Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to re: Alternatives

Continued
Robert — (archived)

Maybe part of my reaction last night was that I'm unused to being confronted with new arguments around here. Seems like it's pretty much going around in circles with the same old stuff.

The analogies you make between Afghanistan and Iraq are interesting. As for the rationale for war, though, I have to quibble with your choice of words. That several American Administrations said that Iraq was a danger isn't quite the same thing as Bush saying that Iraq posed an imminent danger. That one word is the crux of the controversy, since imminent danger is the rationale for preemptive war under the Bush Doctrine. The imminence of the threat was based on the allegation that Iraq had "massive stockpiles" of WMD and an ongoing nuclear program, but neither charge has been borne out.

That sets the stage for the "what if?" scenario you pose about discovering that ObL wasn't responsible for 9/11 after all. Unlike Iraq, Al Qaida had vividly demonstrated that it was an imminent danger (what phrase would be appropriate for an imminent danger that comes to pass? Whatever, it was proven to be a danger.). Or rather, in this scenario, somebody was demonstrated to be a real danger, and that's a key difference.

So, the premise of danger at least had a proven basis in fact. It seems in a sense a less severe mistake to have misidentified the culprit. How I'd judge the failure would have a lot to do with whether the circumstances of the failure resemble the Iraq failure--specifically, was the intelligence information cherry-picked, was the situation "spun", and was the case hyped? If there was no evidence that Bush acted in bad faith in Afghanistan, I'd be displeased with the mistake but not nearly as outraged as I am over Iraq.

I think also we have to take into account the timing. The invasion of Afghanistan was a quick reaction to 9/11, and given the emotions of the time, the standards of evidence didn't have to be as high. The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, came after more than a year of (presumably) cold calculation and planning. That was enough time to have gotten the ducks in a row and made a solid case. That the case proved so shaky after so much preparation looks bad.

As for whether all that would negate the accomplishment of destroying the Taliban, well, there it would be pretty much the same as in Iraq. It would still be a good thing, but that wouldn't retroactively absolve Bush of the mistake based on an incorrect premise, nor erase any potential bad faith.

Speaking of the scenario that it turned out that ObL wasn't responsible for 9/11, one of the bizarre footnotes to the event can be found on the FBI's "Most-Wanted" poster for Usama bin Laden. Notice that he's not charged with the attacks on the WTC or the Pentagon; he's listed only as a "suspect in other terrorist attacks". I've always wondered just what in the hell that means. Was he ever formally indicted?

That's my take on it all. Intriguing questions you posed, Frank.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (91 posts)