What Did President Bush Gain...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 11 2006, 11:15 AM) [snapback]317835[/snapback]</div>

Misleading question since it was more Cheney/Rumsfield whom had a lot more personal history with Saddam than Bush, and a bigger part of the decision making.

 

I think Bush personally had something to gain though. Politically he was not doing so well, and were it not for the tragedy and the crime of 5 years ago today, I don't think Bush would have been reelected.

In spite of that, I do sometimes find myself in rare moments of actually thinking that Bush believes what he's saying about trying to make the world better and America Safer. Those moments are rare though, and always mitigated by my belief that even if he is sincere it's because he's listening to people like Rumsfeld, who always, always strikes me as less than sincere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 12 2006, 02:21 AM) [snapback]317838[/snapback]</div>

Bingo: Biggest thread in the history of autocratic governments: give 'em a war and they will unite around you. Every dictator in history has probably used the idea, most notably, Hitler. Bush had a personal vendetta against Saddam and was planning a war before 9/11 gave him the opportunity. Handy though, that once he started a war, he would be the "logical" choice in the next (2004) election to "lead" the country to victory.

Personally, I think he's a despicable lying sack of s**t.

Bob

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Sep 11 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]317836[/snapback]</div>

That's a big part of it. I think he and his friends wanted to finish what the more prudent decided to avoid in Gulf War I. At that time it was about protecting the oil supply (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.), this time it was about gaining oil supply (oil infrastructure was one of the few things guarded during the initial looting after the overthrow of Saddam).

Supposedly, while the dust was settling in NYC, George W. was asking if we could pin it on Iraq and go invade right away, but the intelligence and military said to go after Afghanistan/bin Laden first and build a separate case for Iraq.

If we were really after terrorists, we would've invaded Yemen and Saudi Arabia long before Iraq. I think the Bush administration primarily saw it as unfinished business for G. Bush senior. And to get rid of the formerly large French influence in the oil-rich country (one of the reasons France was a big detractor in the whole effort).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 11 2006, 02:15 PM) [snapback]317835[/snapback]</div>

Of course Bush gained nothing. Those who hate Bush would oppose any action he takes period. I have been as amused of the left-wing nuts and Bush as I was of the right-wing nuts and Clinton. As an independent I have supported both parties at different times. The poster above who had to use profanity to describe their feelings for him shows the problem, their hate outweighs any other consideration, just as the Republicans that hated Clinton where much the same. It's very sad for the Nation in my opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 11 2006, 11:15 AM) [snapback]317835[/snapback]</div>

I can't necessarily explain what Bush wanted to accomplish, but many believe it was 'finishing' what his father started. There are always political benefits to rallying the country into a frenzy for war, but there's more to it than that. Reliable reports indicate that Bush was interested in an excuse to go to war with Iraq, and was interested in tying Iraq with 9/11. Failing that, he put significant pressure on the intelligence comminities to justify a war with Iraq. This war has never had anything to do with 9/11 or stopping terrorism (though many americans have been led to believe it was). It was about WMDs that didn't exist. Iraq, until the war, had never killed an american (outside of the first gulf war), and posed no threat to the US. The people we sent in there were unable to find a threat. Bush pushed war anyway.

My belief is that Bush had an inner desire to have a more determined finish to our first gulf war, and -- when others like Cheney -- pushed for conflict, he was more than willing.

What bugs me is that nobody in the administration can stand up and say in any significant way that they made an error in judgement and shouldn't have done this. Even last weekend, Cheney was saying that we'd do the same thing again. That, to me, is a scary statement from this administration.

/soapbox

 

A friend explained it this way.

"I think Mr. Bush invaded Iraq because although most of the attackers on 9-11 were Saudi Nationals (as was bin Laden) he didn't want to go into Saudi Arabia, for obvious reasons. Biting the hand, and all that. Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and Lebanon were discounted because they had at least putatively "friendly" governments, too. He needed a target.

Iraq looked like a pushover. I think that Mr. Bush, (and more importantly, Messrs Cheney and Rove) really thought that it would be a cakewalk. If anyone had told them, then, that on the fifth anniversary of 9-11 we'd still be mired down in Iraq with no end in sight, they'd have laughed it off. Mr. Bush had no idea when he stood on the aircraft carrier and declared "mission accomplished" that the reality that faced him was what subsequently happened.

I think the administration really thought that they'd send in the military, Iraq would fold, we'd take over the oilfields, profit thereby, and a few years down the line, Mr. Bush would be covered in glory for having "liberated" a country and created a new democracy out of tyranny. The Middle East would have a new anchor of democracy, Israel would thereby be made safer, and surely Hezbollah would be rebuked. George Bush II would go down in history as having the vision, the determination, that his father lacked: Legacy Assured.

So much for delusions. The question now is, how long will we, as a nation, continue to support the misrepresentations, mistakes in judgment, and failures that have ensued? If Barbara Tuchman hadn't already written March of Folly, the Iraq Incident would be an obvious candidate for inclusion, except that so far it does not fulfill the third criterion: "The policy should be that of a group, not an individual ruler, and it should persist beyond any one political lifetime."

We're in pretty good shape on the first two, though. "It must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely by hindsight," and "A feasible alternative course of action must have been available." It was a bad idea, we didn't have to do it, and many argued against it from the beginning. We could have continued to pursue bin Laden and settled the situation in Afghanistan. Instead. . ."

What did Mr. Bush gain? Not what he thought he would.

 

[attachmentid=4982]

[attachmentid=4983]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 11 2006, 02:27 PM) [snapback]317958[/snapback]</div>

This is the closest to my opinion about the Iraq war (which I think was rushed and premature, and said so at the time). "Intelligence" is so often wrong that using it for "pre-emption" is a dangerous business indeed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 11 2006, 04:34 PM) [snapback]318040[/snapback]</div>

There was already a target and we hit that country very precisely and thoroughly; at least in the beginning. I think it was about how to hit two birds with one stone.

If you think about it, it is a win-win scenario. If Iraq goes badly, Bush takes the blame for it. If it goes well, the movers-and-shakers ride the coat-tails. Either way, profits are there to be made, and Saddam would be out of power.

 

Well, I will give you the strategy that I was taught in my MEL 4 (Military Education Level) course - It is what us majors take to qualify us to be field officers. So you may take this as propoganda. I do not represent the government's views, just my interpetation.

The grand strategy is that democratic countries do not attack other democratic countries. That is why the US has been redoubling their efforts in spreading democracy. An indirect effort to protect the homeland.

It may not be the Democracy we have but something similiar. For instance in the early 90s only 4-5 countriees in Africa had democracies. Now something upwards of 14 do. They are struggling to survive but it took nearly 200 years for us to get where we are so I imagine they will be working at it a bit longer.

I have not read the latest conspiracy therories lately but last time I check Preseident Bush does not get anything out of this. It is not like he is doing it to get something (invade a couple countries so he can get a book deal and a speaking circuit). I think he honestly thought Iraq was a threat and that it had WMD and leadership who would not hesitate to use it. In the 14 years we had been over there Iraq has not hesitated to shoot at the UN (US forces there also) Forces enforcing the UN Resolution.

His decisions were based on the current intelligence at the time. Did they make a mistake on the intel, maybe, but once it started you are not going to say oopps and pull out. A failed nation state is worse than the dictatorship. Terrorist organizations can then just walk right in and setup shop.

There are also probably some classified information that we (the public) are not aware of. I do not believe we should be aware of all of it. That would risk our security. Hence we vote responsible leadership in our government (although lately I have been wonders about that). Everyone thinks they have a right to know, however, this also feeds info to the terrorists and the take advantage of our desire to play fair and expect others to play fair.

We never wanted the oil fields. That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Even a third grader would know that the other Middle East countries would not stand for that and it would do more harm than good. I think the oil fields have been turned over to their goverment already.

We knew we could crush their military to force them to capitulate and install a democratic government. What we did not forsee was the collapse of the government. Their society is based on loyalty to one's tribe/clan. So when the government collapse (since Sadam was the glue forcing the peace) everyone went back to their clan. We now get as much education on "Nation Building" as be do in strategic, operational, and tactic level DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic) Strategies

The reason I was given why we did not do it 16 years ago was because there was no one to take Sadams place then and it is better to have the devil you know than the devil you do not. There are a lot of things going on in the background. To say he wanted to finish what his father started does not seem right also. It is probably because the Diplomatic, Information, and Economic strategies were not working so they stepped up the military one. They also thought the situation was ripe for the Iraqi populace to take control and elect their leaders.

History has shown conflicts are generally a series of incidents, usually because someone was trying to obtain another onjective and did not see the 3rd or 4th order effects of their actions.

 

Tadashi -

Thank you very much for explaining how decisions like this get made from a military standpoint. It makes it much easier for someone like me who got no closer to the military than an overzealous coach in high schoo.

A couple comments I'd like your opinons on, though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Sep 12 2006, 10:03 AM) [snapback]318261[/snapback]</div>

Shouldn't the administration have forseen the possibility of the collapse of the government and planned accordingly? Someone should have said "You now, this could happen and maybe we should plan for it". If it was said, but was ignored, then that says something about the people at the top of the decision chain. Also, during the 2000 election, President Bush all but condemned using the military for "nation building". There should have been some thought about this before the ultimate decision was made.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Sep 12 2006, 10:03 AM) [snapback]318261[/snapback]</div>

It sounds to me like President G.H.W. Bush and his advisors (including Colin Powell) had the idea that the government would collapse if they pushed on to Baghdad & got rid of Saddam. Why, then, did the current administration (which includes people that served in the first Bush administration) not have this on the table? If it was a thought then, it should have been a thought in 2003 and a plan --even a sketchy one-- should have been drawn up. I realize you can't plan for everything, but it seems like this should have been a no-brainer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Sep 12 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]318261[/snapback]</div>

This is a misconception. The administration cherrypicked the intel and gave certainty to low probability items. Notable unverified events sold to the public as true were the meeting of Iraqi officials with al Qaeda, the attempted purchase of yellow cake and the mobile labs.

They invaded Iraq only because they wanted to. Maybe the question is what did Cheney (Mr Haliburton) and Rumsfeld (Mr Defense Secretary) gain?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 12 2006, 03:36 PM) [snapback]318277[/snapback]</div>

They did. They were fired, or threatened with it.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-21075sy0...0,2264542.story?

 

It is suggestive that the Oil Ministry was heavily protected from the start of the occupation while other more immediately critical infrastructure was ignored. For those who do not remember all the way back to 2003 or who were not paying attention at the time a little googling finds any number of citations of this, for example http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 10:47 AM) [snapback]318343[/snapback]</div>

More money.

Like I said before, "they tried to kill my dad" might have played a part.