

They believe they're serving America's best interests. They also believe they are doing so under the leadership of a good President. Indeed, the most remarkable achievement of George W. Bush is that he not only had the ego strength to surround himself with people this smart, he also has the leadership skills to keep them working for him, even when -- as has happened to every single one of them -- he makes a decision contrary to their fervently argued advice.

There are sound reasons for questioning or opposing many of the war and foreign policies of this administration. But, especially if you loathe this administration and everything it stands for, I believe you need to know all the information in this book before you make any ad hominem attacks.

This book won't make you agree with these policy-makers. It might not even lead you to respect them. But you will at least be prepared to engage their ideas instead of indulging in name-calling and paranoid fantasies.

Copyright © 2004 by Orson Scott Card.

[Mad Mike]

For those who don't know, Orson Scott Card is an amazingly briliant sci-fi author and political pundit. I highly recomend you check out his website for more insightfull articles like this; and yes he does provide space to intelligent opposing viewpoints.

The Ornery American

http://www.ornery.org

[Ghost of]

MM

In the vein of "Only Nixon could go to China," Card is interesting because he is not only intelligent and articulate, he is a Democrat. Others who counter the prevailing propaganda swill from the elite of the Democratic party, yet still hold to many of the same ideals are Pat Caddell(the "my party has been hijacked by a confederation of gangsters" in 2000 guy,) Tammy Bruce(lesbian, former NOW head) and Victor Davis Hanson.

When someone is right or at least balanced and reasonable, they get my respect. These people are throwbacks to the old days of being a Democrat and not trying to establish equivalency between their country and the most evil regimes on earth and not engaging in the most paranoid and hateful propaganda merely to help "their guys" obtain power again.

[joe]

Thanks for posting this. I'm going to look for Mann's book.

[chomerics]

Governing, as opposed to heading a bureaucracy, depends on the ability to build consensus, not just shut down or shut out everyone who disagrees with you. A ruthless bureaucratic infighter can be quite effective by doing the latter; but that's the quickest road to failure that you can imagine for a President.

Exactly!!!

Because, even when I think the decisions of this administration have been wrong, they were wrong for a reason, not because they "love war" or want to "benefit oil interests" or any of the other ridiculous accusations we've been hearing.

No, not the primary reasons for going to war, but a benifit to their supporters FOR going to war. There is a difference, but you can't dimnish it as if it never factored into their reasoning. Why else would you award cost plus contracts which were not bidded on. I'd be suprised if the leaders of Hailburton and Bechtel didn't have plans in place before the war as to the reconstruction efforts.

They believe they're serving America's best interests. They also believe they are doing so under the leadership of a good President. Indeed, the most remarkable achievement of George W. Bush is that he not only had the ego strength to surround himself with people this smart, he also has the leadership skills to keep them working for him, even when -- as has happened to every single one of them -- he makes a decision contrary to their fervently argued advice.

It wasn't George Bush's leadership skills that allowed him to go into Iraq, it was Americas paranoia before the war and Bush's profound public support, along with a brilliant anti-war thwarting plan which discredited any oppoition as being treasonist symapthisers of Hussen and un-American. They took the advantage of the rise in Nationalism post 9-11 to pursue their adgenda and in hindsight, it looks more like facism than anything seen since WWII.

[Mad Mike]

No, not the primary reasons for going to war, but a benifit to their supporters FOR going to war. There is a difference, but you can't dimnish it as if it never factored into their reasoning. Why else would you award cost plus contracts which were not bidded on. I'd be suprised if the leaders of Hailburton and Bechtel didn't have plans in place before the war as to the reconstruction efforts.

And what proof do you have to back your delusions? Hmmmmm?

This from the person the person who dismisses French and Russian oil contracts and the Corruption in the UN Oil for palaces program. :puke:

This from the person who dismisses the connection between Iraq and terrorists becuase the information as much as there is, is only "circumstantial".

Give me a break. In case you missed it Card was talking about you when he was talking about "paranoid fantasies"

I've got another book just for you...

The French Betrayal of America

Written by Kenneth Timmerman

http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=1400053668

http://www.kentimmerman.com/

France Lied to U.S. During Iraq Crisis

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

The following article is excerpted from Kenneth R. Timmerman's new book, The French Betrayal of America (Crown Forum, New York, $25). All rights reserved.

For Secretary of State Colin Powell, the U.S.-French divorce began on Jan. 20, 2003, when French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin blindsided him during a press conference outside the U.N.

After a special session of the Security Council devoted to the war on terror, held at de Villepin's personal request, Powell had driven over to the French U.N. ambassador's official Park Avenue residence, where de Villepin was to host him to an exclusive lunch.

Instead, de Villepin stayed behind at the U.N. and announced to the world that France would never support a U.S.-led military intervention against Saddam Hussein. As Powell saw the man he thought was his friend appear on the video monitors in the French ambassador's residence his jaws dropped, says his deputy and confidant, Richard Armitage. "He was very unamused," Armitage recalls. "When he's unamused, he gets pretty cold. He puts the eyes on you and there is no doubt when his jaws are jacked. It's not a pretty sight."

During the session, de Villepin "preened and postured," recalled a deputy to U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte. After a tepid homage to the victims of 9/11, de Villepin urged the United Nations to take over the global fight against terror by sending international bureaucrats to Third World nations that were harboring or sponsoring terrorist groups. He wanted the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to get involved, and proposed a new international arms-control treaty to track the commercial use and shipment of radioactive materials, surely a move that would prove as useful in preventing nuclear terrorism as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty has been in preventing nations such as Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea from going nuclear.

"Let us look at things with lucidity," the Frenchman said finally, his voice quivering with compassion. "Terrorism feeds on injustice. So an equitable model of development is therefore necessary to definitely eradicate terrorism."

After briefly summarizing these proposals, which no one took seriously, de Villepin told the news cameras that he now wanted to say "a few words" about Iraq. That caught Powell's ear.

Just the evening before, over a private dinner at the Waldorf Astoria, the two men had discussed possible wording the French government could accept in a new U.N. resolution (the 18th, in fact) that would authorize the use of force against Iraq. Powell would say later that he had thought they were close to an agreement. Diplomats at the U.N. were actually laying bets - at 100-to-1 odds - that the U.S. would get the votes for the resolution. None of them was prepared for what the Frenchman said next.

"If war is the only means of resolving the problem, then we have reached a dead end," de Villepin said. "A unilateral military intervention will be the victory of might makes right, an attack on the primacy of international law and morality." The U.N. should wait until the U.N. inspectors made their next report, scheduled for January 27, before deciding on any further action, he said. At that point, "Iraq must understand that it is time for it to cooperate actively."

To Powell and his advisers, it was clear that de Villepin was trying to run out the clock so Saddam could finish hiding his weapons and prepare for war.

Later, in the reconstruction of the day's events he and other top French officials gave to reporters, de Villepin denied he had tried to ambush Powell, or that he had disguised an intention to use the ministerial session of the U.N. Security Council on terrorism as a platform to attack the United States on Iraq. "There was no ambush," he said. "I did not mention the word 'Iraq' once in my speech. It was only at a press conference afterward that I discussed Iraq in reply to a very aggressive question."

I read that account to a U.S. official who knew de Villepin and had watched the tape of that press conference many times. "That's just a lie," he said.

Indeed, the written record of de Villepin's press conference, provided to me by the French foreign ministry, shows on the contrary that it was de Villepin who shifted directly to Iraq at the very beginning of his press conference, and made a lengthy condemnation of the United States well before the questions began. "We will not associate ourselves with military intervention that is not supported by the international community," he said finally. "Military intervention would be the worst solution." Even the Washington Post, which highlighted international opposition to the Bush administration's position on Iraq, called de Villepin's performance "theatrical."

When de Villepin finally showed up for the luncheon, it got worse. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer berated Powell and President [George W.] Bush for having decided to move forward with military action, and claimed that Iraq "has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground," certainly an Alice-in-Wonderland version of the facts even as they were presented by the well-heeled U.N. chief inspector, Hans Blix.

Finally, Powell had heard enough. "He got an edge to his voice - something Powell prides himself at not doing - and said, 'You said the same thing before Panama and we went in and three days later, everyone forgot.'" The scales fell from Powell's eyes that day, an aide said. "He suddenly realized this was a game of hardball politics and that he had let himself be used and abused."

From that moment on, the relationship between the two men turned to ice. No more letters from de Villepin addressed, "Cher Colin." No more cozy lunches. Communications became stiff and formal, while the top leaders traded broadsides across the Atlantic.

Standing side by side with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Paris on Jan. 22, [French] President Jacques Chirac hurled another cannonball. "War is always an admission of defeat," he said, "the worst of solutions. Hence everything must be done to avoid it."

Some French officials suggested to me privately that Chirac had been "set up" by Schroeder, whose harsh criticism of the United States went way beyond the prepared speech he had given Chirac's advisers beforehand. Indeed, so thorough was the deception being played out by Chirac and de Villepin that many senior members of Chirac's own ruling party believed that Chirac still intended to join the U.S. and British-led war effort at the last minute, after squeezing from the U.S. a maximum of commercial concessions in postwar Iraq.

The next morning, writing in the New York Times, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice chastised the French and other critics who wanted to give Iraq more time to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?" she asked. "Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding no. There is no mystery to voluntary disarmament. Countries that decide to disarm lead inspectors to weapons and production sites, answer questions before they are asked, state publicly and often the intention to disarm and urge their citizens to cooperate. The world knows from examples set by South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan what it looks like when a government decides that it will cooperatively give up its weapons of mass destruction."

Iraq's behavior did not fit the bill. "By both its actions and its inactions," she concluded, "Iraq is proving not that it is a nation bent on disarmament, but that it is a nation with something to hide."

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz gave a more detailed presentation on the same theme to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "It is not the job of inspectors to disarm Iraq; it is Iraq's job to disarm itself," he said. "Think about it for a moment. When an auditor discovers discrepancies in the books, it is not the auditor's obligation to prove where the embezzler has stashed his money. It is up to the person or institution being audited to explain the discrepancy. It is quite unreasonable to expect a few hundred inspectors to search every potential hiding place in a country the size of France, even if nothing were being moved."

For 12 years Iraq had played a game of "rope-a-dope in the desert" with U.N. inspectors. That game was about to end because of renegade Saudi Osama bin Laden. "As terrible as the attacks of September 11 were, however, we now know that the terrorists are plotting still more and greater catastrophes," Wolfowitz said. "Iraq's weapons of mass terror and the terror networks to which the Iraqi regime are linked are not two separate themes - not two separate threats. They are part of the same threat."

French officials say they never bought into the U.S. argument of a "convergence" between Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and terrorism. "The U.S. argument was highly speculative," a senior adviser to de Villepin told me in Paris. "If there was going to be convergence between terrorists and WMD, it would happen with renegade scientists from Biopreparat in Russia, who decide to go to work for al-Qaeda. It would happen in Pakistan, but not in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime was not known for spontaneous behavior. He had no objection to using terrorism, but he would never give weapons to groups that were not thoroughly under his control, who could act autonomously in ways that could pose a threat to his regime."

But of course, that was precisely what the U.S. contended when it cited Saddam's use of al-Qaeda offshoot Al Ansar al-Islam, which was operating with the support and protection of Saddam's intelligence arm, the dreaded mukhabarat. The U.S. presented evidence that Al Ansar was training with biological and chemical weapons, but the French remained unconvinced.

On Oct. 27, 2003, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith sent a classified memo to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee detailing no fewer than 50 separate credible intelligence reports on contacts between top al-Qaeda members and Iraqi intelligence. It's simply inconceivable that the French, for all their close ties to Saddam, had seen none of it.

Powell and de Villepin continued to duke it out in Davos, Switzerland, during the World Economic Forum that weekend. De Villepin again warned that France would veto any U.S.-backed resolution at the U.N. to authorize the use of force, and said his European colleagues agreed with him that the U.N. inspections should be extended by "several weeks, or for several months."

Powell reminded the Frenchman of the bonds of blood tying America to France and the sacrifices Americans had made to free Europe from tyranny. "We've put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives," he said. "We've asked for nothing but enough land to bury them in." Now, things appeared to have changed. "One or two of our friends, we have been in marriage counseling with for 225 years nonstop," he said, indicating France. He didn't utter the word "divorce," but it was clear that the marriage counseling had reached an impasse.

The French never fully appreciated the dramatic changes in American thinking that followed 9/11, a top de Villepin adviser admitted. They found it inconceivable that the United States could feel threatened by the possibility of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. But when I asked how French national security would have been threatened by acquiescing to U.S. war plans - what was so important to French vital interests to require them actively to oppose the U.S. - de Villepin's adviser sank into a stunned silence that lasted nearly a minute.

In the end, he uttered a mush about hurting the feelings of the Arabs. "Nations don't always act from self-interest, but also from conviction," he said finally. "We believed someone had to speak up to express the objections of a large majority of the international community who disagreed with the American policy and who had no spokesman. We were like the Roman tribune."

In fact, there was "very little debate" within the Foreign Ministry or elsewhere about opposing America during the crisis, another top official told me in Paris. "The policy was driven by de Villepin and by Chirac personally. Only five or six senior advisers dared to raise questions about how de Villepin was handling himself."

The naysayers were in a distinct minority at the Quai d'Orsay, and nonexistent at the presidential palace; indeed, they keep a low profile these days. "There was never any misunderstanding between us and the Americans," this official said. "Both sides knew each other's positions very well. It was a fundamental difference in viewpoints. We simply didn't share the U.S. perception of the threat and actively tried to block the U.S. from preventive military action it considered to be an act of legitimate self-defense."

A U.S. diplomat involved in the exchanges agreed - up to a point. "The French knew exactly what our thinking was. But until Jan. 20, we had thought they were totally with us."

There was good reason for the Bush administration's confidence, as I can reveal here for the first time. Until Jan. 20, I learned in interviews with a half-dozen administration officials directly involved in the negotiations, the French had gone out of their way privately to assure the president, the secretary of state and U.S. diplomats working the issue that they backed the U.S. in the showdown with Saddam, even if it included the use of force.

When the Iraqis stonewalled United Nations arms inspectors in late October 2002, Chirac picked up the phone and called President Bush in the Oval Office to reiterate French support for a strong United Nations resolution that would include the option of using force.

In early December, he sent a top French military official to CENTCOM [united States Central Command] headquarters in Tampa, Fla., to negotiate the specifics of the French participation in the war.

"Chirac personally told the president he would be with us," one senior U.S. administration official told me. "We didn't know until the ambush that France would not go to war with us. We thought they might complain, or abstain, or not vote - but not that they would actually veto." Added another, who was privy to the Oval Office conversation, "Chirac's assurances are what gave the president the confidence to keep sending Colin Powell back to the U.N. They also explain why the administration has been going after the French so aggressively ever since. They lied."

Back in Washington, Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said publicly some of the things Powell was too polite to utter even in private.

A former undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration, Perle now headed the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and was close friends with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage. Far from being an automatic France-basher, Perle was a dedicated Francophile who owned a vacation home in France and for two decades had maintained close personal ties to many top figures in the French defense and security establishment.

The French government, he told Fox News Sunday, was acting not on principle as it claimed, but on behalf of its commercial interests. "It's ironic that people accuse the United States of being interested in oil," he said. "If you want to see who's interested in oil, look at French policy. It is entirely self-concerned, and it has to do with oil contracts and very little else."

At a conference on Iraq in Washington the day before Powell's Feb. 5 presentation to the U.N. on Iraqi WMD, he suggested that France by its behavior was demonstrating that it had parted company with the United States. "France is no longer the ally it once was. I think it is reasonable to ask whether this country should now or on any other occasion subordinate its most fundamental national-security interests to a show of hands that happens to include governments whose interests are different from our own. Deep in the soul of Jacques Chirac, he believes that Saddam Hussein is preferable to the alternative that is likely to emerge when Iraq is liberated."

Throughout the crisis, the French press painted a picture of the diplomatic tug of war that showed the United States as isolated and France as the voice of reason whose proposals to prolong the U.N. inspection regime "have been particularly well received." The arms inspectors had just reported that "the verification of Iraq's disarmament is now within reach," Le Figaro gushed, in a modern-day version of the infamous "peace in our time" comment by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain after he and his French counterpart had ceded Czechoslovakia to Hitler in Munich in 1938.

Foreign Minister de Villepin was an international celebrity, wrote Le Figaro, "whose speech [at the U.N.] received a standing ovation from the gallery reserved for the public and the press." Others were less flattering, and referred to de Villepin as the "Energizer bunny of diplomacy," or took to calling him "Zorro," and "Nero."

More significant, however, was de Villepin's adoration of two historical figures: Napoleon, whose slogan was "victory or death, but glory whatever happens," and Machiavelli, who perfected the art of the diplomatic lie.

"The problem with you Americans," de Villepin hectored a visiting United States senator in Paris last December, "is that you don't read Machiavelli." His meaning, the senator's aide told me, was crystal clear. De Villepin and Chirac had lied to the United States during the Iraq crisis, and if we didn't like it, we should get over it. That's how the "big boys" played politics.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine.

[du7st]

You can debate motives all you want but I care more about results. Right now, you cannot deny that at this pace the war is headed straight down the tubes. If there is a dramatic about face by November then you can argue for Bush's re-election. If the war gets even uglier, I just don't see how anyone can justify another term. Of course, many will TRY to justify it

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by du7st

You can debate motives all you want but I care more about results. Right now, you cannot deny that at this pace the war is headed straight down the tubes. If there is a dramatic about face by November then you can argue for Bush's re-election. If the war gets even uglier, I just don't see how anyone can justify another term. Of course, many will TRY to justify it

How about you justify voting for Kerry by telling me how he would make things better? How about you tell me what we should have done with Iraq. (be prepaired to have your arguments shreaded)

Do you have a better solution or can you only complain about the difficulties?

And BTW. I absolutly CAN say that the war is NOT "going down the tubes". Such a comment can only come frome someone who does not understand how difficult ALL wars are, and has no concept of how important this task is no matter how difficult.

[Tarhog]

du7st.

All wars are ugly. The difference is, historically, we've had the stomach to do what needed to be done. It remains to be seen whether we have the stomach for it in the modern era. I'm not minimizing the pain of the losses we've incurred. Neither of us have any real inkling of how things really look on the ground in Iraq. You think you do. I know I don't, despite being imminently qualified, because having been in combat in that arena, I know the media never comes close to getting the story factually right. You're basing your characterization on US casualities. I'm not arguing they've been either insignificant or that they may not reflect an inability to execute our plans there. But your jump from 'things haven't gone as well as we had hoped' straight to 'the war is headed straight down the tubes' is a pretty big leap.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Tarhog

du7st.

All wars are ugly. The difference is, historically, we've had the stomach to do what needed to be done. It remains to be seen whether we have the stomach for it in the modern era. I'm not minimizing the pain of the losses we've incurred. Neither of us have any real inkling of how things really look on the ground in Iraq. You think you do. I know I don't, despite being imminently qualified, because having been in combat in that arena, I know the media never comes close to getting the story factually right. You're basing your characterization on US casualities. I'm not arguing they've been either insignificant or that they may not reflect an inability to execute our plans there. But your jump from 'things haven't gone as well as we had hoped' straight to 'the war is headed straight down the tubes' is a pretty big leap.

Wow. Talk about parralell thinking. I typed in my edit before reading your comment.

[du7st]

OK one guy at a time here ...

Originally posted by Tarhog

Neither of us have any real inkling of how things really look on the ground in Iraq. You think you do.

Don't try and put words in my mouth. I never said anything even remotely close to this.

Originally posted by Tarhog

You're basing your characterization on US casualities.

No actually I think the #1 most important part of winning this war is winning the support of the Iraqi people. I believe some 57% of Iraqis just want the coalition troops to leave now. I just don't see how we can fight off terrorists when the Iraqi civilians support them over our soldiers. We need their help and from what I understand, we are not getting nearly enough help from the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by Tarhog

I'm not arguing they've been either insignificant or that they may not reflect an inability to execute our plans there. But your jump from 'things haven't gone as well as we had hoped' straight to 'the war is headed straight down the tubes' is a pretty big leap.

Note that I didn't say this war is over and we lost. I am saying that if the actions of the last few weeks continue on then I don't see how its ends well. I don't think this is a very big leap at all.

And let's go onto the second fellow...

Originally posted by Mad Mike

How about you justify voting for Kerry by telling me how he would make things better?

Kerry might not make things better. In my mind, thus far, Bush's admin has made far too many mistakes with this war. You have to be held accountable for your actions and I think it's time for a change. I am willing to take my chances with Kerry then with Bush at this point.

Originally posted by Mad Mike

How about you tell me what we should have done with Iraq. (be prepaired to have your arguments shreaded)

Do you have a better solution or can you only complain about the difficulties?

Well one thing I would like to see is Bush holding his administration more accountable for their failures. I think Rumsfeld needs to go. I think Tenet needs to go. If Bush isn't going to make the necessary changes (again, my opinion) then I will vote to remove him.

Originally posted by Mad Mike

And BTW. I absolutly CAN say that the war is NOT "going down the tubes". Such a comment can only come frome someone who does not understand how difficult ALL wars are, and has no concept of how important this task is no matter how difficult.

Like Tarhog you have misinterpretend what I said. Here is what I said, "Right now, you cannot deny that at this pace the war is headed straight down the tubes." AT THIS PACE and HEADED are the key words. I did not declare "Mission Failed." I said that if things don't turn around and if they continue on this path then we are headed for failure. If you disagree with that then well I guess we are going to have to disagree because I think you are dead wrong.

Guys I want to be optimistic here but its getting real hard. It's not because I'm weak and can't stomach a war I am just examining the situation and not liking what I see. The unveiling of the coalition soldiers torturing the Iraqi POWs is really, really, really, REALLY bad. Public sentiment of the Iraqi people could very well be shot because of it. If we lose the support of the Iraqi people then I think that can only lead to losing the war. We have to win them back and I just don't know if its possible.

[codeorama]

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm sure you guys can correct me, but that's kind of what I see. We are in Iraq, but their people don't want us there.

IMO, some people just can't be helped.

My opinion is that we get out and spend the billions we are spending on border security and intelligence. Protect our country, we don't need to save those that don't want to be saved.

[Tarhog]

Well, two of us read your comments and came to the same conclusion. Maybe you aren't communicating what you mean very clearly?

You missed MY point. I'm not arguing your 'take' is wrong. You ultimately may be 100% correct. What I'm saying is that the information you are basing your position on is incomplete. One of the biggest lessons I learned during Desert Shield/Storm is that you can't trust our press to get facts right. I'm not anti-press...they do the best they can, but I'm telling you you are not getting an accurate and complete picture of whats occuring in Iraq (whether good or bad). In most cases, the press simply isn't in a position to report accurately. In other cases, they have an agenda, and they report accordingly. Only those on the ground and in charge know whether we are accomplishing our goals or not.

I suspect the 57% you talk about might well take an entirely different position were we to pull out and civil war broke out. Thats why the Bush Administration isn't polling them to decide how best to promote a democratic responsible government. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter what they think or want. They had 30 years as a people to overthrow a bloody tyrant. They lacked the courage and backbone as a people to do it, despite watching their sons, daughters, and neighbors being raped, tortured, and slaughtered on a continuing basis. We did it for them. And having lost some of our own in the process, it'll be our decision what we do and how we do it from here on out. They had their chance to express their national will and they failed that test.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by codeorama

My opinion is that we get out and spend the billions we are spending on border security and intelligence. Protect our country, we don't need to save those that don't want to be saved.

code. The idea that we can somehow shield ourselves from terrorism by "spending on border security and intelligence" is so deeply flawed that it borders on insanity. It is one tool that we can use, but while we can make it more difficult for terrorist to strike us. It CANNOT prevent another 9/11. You cannot cure cancer by treating the symptoms. You must cut it out of the body or kill it with radiation. The war on terror, like the treatment of cancer is going to be a difficult, sometimes painfull thing, but it is the ONLY way we are going to survive.

What we are facing now are setbacks. To use the analogy of football, you don't quit because the other team scored a touchdown. You re-double your efforts and win by force of will. Anything else is the mentality of a looser.

[codeorama]

Mad Mike, I respect you opinion and you've stated it well.

I just don't believe that there's only one right way.

In a way, I don't believe that we will ever be able to eliminate the terrorist threat. As long as the world exists, there will be those that are just "evil" in nature. Believeing that we can exterminate terrorists all over the world is just flawed. It won't ever happen.

What I meant by increasing our defense is that in order for terrorists to accomplish an attack on the scale of 9/11, there will be clues and signals and information out there that will give warning. We lived in la la land before 9/11. We saw other places in the world suffer from these types of attacks frequently, but we never thought it would happen to us.

I have no problem with the operations in Afghanistan, they are justified IMO.

We disagree on the Iraq/Terrorisim/911 connection. Thats where the difference in our opinions are.

[du7st]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Well, two of us read your comments and came to the same conclusion. Maybe you aren't communicating what you mean very clearly?

More like a case of jumping to conclusions because this is such a heated issue. Everyone does it sometimes it's OK to admit it.

Originally posted by Tarhog

You missed MY point. I'm not arguing your 'take' is wrong. You ultimately may be 100% correct. What I'm saying is that the information you are basing your position on is incomplete. One of the biggest lessons I learned during Desert Shield/Storm is that you can't trust our press to get facts right. I'm not anti-press...they do the best they can, but I'm telling you you are not getting an accurate and complete picture of whats occuring in Iraq (whether good or bad). In most cases, the press simply isn't in a position to report accurately. In other cases, they have an agenda, and they report accordingly. Only those on the ground and in charge know whether we are accomplishing our goals or not.

Besides the final sentence, you are pretty much correct. But so what? Nobody here is claiming to be some big shot at the pentagon. We gotta do the best we can with the information we have.

Originally posted by Tarhog

I suspect the 57% you talk about might well take an entirely different position were we to pull out and civil war broke out.

That really isn't relevant. If they don't want us there and are just being short-sighted that doesn't change the fact that they don't want us there. That doesn't change the fact that they are siding with the terrorists instead of the coalition.

Originally posted by Tarhog

Thats why the Bush Administration isn't polling them to decide how best to promote a democratic responsible government. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter what they think or want.

Well far be it from me to say that the Bush administration isn't exactly succeeding (at this point) at creating a democractic, responsible government. I say there is nothing more important to winning this war then winning the support of the Iraqi people. How can our soldiers defeat terrorists when they are surrounded by civilians that refuse to turn them in?

Originally posted by Tarhog

They had 30 years as a people to overthrow a bloody tyrant. They lacked the courage and backbone as a people to do it, despite watching their sons, daughters, and neighbors being raped, tortured, and slaughtered on a continuing basis. We did it for them. And having lost some of our own in the process, it'll be our decision what we do and how we do it from here on out. They had their chance to express their national will and they failed that test.

Great, we are in charge. We've been in charge for over a year.

Look - the war is only won when there is a stable, democractic government in place. If the people don't support what the coalition is doing, how do you expect them to support the government it sponsors? Don't you think that will continue to cause problems?

[webnarc]

Do you have a better solution or can you only complain about the difficulties?

Not that the questions was directed me but here's my two cents on what should have been done with this war. Some of it is hindsight, most of it isn't.

Step one would have been to define the goal - define what it means to have regime change and work towards achieving this end. You want their leader and his goons gone, not 10000 government workers and the entire military. In this war, who remained to say that "Iraq surrenders to the coalition"? Because an end couldn't be called by one side, even though the war is effectively over, America CAN'T leave because this can be viewed as a loss (it isn't, but it could be regarded as one).

Step two would have been to define the security terms for the Iraqi people - you've removed their army, their police force and effectively shut down the country. Factors that combine to create a sense of anarchy in some areas. Without effective protection, the country has had a much harder time starting up again because of fear.

Step three would have been to define the terms of the media war, plan it and execute this plan to show the world what is going on.

Step four would have been to start getting money back into the hands of the Iraqi people by hiring them to rebuild their country and out-sourcing many of the jobs to NON-American companies.

Step five would have been to get enough troops to guarantee you achieve the goal. Anecdotal reports from the initial soldiers is that the Iraqi people were happy to see the coalitions arrival and Saddam's removal.

Step six would have been to guard the intellections of Iraq to ensure that they do not get killed or leave the country out of fear (this is an extension of step two) because these are the people who will help rebuild and redefine the country.

Step seven would have been to NOT stamp out and piss all over every nation that didn't support the war and to stop the smear campaign on anyone who disagrees with it.

Ultimately the war would not have been regarded as a football game, it would have been regarded as a takeover of a company, with the Iraqi people being regarded as shareholders and the Saddam goons as the unwilling board of directors. If backing down on some things is what's needed to win the support of the shareholders, back down. If you're in there for the greater good, the perception of weakness is a weapon that you must use to win the war.

[Mad Mike]

Well one thing I would like to see is Bush holding his administration more accountable for their failures. I think Rumsfeld needs to go. I think Tenet needs to go. If Bush isn't going to make the necessary changes (again, my opinion) then I will vote to remove him.

What failures? You are opperating under tha false assumtion that ANYONE can predict all posible dificulties in a war. WAR IS DIFFICULT. If you thought this was going to be a walk in the park, the error is not with the Bush administration, the error is in your thinking.

And you still have not told me what YOU would do to win the war in Iraq. If you don't have a better solution, find one. If you can't find a better solution you have no grounds to question those who are FAR more qualified than you to run the war.

To further your education on the matter I suggest you study the art of war so that you are more qualified to speak on the subject. One place you can start is by reading "On War" by General Karl Von Clausewitz who is widely acknowledged as the most important of the major strategic theorists of the modern age.

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/On_War/ONWARTOC.html

A few choice quotes...

After we have thought out everything carefully in advance and have sought and found without prejudice the most plausible plan, we must not be ready to abandon it at the slightest provocation. Should this certainty be lacking, we must tell ourselves that nothing is accomplished in warfare without daring; that the nature of war certainly does not let us see at all times where we are going; that what is probable will always be probable though at the moment it may not seem so; and finally, that we cannot be readily ruined by a single error, if we have made reasonable preparations.

As a general rule every one is more inclined to lend credence to the bad than the good. Every one is inclined to magnify the bad in some measure, and although the alarms which are thus propagated, like the waves of the sea, subside into themselves, still, like them, without any apparent cause they rise again. Firm in reliance on his own better convictions, the chief must stand like a rock against which the sea breaks its fury in vain.

And this one is for you code.

"The best form of defense is attack."

- Karl von Clausewitz

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by webnarc

Not that the questions was directed me but here's my two cents on what should have been done with this war. Some of it is hindsight, most of it isn't.

Step one would have been to define the goal - define what it means to have regime change and work towards achieving this end. You want their leader and his goons gone, not 10000 government workers and the entire military. In this war, who remained to say that "Iraq surrenders to the coalition"? Because an end couldn't be called by one side, even though the war is effectively over, America CAN'T leave because this can be viewed as a loss (it isn't, but it could be regarded as one).

Step two would have been to define the security terms for the Iraqi people - you've removed their army, their police force and effectively shut down the country. Factors that combine to create a sense of anarchy in some areas. Without effective protection, the country has had a much harder time starting up again because of fear.

Step three would have been to define the terms of the media war, plan it and execute this plan to show the world what is going on.

Step four would have been to start getting money back into the hands of the Iraqi people by hiring them to rebuild their country and out-sourcing many of the jobs to NON-American companies.

Step five would have been to get enough troops to guarantee you achieve the goal. Anecdotal reports from the initial soldiers is that the Iraqi people were happy to see the coalitions arrival and Saddam's removal.

Step six would have been to guard the intellections of Iraq to ensure that they do not get killed or leave the country out of fear (this is an extension of step two) because these are the people who will help rebuild and redefine the country.

Step seven would have been to NOT stamp out and piss all over every nation that didn't support the war and to stop the smear campaign on anyone who disagrees with it.

Ultimately the war would not have been regarded as a football game, it would have been regarded as a takeover of a company, with the Iraqi people being regarded as shareholders and the Saddam goons as the unwilling board of directors. If backing down on some things is what's needed to win the support of the shareholders, back down. If you're in there for the greater good, the perception of weakness is a weapon that you must use to win the war.

:insane:

And now back to reality.

The french, russians and UN are the bad guys. Not us. THey are the ones who were fighting for oil. NOT US. These are facts and it is not a smear campaign. If you think otherwise you have been had. you have been manipulated and you SHOULD be pissed about it.

[du7st]

WHAT FAILURES?!?!? ARE YOU INSANE?!?!

Rumsfeld underestimated the number of troops that needed to be maintained in Iraq. Proof? Making thousands stay 3 months longer then originally planned. Explaining that war is difficult does not excuse this mistake.

The CIA made many intelligence failures. 1) WMD's 2) Hussein-al Qaeda links. Explaining that war is diffucult does not excuse this mistake.

I mean really how many mistakes does the CIA have to make before someone shows Tenet the door? The job of the president is to make the tough decision to remove those people that aren't doing their jobs well. Again, explaining that war is difficult does not excuse the mistakes.

As for having my own views of what exactly should be done in Iraq, I'll do exactly what you told me to do and leave that to someone more qualified then me. His name is John Kerry.

[phishhead]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

The french, russians and UN are the bad guys. Not us. THey are the ones who were fighting for oil. NOT US. These are facts and it is not a smear campaign. If you think otherwise you have been had. you have been manipulated and you SHOULD be pissed about it.

Wow.

Just wow. The facts because Mad Mike (and maybe some other right-wing f*cks) says so.

Talk about people being had, it seems you should know all about it. :laugh:

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by du7st

WHAT FAILURES?!?!? ARE YOU INSANE?!?!

Rumsfeld underestimated the number of troops that needed to be maintained in Iraq. Proof? Making thousands stay 3 months longer then originally planned. Explaining that war is difficult does not excuse this mistake.

"No battle plan suvives contact with the enemy" This is the first "rule" of warfare. Once you understand this FACT you cannot call unforseen dificulties a mistake. The fact that troop rotations have been altered is NOT an indication of failure, it is an adjustment to the plan.

The CIA made many intelligence failures. 1) WMD's 2) Hussein-al Qaeda links. Explaining that war is diffucult does not excuse this mistake.

WMDs? Who knows where they went. Saddam never provided proof of their distruction. The recent foiled chemical attack may indicate they went to Syria. As for the Saddam/AQ link we have more actionable inteligence (reasonably solid evidence) that shows there was some sort of link than we had to indicate the attacks of 9/11 were comming. You want 8x10 glossies of Saddam and UBL swapping spit?

I mean really how many mistakes does the CIA have to make before someone shows Tenet the door? The job of the president is to make the tough decision to remove those people that aren't doing their jobs well. Again, explaining that war is difficult does not excuse the mistakes.

Tenet is the one person I question in all of this. But the problem is not likely to be solved by the removal of one man. The CIA has deep flaws and it may be that Tenet is doing the best he or anyone else can to overcome them. There is no way for you or I to know.

As for having my own views of what exactly should be done in Iraq, I'll do exactly what you told me to do and leave that to someone more qualified then me. His name is John Kerry.

:rotflmao:

Kerry thinks he can get France, Germany, and the UN to help and all will be well. That is the ONLY "plan" he has spoken of and it is an example of blind stupidity. It ignores what we KNOW about the corruption in the UN and the lies and corruption of France. So either he is a complete moron or he is lying to you to get your vote.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by phishhead

Wow.

Just wow. The facts because Mad Mike (and maybe some other right-wing f*cks) says so.

Talk about people being had, it seems you should know all about it. :laugh:

Educate yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=UN+Oil+for+food+scandal&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=French+ties+to+Saddam&btnG=Search

More significant, however, was de Villepin's adoration of two historical figures: Napoleon, whose slogan was "victory or death, but glory whatever happens," and Machiavelli, who perfected the art of the diplomatic lie.

"The problem with you Americans," de Villepin hectored a visiting United States senator in Paris last December, "is that you don't read Machiavelli." His meaning, the senator's aide told me, was crystal clear. De Villepin and Chirac had lied to the United States during the Iraq crisis, and if we didn't like it, we should get over it. That's how the "big boys" played politics.

The french lied to us and the world. They used their influence to undemine us and accuse us of the most horrible intentions. They STABBED US IN THE BACK.

en·e·my    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-m)

n. pl. en·e·mies

One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.

A hostile power or force, such as a nation.

A member or unit of such a force.

A group of foes or hostile forces. See Usage Note at collective noun.

Something destructive or injurious in its effects: “Art hath an enemy called Ignorance” (Ben Jonson).

[phishhead]

Thanks for the "educating links" Mad Mike. Although a majority of the sites that are listed are pro-Bush right leaning sites, which of course isn't surprising. Examples: Frontpagemag, weeklystandard, washtimes, national review, etc etc. Pretty easy to figure out why they woud be so gung ho about this certain story..

Don't get me wrong, that doesn't take away from the story itself (the UN is definitely corrupt in many ways), it just shows the ability of these institutions to ignore American corruption (which we could possibly do something about) of any sort to focus on something completely out of our power to change.

Also the fact that the current administration is trying to achieve global dominance may be another reason why it is so important to destroy the UN in any way possible. Of course, its not just the UN, it's anything that stands in the way of American power, to be fair.

[webnarc]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

:insane:

And now back to reality.

The french, russians and UN are the bad guys. Not us. THey are the ones who were fighting for oil. NOT US. These are facts and it is not a smear campaign. If you think otherwise you have been had. you have been manipulated and you SHOULD be pissed about it.

Ha ha, you're a funny guy who isn't too bright today.

Step seven was for people like you. Anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid.

The war IS going according to plan and that's what people are concerned about. Dead American soldiers and contract workers ARE part of the plan. That's acceptable to you but it isn't for a lot of other people; and you know this because you've been barking more and more recently to make sure everyone knows how great things are going. Yes, dead American's are part of the plan that you mindless endorse.

You'd have no problem with same approach to the next war. You have no problem with NOT learning from mistakes.