US Army War College report that condemns Iraq war as "unnecessary"

[Clarkmeister]

Interesting read.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040112/ts_nm/iraq_usa_report_dc_1

[rkiray]

[GeorgeF]

Bounding the Global War on Terrorism
Dr. Jeffrey Record December 2003
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.htm

[Chris Alger]

This is at least the fifth significant report or disclosure this month tending to confirm that the White House didn’t “misread” the intelligence” but grotesquely manipulated it in order to justify the war. Other include the following:

1. A few days ago the U.S. scaled back efforts to look for WMD, although the pro-war line (e.g., Krauthammer's) when the Kay report came up blank was released that the search for WMD had just begun. As reported in the New York Times on Jan. 8, “the Bush administration has quietly withdrawn from Iraq a 400-member military team whose job was to scour the country for military equipment, according to senior government officials. The step was described by some military officials as a sign that the administration might have lowered its sights and no longer expected to uncover the caches of chemical and biological weapons that the White House cited as a principal reason for going to war last March. A separate military team that specializes in disposing of chemical and biological weapons remains part of the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group, which has been searching Iraq for more that seven months at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. But that team is ‘still waiting for something to dispose of,’ said a survey group member.”

2. The February issue of The Atlantic Monthly contains an anguished article (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/media-preview/pollack.htm ) by Kenneth Pollack, former NSC staffer and CIA analyst for the Persian Gulf. Author of the influential pro-war book “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,” Pollack now contends that the case for war was based on exaggeration. He concludes that “no evidence suggested that Saddam had undertaken any significant steps after 1998 toward reconstituting the program to build nuclear weapons or to produce fissile material” and that “little evidence surfaced that Iraq had continued to produce chemical weapons; only a minimal amount of clandestine research had been done on them.” His prescription: the U.S. “must admit to the world that it was wrong about Iraq's WMD and show that it is taking far-reaching action to correct the problems that led to this error.” (Perhaps bin Laden will do the same if convinced that the 9/11 attacks were a mistake based on his "faulty" and "incomplete" understanding of U.S. relations with Arabia).

Pollack also describes how the White House tried to manipulate intelligence to fit pro-war media propaganda, rather than merely misinterpreting what it was provided. “On many occasions Administration officials' requests for additional information struck the analysts as being made merely to distract them from their primary mission. . . . Requests were constantly made for detailed analyses of newspaper articles that conformed to the views of Administration officials—pieces by conservative newspaper columnists such as Jim Hoagland, William Safire, and George F. Will.”

Pollack also describes how the administration sought to manipulate the workings of intelligence gathering and analysis to sex up the case for war: <ul type="square"> Throughout the spring and fall of 2002 and well into 2003 I received numerous complaints from friends and colleagues in the intelligence community, and from people in the policy community, about [how the Bush Administration handled the intelligence]. According to them, many Administration officials reacted strongly, negatively, and aggressively when presented with information or analysis that contradicted what they already believed about Iraq. . . . The Administration gave greatest credence to accounts that presented the most lurid picture of Iraqi activities. In many cases intelligence analysts were distrustful of those sources, or knew unequivocally that they were wrong. But when they said so, they were not heeded; instead they were beset with further questions about their own sources. [/list] 3. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp?from=pubdate) just published an extensive critical analsyis of the case for war. After detailing the findings to date, the report echoes Pollack’s conclusions that the Iraqi WMD “did not, . . . pose an immediate threat to the United States, the region, or global security.” The report also notes the lack of evidence to the “links to terror” argument that played such a crucial role in mobilizing support for the war. As Colin Powell later admitted, “the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam ’s government and Al Qaeda.” Nor was the prospect of a connection ever likely, given the opposing motives of Saddam and bin Laden, also detailed in the report but rarely surfacing in the mainstream media. “In the judgment of U.S. intelligence, a transfer of WMD by Saddam to terrorists was likely only if he were ‘sufficiently desperate’ in the face of an impending invasion.”

4. The day before the NY Times report above, the Washington Post published a long article entitled “Iraq’s Arsenal Was Only On Paper.” One of the more interesting findings was a new document, wrote a long article described a new document “from inside the Iraqi government” that “supports Iraq's claim that it destroyed all production stocks of lethal pathogens before inspectors knew they existed.”

Recall that much of Iraq’s WMD program from the 1980's was disclosed for the first time by Saddam’s defector son-in-law, Hussein Kamal. His disclosures were regularly cited as proof that nothing the Iraqi government said could be trusted. The White House failed to disclose, however, that Kamal also claimed that Iraq’s WMD stockpiles from the 1980's, including those that allegedly were never “accounted for,” were destroyed in 1991. (This fact surfaced in a little-reported leak shortly before the war, including the classified minutes of his debriefing, available now on the internet).

The new document purports to be an internal damage report about Kamal’s defection by Hossam Amin, the head of Iraq’s National Monitoring Directorate, to Qusay Hussein. Describing Kamal’s disclosures, it reiterated “the government's claim that it possessed no such arms after 1990, then wrote that in truth ‘destruction of the biological weapons agents took place in the summer of 1991.’” According to the Post, “Iraqis who know Amin well and experienced government investigators from the United States and Europe, who analyzed the document for this article, said they believe it to be authentic. They cited handwriting, syntax, contemporary details and annotations that match those of previous samples. Markings on the letter say that Qusay read it, summarized it for his father and filed it with presidential secretary Abed Hamid Mahmoud.” A U.S. intelligence official to whom a copy of the document was given would not confirm its authenticity but commented that it was “plausible,” and more ominously that it contained "no surprises."

[andyfox]

"Record faulted the administration for fusing disparate enemies such as rogue states, terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction proliferators into a monolithic threat. . . the administration 'may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.'

Record said the administration's declared goals 'are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security,' as well as being fiscally, politically and militarily unsustainable."

-Exactly the same problems Walter Lippman saw with our early Cold War strategy. George Kennan also recognized this. Both were right. Instead of focusing on what was important and susceptible to our influence, we saw the world in black and white and sacrificed our principles, our money, and our lives because of a myopic, manichean worldview. Our successes were thus sullied by our failures and the good things we did (and there were many) countermanded by the bad.

Record is also correct in asserting that there can be no such thing as a war on terrorism. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy.

[MMMMMM]

"Record said the administration's declared goals 'are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security,' as well as being fiscally, politically and militarily unsustainable.""

The goal isn't to achieve "absolute security": it's to achieve more security. Fortunately "more" is an attainable goal.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

Exactly the same problems Walter Lippman saw with our early Cold War strategy

I just want to make sure we are talking about the same cold war. Do you mean the cold war that resulted in almost zero U.S. civilian casulaties, zero nuclear weapons going off, left the U.S. as the lone superpower, and that resulted in the spread of democracy around the world?

Record said the administration's declared goals 'are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security,' as well as being fiscally, politically and militarily unsustainable."

hm...so what exactly is he saying here? Is he suggesting that we are going to continually get slaughtered by terrorists and there is nothing we can do?

Record is also correct in asserting that there can be no such thing as a war on terrorism. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy.

Yes, of course. I think Bush would agree with you. And that is why we attacked a state. Seems like the left is in a little bit of a dilemma here. Didn't the left say that the war in Iraq was diverting our fight against terrorism? Now are they saying that that fight doesn't exist in reality?

To put too much stock in a single report when there is an endless supply of them is a mistake and it makes the left look like they are grapsing at straws. Its like saying, "yes, our predictions of the disasters of the Irag war were wrong, the iraqi people in general really like us, the american people mostly support the job of the president, and we have had exactly zero terrorist attacks since Bush pushed us in this direction. However, a nobody professor published a report saying the war was wrong. THERE! That is all the proof one should need."

As I have said before, game theory favors those who are agressive and who makes the enemy believe they will attack if provoked. Stripping aside morality concerns for the moment, one cannot casually dismiss (unless you are Alger) the effects of the Iraq war on the global military picture, even if the war on Iraq was not immediately neccessary.

[Utah]

I appreciated Ken Pollack's honest reassessment of the question of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq. The Bush team could learn a lot from it.

Since my liberal hawkishness regarding the Iraq war was never rooted in the WMD issue, I look at the postwar a little differently. The debate about the Iraq war for me was always a struggle between hope and experience: hope that we could partner with Iraqis to remove the genocidal tyranny of Saddam Hussein and replace it with some kind of decent, pluralistic, representative government in the heart of the Arab world, and my experience—particularly living in Lebanon during its civil war—which left me skeptical about ever producing a self-sustaining, multiethnic democracy in that region. It was a real struggle in my head. In the end, I let hope win. I have no regrets.

Indeed, having visited Iraq three times since April, I feel even more strongly today than I did the day the war started that, while the Bush team has made an utter mess of the diplomacy and postwar planning, it was still the right war and still has a decent chance to produce a decent outcome.

Why? I think there were four reasons for this war, and I identified with three of them: There was the stated reason, the moral reason, the right reason, and the real reason.

The stated reason for the war was that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction that posed a long-term threat to America. I never bought this argument. I didn't have any inside information. I simply assumed that whatever WMD Saddam possessed had to be, after a decade of sanctions, so limited that it was easily deterable. There was absolutely nothing in Saddam's history to suggest that he was suicidal—that he had the capability or will to attack the United States directly and pay the price.

He was always deterable and containable. This was always a war of choice.

The WMD argument was hyped by George Bush and Tony Blair to try to turn a war of choice into a war of necessity. They will have to answer for that.

Personally, I believed the right reason and the moral reason for the war were more than sufficient to justify it. To be sure, they would have been a hard sell as a war of choice, but not impossible—had Messrs. Bush and Blair really thrown themselves into it.

The moral reason for the war was that this was a genocidal regime responsible for the deaths of some 1 million Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians, and Kuwaitis as a result of Saddam's internal suppression and external wars with Iran and Kuwait. Saddam was 10 times worse than Serbian thug Slobodan Milosevic, whom NATO took on without U.N. cover.

The right reason for the war, and this was the core of my own argument, was that the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten our open society were not the hidden WMD of Saddam. Those, as I said, were always deterable because Saddam and his sons loved life more than they hated us. No, the real WMD that threatened us, and still do, are the young people being churned out, year after year, by failed and repressive Arab states, who hate us more than they love life and therefore are undeterable. I am talking here about the boys of 9/11. I am talking here about all the youth identified in the two U.N. Development Programme Arab Human Development reports—youth who want to run away from the Arab countries they were raised in because they are so frustrated, angry, and humiliated by how their governments and society have left them unprepared for modernity. Sept. 11, I have always believed, was produced by the poverty dignity, not the poverty money. It was the product, as Egyptian playwright Ali Salem once remarked, of young men who felt so humiliated by the world, they felt like dwarfs, and dwarfs search out tall towers to bring down in order to feel tall. Humiliated youth, ready to commit suicide using instruments from our daily life—cars, planes, tennis shoes—and inspired by religious totalitarians are the real threat to open societies today.

Therefore, the right reason for this war, as I argued before it started, was to oust Saddam's regime and partner with the Iraqi people to try to implement the Arab Human Development report's prescriptions in the heart of the Arab world. That report said the Arab world is falling off the globe because of a lack of freedom, women's empowerment, and modern education. The right reason for this war was to partner with Arab moderates in a long-term strategy of dehumiliation and redignification.

The real reason for this war—which was never stated—was to burst what I would call the "terrorism bubble," which had built up during the 1990s.

This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as "martyrs," and donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something—to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic—it's not in the rule book—but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable. Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could—period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.

Unless we successfully partner with Iraqis, though, to build a new and more decent context, that terrorism bubble will eventually come back tenfold. We must get this right. Yes, I know, it may all turn out to be a fool's errand. A decent Iraq may be impossible. But I would rather go down swinging as an optimist than resign as a pessimist. Because if there is no way to produce governments that can deliver for their young people in the Arab world, get ready for a future full of Code Orange and Code Red.

[andyfox]

"I just want to make sure we are talking about the same cold war. Do you mean the cold war that resulted in almost zero U.S. civilian casulaties, zero nuclear weapons going off, left the U.S. as the lone superpower, and that resulted in the spread of democracy around the world?"

No, I mean the Cold War that led to the needless deaths of millions of people in Southeast Asia and Central America. The Cold War where our leaders lied to us and themselves about the nature of Communism and the extent of the Soviet Union's power and influence around the world. The Cold War where we failed to see the difference betwen Stalin and Arbenz or between George Washington and the contras and that stifled democracy in many countries around the world.

"hm...so what exactly is he saying here? Is he suggesting that we are going to continually get slaughtered by terrorists and there is nothing we can do?"

No, he's saying that rather than fight a tactic like terrorism, we should fight an enemy, namely Al Qaeda and that a queset for endless absolute security is likely to lead to mistakes like the was in Iraq and the consequent diminution or resources available to fight Al Qaeda.

I don't think the "left" is putting too much stock in one report by a "nobody" professor cited in a thread by a poker player on 2+2. Mr. Alger pointed up several recent reports that add insight to the discussion.

As for there being zero terrorist attacks since Bush pushed us in "that direction," if you are referring by that direction as the war in Iraq, I have seen no evidence that the war in Iraq has had any effect on terrorist activity. I believe the routing of the Taliban did have such effect, as have our beefed up security efforts. If there is such evidence, I welcome it.

[andyfox]

What do you think of this argument. Forget about the WMD portion, and the containability of Hussein, and the gratuitous slap at Bush. I'm curious what you think of what Friedman calls the "right" reason for the war.

If I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter what we do, terrorists are going to be terrorists anyway. I have heard several prominent tadio talk-show hosts express this same viewpoint. Friedman feels we can influence the "humiliated youth."

Whaddya think?

[MMMMMM]

"The Cold War where our leaders lied to us and themselves about the nature of Communism and the extent of the Soviet Union's power and influence around the world."

The nature of Communism was such that it led to unspeakable evil, and killed around 100 million people in the 20th century (more by far than any other "ism." If anything, I bet our leaders may have underrepresented the threat of the vilest, most widespread, and most tyrannical system of evil in the history of man.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm

[MMMMMM]

First of all, the 9/11 hijackers and their masterminds were not poor or oppressed...they were quite well off.

It is neither poverty, nor humiliation, that breeds terrorism, since countless societies have so suffered yet still not turned to terrorism. This is an important point. Rather, terrorism is bred by a totalitarian mindset.

This is so whether it is al-Qaeda saying the USA must convert to Islam or else face further attacks, or whether it is Stalin himself ordering the mass slaughters of his own citizens. Totalitarian, absolutist ideologies breed terrorism, whether on the fringe or institutionalized.

Look at even those few wackos in our own country: McVeigh, and those who murder abortion clinic doctors. They are not "oppressed" or "humiliated"; they are simply enthralled and consumed by absolutist ideologies. Likewise Stalinism was itself a totalitarian system. Islamic jihad warriors are in the grip of absolutist religious beliefs. Likewise the suicide bombers in Israel are either in the grip of a religious death-cult, or they believe that Israel itself must become Palestine. The Hamas Charter is absolutist in its announced goals.

Terrorism flows from a totalitarian mindset, a fanatical mindset which will not accept compromise.

[andyfox]

Our leaders saw Communists everywhere. By depleting the foreign service of people who told the truth about the strength of Mao's Communist movement in China and that he would eventually triumph, we had no expertise on Southeast Asia at all, and blundered into the disasters of Korea and Vietnam. By assuming anyone who was left of center must be a Communist we condemend the people of Guatemala, El Salvador and Chile (to name just three egregious examples) to untold horrors for many years. By blinding ourselves to the tyrannical ways of "our bastards," who were every bit as cruel and murderous as Saddam Hussein, we managed to convince ourselves that such people were the "moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers [Ronald Reagan]." By failing to see that Communism was not monolithic, that Mao had different priorities from Stalin, and Ho Chi Minh from Mao, we were unable to, and uninterested in, understanding the history of the countries whose governments we undermined. These mistakes undermined the moral authority of the United States and sullied the great good that we did in combatting Soviet evil. Nobody argues that Communism in the Soviet Union wasn't an unmitigated disaster and that Lenin and Stalin must be regarded as two of histories great villains.

Such myopia resulted in policies that left Stalin and Mao unmolested, and yet went after Arbenz and Daniel Ortega and Mossadegh and Allende, and made heroes out of the likes of murderous thugs like the Contras, Diem and Thieu, and Pinochet.

One can approve of many policies and programs of the Cold War and disagree with others. The mistakes of an all-encompassing anti-communism resulted in million of deaths.

[andyfox]

[MMMMMM]

So the mistakes of all-encompassing anti-communism may have resulted in a few million deaths. Compared to the 100 million deaths resulting from Communism itself, that is relatively small. Also, Mao may have killed as many, or more, than Stalin.

[Utah]

No, I mean the Cold War that led to the needless deaths of millions of people in Southeast Asia and Central America. The Cold War where our leaders lied to us and themselves about the nature of Communism and the extent of the Soviet Union's power and influence around the world. The Cold War where we failed to see the difference betwen Stalin and Arbenz or between George Washington and the contras and that stifled democracy in many countries around the world.

Yes, of course. But my point being that it all depends on how you look at it. There were positive things to the U.S. tactics of the cold war - namely, that bombs did not reign holy hell on the U.S. It is easy to say that communism was not that strong now. However, without U.S. intervention it might have been. Maybe not - but who the heck knows. As far as the millions dead. There have been many mass slaughters in the last hundred years and the business of mass slaughter has done quite nicely since the end of the cold war. That is what I have argued about with Alger in the past. Bush's doctrine may be wrong, but it can't be worse than the past global policies and the use of the U.N. which allowed Rwanda, Balkans, etc. to happen. I would like to here alternatives to the Bush Doctrine other than use the U.N. - which has been nothing but a complete and utter failure.

As I have pointed out in the past, preventative war started with game theorists in the 40's. Maybe, just maybe, if the U.S. had launched a preventative war in the 40's those cold war millions would not have died. What irks me about the left is not the opposition to war, it is the inability to see a larger picture or to even view alternatives (of course, this is a grand stereotype of the left).

No, he's saying that rather than fight a tactic like terrorism, we should fight an enemy

Which is exactly what Bush did. Maybe the wrong enemy? However, he fougjht an enemy not a tactic. also, you can fight a tactic. I think to say otherwise is mistaken.

I don't think the "left" is putting too much stock in one report by a "nobody" professor cited in a thread by a poker player on 2+2. Mr. Alger pointed up several recent reports that add insight to the discussion.

Didnt the Ragin Cajun discuss this post on crossfire last night? In general, this is the tactic the dems. are currently relying on (e.g., 60 minutes type crap). In general, I think you would agree, that this method of attack is extremely weak say compared to actual data. For example "we attacked Iraq and 10,000 people are dead" is a far stronger type of argument. The dems. didn't get the results they were "hoping" for (e.g., mass death and exodus) so now they are reverting to weak tactics.

As for there being zero terrorist attacks since Bush pushed us in "that direction," if you are referring by that direction as the war in Iraq, I have seen no evidence that the war in Iraq has had any effect on terrorist activity. I believe the routing of the Taliban did have such effect, as have our beefed up security efforts. If there is such evidence, I welcome it.

Yes, I agree. It might have had zero effect (defeating the taliban might have had zero effect as well). However, it "seems" to be working. The captian of the team usually gets the credit when things go right. The fact that no terrorist attacks have happened could mean that Bush's plan is working superbly. Correlation and causation are often difficult to figure out. What I think we do know, is that the pre-9/11 methods for fighting terrorism did not work. That we have proof of.

[andyfox]

"There were positive things to the U.S. tactics of the cold war - namely, that bombs did not reign holy hell on the U.S."

Stalin's aggressive intentions towards the U.S. were greatly exaggerated by U.S. analysts, in part to scare holy hell out of Congress to appropriate funds. But I agree with the first part of your sentence up until the dash. I never meant to say the idea of combatting communism was a bad one and have taken pains to point out, in each (I think) of my posts critical of U.S. cold war policy that much good was done.

The war on "terror" is, of course, just a political catchphrase. Bush did indeed fight a particular government. He hopes (or at least he says he does) that the war will result in fewer terroristic acts.

I think the dems will have a hard time taking an anti-war position precisely because Bush has defined it as anti-terorism. It's pretty tough to be elected on anti-anti-terrorism platform. My take on Dean is that he's apparently doing well because the others are so unexciting. I mean how'd you like to sit through an hour-long discussion with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman?

I agree that correlation and causation are sometimes difficult to figure out. But not impossible. I mean, if you get up in the morning and the streets are all wet, it's a pretty good bet that it rained during the night. I think Thomas Friedman's article, which you posted elsewhere, points out a lot of the flaws in the government's arguments.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

One can approve of many policies and programs of the Cold War and disagree with others. The mistakes of an all-encompassing anti-communism resulted in million of deaths.

Respectfully, you don't know that. You can only point to the deaths that were caused and not the deaths that were prevented. To do an analysis like this you need to compare to a baseline and the result of alternatives - which we don't have.

Example - the following statement might have as much validity as your statement above (although we will never know which is more correct):

"The all-encompassing anti-communism strategy of the U.S. saved the lives of 1 billion people by preventing an all out nuclear war."

You can say that millions died - because of course they did. But you can't neccessarily make the inference that these deaths would not have happened except for the U.S. policy.

[andyfox]

With all due respect, you're missing my point. The "few million deaths" had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin and Mao. They were needless casualties.

BTW, I know I've mentioned this book before, but a terrific analysis of why grand schemes not only usually fail but lead to disasters (such as those perpetrated by Stalin and Mao) is "Seeing Like a State" by James C. Scott. Once you get past some of the sociological mumbo-jumbo, there are some really interesting chapters, not just on the grand failure and tragedy of Communism, but on less grandoise things, such as the architect Le Corbusier's efforts to change cities (and its result in Brasilia). With detours into scientific forestry and the develoment of last names and cadastral surveys, it's really a tour de force.

(Also, you may be right about Mao. The Great Leap Forward famine alone was responsible for 15,000,000 deaths. Good revolutionaries usually don't make good governors.)

[sam h]

You're missing Andy's point, or just intentionally ignoring it.

The evils of Soviet communism don't give America carte blanche to have perpetrated lesser evils. And they don't excuse people from grossly misevaluating Soviet goals, which (at least post-Stalin) were much more about perpetuating the power of a mafia-like coterie than about world domination.

[andyfox]

"Respectfully, you don't know that. You can only point to the deaths that were caused and not the deaths that were prevented."

Respectfully, I disagree. To take one example: Guatemala became a fascist wasteland after the U.S. overthrow the leftist government in 1954. Democracy took a nearly 50 year hiatus and a tremendous number of people were killed by the thugs we backed. This would certainly not have happened had we not intervened.

The same situation obtained in Chile after the overthrow of Allende and certainly Vietnam could have been a different place had we any understanding whatsoever of what was going on. It may not be possible to postulate outcomes in all cases, but certainly it is in many. And this doesn't just work one way. We could certainly say, I would think, that fewer deaths would have occured in a Russia that was led by, say, Trotsky, or by a non-Communist regime, than what actually happened under Stalin.

[andyfox]

Even Stalin's post-World War II goals had a defensive aspect to them, a Russian element (as opposed to a Soviet element) that was ignored by U.S. policymakers. Having been invaded twice in 25 years from the west, Stalin was determined to have a buffer zone to his west. Thus his insistence on control in Poland, for example, in 1945, when Truman and his team saw only Soviet aggression. Churchill recognized this and had agreed to Soviet control in Eastern Europe at Yalta.

[MMMMMM]

andy is stating categorically that millions of deaths in certain countries due to anti-communism were avoidable and mistaken. Under the broader imperative to stop the spread of communism, I'm not so sure about that (although I do agree that doubtless some mistakes were made). But overall I think countering Soviet-sponsored militants and Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere was necessary and desirable to an extent.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

The narrower you get the easier it is to pinpoint the results. For example, "I agree little Johnny would not have been blown to pieces if the U.S. had not bombed that buidling."

Guatemala became a fascist wasteland after the U.S. overthrow the leftist government in 1954. Democracy took a nearly 50 year hiatus and a tremendous number of people were killed by the thugs we backed. This would certainly not have happened had we not intervened.

Okay, please tell me how many deaths would have occured....lets say....in 1976 in the Alternative Reality where the U.S. did not intervene in Guatemala?....or....Please tell me the form of government of Guatemala in the 1990's in the alternative universe.....Does Guatemala become communist in the Alternative Reality? What were the effects on it neighbors?

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

You don't think that bombs falling on the U.S. is a good result? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Stalin's aggressive intentions towards the U.S. were exaggerated by Stalin. All game theory. The bully wins. Have you read Prisioners Dilemma by Poundstone? It has a great discussion on this topic. Basically, both sides knew a nuclear war was lose-lose. It was also better to be bullied a little than to engage in a lose-lose war. Also, a one sided attack could have been lethal and immediate. Hence the biggest game of prisioners dilemma possible. Both sides didn't want a war. However, both sides had strong incentive to launch a nuclear war. A nuclear war was a very real possibility.

[Wake up CALL]

Andy I see why you like this professor. Previously his primary prominence is a book entitled The Wrong War, Why We Lost in Vietnam . Right up your alley eh?

Andy here is a link to an article I believe you will enjoy:

Vietnam in Retrospect: Could We Have Won? (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96winter/record.htm)

By the same beloved author sited in this thread.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
But overall I think countering Soviet-sponsored militants and Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere was necessary and desirable to an extent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It's just a question of what extant. Undermining a democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and then supporting a murderous Pinochet was clearly not needed to save the world from Communism.

[jokerswild]

Quite wrong. Christianity, and slavey, and European colonialism have killed more millions than Stalin and Mao combined.

It is unfortunate that the "security" that you believe is obtainable is a military dictatorship in the USA.

[MMMMMM]

That is a laughable claim, jokerswild.

Do some research and you will soon learn that communism killed 80-100 million in the 20th century (and that's NOT even counting deaths from wars). Just things like the Stalinist purges, Mao's engineered famines, etc.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
communism killed 80-100 million in the 20th century

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious how that breaks down. How many of these deaths were caused by communist governments that were not also run by dictators (like Cuba) or a small group of corrupt people (like China/USSR)? My point being that I suspect that it wasn't the political system but rather corrupt individuals which were the problem. Also, are you including unintentional deaths such as starvation cause by an inefficient economy?

And to be fair, how many deaths were caused by "democratic" governments. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to compare communist countries to capitalist countries, not democracies, nor democratic republics, nor parliamentarian, etc. And take a good lood at the US prior to the 20th century with respect to the native american peoples.

And was our objection to communism because of all these deaths or other problems caused by communism, or was it because we felt that our economic system (and power structure) was threatened by it? There have been a lot of deaths at the hand of governments supported by the US so I would suspect the latter.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity, and slavey, and European colonialism have killed more millions than Stalin and Mao combined

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that's true, I wouldn't think so. But I think that Christianity, slavery and colonialism killed a larger proportion of the world population than anything else except old age and disease. If you add up the native americans, both north and south, and those killed in the middle ages (including the Crusades and Inquisitions), that is a large chunk of the world populations at their respective times.

[MMMMMM]

George,

I think you will find a fairly informative breakdown if you read througb some of the website I linked earlier in this thread.

[Chris Alger]

"You can only point to the deaths that were caused and not the deaths that were prevented. To do an analysis like this you need to compare to a baseline and the result of alternatives - which we don't have."

Bad logic that ultimately defines away all mass murder and genocide. Of course you can "say" 1 million died if 1 million died. You might also say that more would have died under any other plausible, available alternative, but you have a strong burden of proof when the count of actual bodies is undisputed.

[MMMMMM]

You raise a point which has merit, but Utah's point is not entirely without merit. In such regions and undeveloped countries in the middle of the 20th centrury it could almost be expected that some butchery would be going on for some reason or other. Also, countering Soviet influence may well have saved lives though it would be hard to show.

Another point: andyfox seems to be holding US policy 100% responsible for those deaths in certain countries. Doesn't the USSR share some responsibility--or don't the corrupt violent people who were citizens of those Latin American countries share some responsibility? It's all very well to say that US policies played a part, but I seriously doubt that corrupt banana republicans didn't share some responsibility too. There was plenty of bloodshed in Latin America before we even got involved. All I'm saying is that it is too common for people to put the blame on the USA for things like the Shah of Iran without realizing that 1) the blame should be shared, and 2) the situation was complex

[Utah]

No, it is the only correct logic.

You may disagree with the baseline and I accept your "burden of proof"statement. However, there is no other way to look at it other than baseline comparisons.

Heck, by even saying 1 million died for whatever reason is baseline comparing because you are clearly implying that 1 million had died more than would have died if it weren't for some action (e.g., war).

My problem is not with the anti-war stance. It is really with the logic of the anti-war arguments and the failure to baseline, to look at positive effects, to concede the notion of probabilty, or to understand that the effects of dissent has dangerous repercussions on the war (i.e., dissent gets people killed). Also, I am still flabbergast at the fact that the left cannot grasp that the threat of force is the best deterent to using force. Had Saddam realized that the U.S. was serious and that his chances of ending up in a hole were strong than the whole thing had a very high chance of being averted. If the enemy knows that our chances of leaving Iraq is nil then less soldiers will die.

Therefore, the U.S. and the world keeps finding itself in bloody confrontation that could have been averted by threat of force. The irony is that the weak reponse to threats because the world (U.N., U.S. etc.) is afraid to use force is the very thing that ultimately leads to mass death and destruction.

[andyfox]

"You don't think that bombs falling on the U.S. is a good result?"

No. There was exactly 0% chance of that happening.

"Have you read Prisioners Dilemma by Poundstone?"

No.

I haven't read any of the Cuban missile crisis literature or the tapes. It does appear that nuclear war was indeed a possibility.

[andyfox]

I've read excerpts from his Vietnam book. He takes some arguments from the leftish critics or the war and some from the right. The guy is definitely not left-wing. Thanks for the link, I'll read it tonight.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Do some research and you will soon learn that communism killed 80-100 million in the 20th century (and that's NOT even counting deaths from wars). Just things like the Stalinist purges, Mao's engineered famines, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but other research will show that in the last thirty or so years of the 19th century, 50 million people may have died of famine in Asia alone, due to a combination of extreme drought conditions and a British colonial project that basically directly dismantled famine relief infrastructure (in India) or incapacitated states to such an extent that such relief was not carried out (in China).

This is not to diminish the great, great evils perpetrated by many Communist states. Only to say that modern history is full of incredibly brutal stories, of which the evils of communism make up only one chapter. That doesn't mean we should relativistically exonerate communism as no worse than capitalist colonialism. But neither should we let a focus on the misdeeds of communist states blind us from taking in the larger bloody picture that has attended modernity.

[andyfox]

I can't give you precise answers, which you already know. I do know that since 1954 over 200,000 people died at the hands of Guatemalan internal security forces equipped and trained precisely to kill civilians by the United States. I can tell you that the effect on its neighbors was a hardening of the brutality on anything that anyone could plausibly (or implausibly) accuse of walking like a duck.

The coup in Guatemala gravely damaged American interests in Latin America.

Guatemala currently has a population of about 15,000,000, more or less 1/20th of that of the United States. It is as if 4,000,000 people were killed here. And tens of millions condemned to misery. A cycle of violence grew in Guatemala and elsewhere. It is hard to imagine a worse alternative reality.

The classic study is Bitter Fruit by Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer. The CIA's own analysis is also available, published as Secret History by Nick Cullather. It's a shameful episode in our history, repeated in many other countries during the Cold War.

I note that many of the key players in the U.S.government at that time had financial connections with United Fruit, the company that controlled the country. Very similar to the Bush families connections with middle east oil through four generations. I heartily recommend Kevin Phillip's new book American Dynasty for a Republican's research into the uglier side of the Bush family.

[Utah]

Thanks for the info. I actually order Bitter Fruit.

I am not saying that the U.S. didn't behave badly. I know very little about the situation. Again, all I am saying is that you can't see the alternatives clearly. Your comment on a worse reality not really being possible is well noted.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

I am confused. You say that there was zero chance of bombs falling but that nuclear war was possible. Can you clarify?

I highly recommend the book as I think it is very interesting and it is a great primer for game theory. It is not a political book in the least bit.

[Chris Alger]

"Doesn't the USSR share some responsibility--or don't the corrupt violent people who were citizens of those Latin American countries share some responsibility? It's all very well to say that US policies played a part, but I seriously doubt that corrupt banana republicans didn't share some responsibility too."

The USSR played no role at all in the Reagan wars against Central America. As for the local actors, of course they bear some responsibility. So what? The US has some responsiblity, Americans are responsible for the US government, so Americans are responsible. Those that search high and low looking for others who share their guilt instead of making amends are irresponsible. It's no different than a murderer fingering the guy that sold him the gun, or made him angry, or claiming that "those people might have been murdered by someone else," therefore what he did wasn't really so bad. This, of course, is never the standard that you apply to official enemies.

[MMMMMM]

"It's no different than a murderer fingering the guy that sold him the gun, or made him angry, or claiming that "those people might have been murdered by someone else," therefore what he did wasn't really so bad. This, of course, is never the standard that you apply to official enemies."

Here however isn't the USA more like the guy who sold the guns rather than the party that used them? So wouldn't your analogy would be more appropriate if you reversed the roles of the parties?

[Cyrus]

The logic and the justification of the Report by the U.S. Army War College make is a cinch to be the work of liberal plotters working to undermine Dubya! This is an outrage.

What happened to facile, unjustified and arbitrary reports about uranium from Niger, WMDs in a home freezer, Osama running Qaeda from a palace in Baghdad, anthrax ina glass of water in front of the Security Council, and links between Iraq and Howard Dean?

Let's get the Heritage Foundation cracking, pronto.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Utah]

Come on 6M. You know better. You have seen enough of Chris' post.

Alger is going to paint the U.S. in the absolute worse possible light and if that doesn't work he is just going to make s$#% up.

How else can he justify his policy his 9th step (?) policy of making amends to the entire world?

[adios]

Actually it was written by only one faculty member of the War College, a perma critic of US military policy. It shows that the US military embraces diverse viewpoints /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Chris Alger]

Obviously it varies, but in the egregious cases, like Central America, Indonesia, Iran, Vietnam and Israel, it's more like the exclusive supplier for a series of mafia families that would be forced to accomodate popular demands without them. (Then add the propaganda apparatus which defines these various tyrants and terrorists as the "free world," "struggling democracies," the "moral equivalent of the founding fathers," etc.) Unlike a retail gun seller, U.S. leaders fully grasp why their clients need weaponry (and other support) to retain or expand their power, or what they do with them, typically with U.S. guidance. "Foregin aid" isn't exactly a huge priority with the electorate. Just about anyone who's been in the service will tell you of regular encounters with foreign nationals from some despotic regime being "trained" to carry out what amounts to U.S. policy.

[MMMMMM]

The U.S. has done more good for the world than any modern country, has given more charitable aid to the world than any country, has defended liberty more than any other country, and has saved more lives than any other country.I guess I can see why Alger is fixated on any negative aspects he can muster.

[andyfox]

Zero chance of Stalin attacking the U.S. Apparently some chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile crisis (after Stalin's death).

I'm going to order the book, thanks for the info.

[MMMMMM]

Zero?

[andyfox]

Zero. OK, not exactly zero; I suppose nothing is impossible. But about the same chance as Carol Mosely Braun has of being elected president. Basically zero.

Stalin had neither the desire nor the wherewithal to engage in a nuclear confrontation with us. They were behind us at all times until Stalin's death.

[Wake up CALL]

Andy you really could have chosen any of the current democratic candidates since for all practical purposes their cumulative chances at being elected president this year are Zero. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

"Stalin had neither the desire nor the wherewithal to engage in a nuclear confrontation with us. They were behind us at all times until Stalin's death."


Seems to be a good argument for US military supremacy rather than military parity.

[Utah]

Yes - the Plisioners Dilemma talks about that. The early bombs were simply not strong enough to cause a knock-out blow. However, things changed dramatically with the H-Bomb. Coupled with the fact that neither side knew the size of the others arsenal or there delivery capabilities - a devastating knockout blow with no retaliation became a real reality and both sides had an incentive to launch an attack even if they did not want to. Hence, the biggest of all Prisioners Dilemma.

The second interesting part of the dilemma was that, while neither side wanted to spend all the money, time, and energy developing the weapons, they were forced to by the fact that they could not be sure their enemy was not building the weapons. Therefore, even though both sides agreed that the best decision for both was not to develop the bombs they were both "forced" to by game theory.

_________________________USSR________________
USA_____________Develop _______Not Develop___
Develop__________(-3,-3)_________(+50,-50)_____
Not Develop_______(-50,+50)_______(+10,+10)_____

Using an abstract point system. Both countries better themselves by +10 by cooperating. However, if one side defects than the other side gets destroyed. If you cannot be sure of the other sides action you are really forced to defect. The scary thing is that you can build a similar model for launching a nuclear attack.


I hope you like the book. I always worry when I recommend something. I checked Amazon and the reviews were very good so I feel safe /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

Well, maybe none of them deserve to be elected, but stranger things have happened. Remember Clinton was running a poor third to an incumbent Bush 41 and Ross Perot in 1992. Jimmy Carter got (I think) 1% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary the year he was elected president. Reagan was widely regarded as being unelectable and his first landslide victory against Carter was "too close to call" according to all the polls on the day before election day. George Will (of all people) had a good article in Newsweek recently about the unpredictability of presidential elections. (You can find it in the Newsweek link Rick Nebiolo posted in his Cancer and Poker thread.)

I heard on the radio today that John Kerry has apparently pulled even with Howard Dean in Iowa. (Whoop-de-doo, I know).

[andyfox]

It was not just a nuclear deficit that went into Stalin's thinking. His country, unlike ours, was devastated in the second World War. Economically, it was a mess (and of course it eventually spent itself into bankruptcy). So it was "behind" not just in military capability.

At some point, of course, supremacy is useless. How many timees can you kill someone? At the height of the Cold War both countries had more than enough weapons to kill every person in the other country several times over.

And then one must know what to do with one's supremacy. It was useless, for example, in Vietnam, absent the knowledge of the history and tactics of our enemy.

[Gamblor]

This is so whether it is al-Qaeda saying the USA must convert to Islam or else face further attacks,

That isn't close to what they said. They were essentially saying, stop collaborating and compromising the sovereignty of the Arab people by your dealings with the Saudi Royal Family. Oh, and Itsba al-Yahud too.

Likewise the suicide bombers in Israel are either in the grip of a religious death-cult, or they believe that Israel itself must become Palestine. The Hamas Charter is absolutist in its announced goals.

Winner. Even that many bombers are secularists, the Hamas capitalizes on their "despair", which they no doubt feel. I'd be more inclined to call it "anger" though. Recall what happened in Jenin when Arafat's henchmen came in to round up some dissenters. Full scale rioting.

They are allfurthering the Islamic jihad - same way many of you celebrate Christmas but haven't seen the inside of a Church since 1987, these folks still believe Allah is going to get them if they don't liberate his land, even if they haven't seen a mosque in a year.

[ACPlayer]

That isn't close to what they said. They were essentially saying, stop collaborating and compromising the sovereignty of the Arab people by your dealings with the Saudi Royal Family. Oh, and Itsba al-Yahud too.

This is exactly correct. The beef is not with the US per se but with its policies and specifically support of Saudi and Egyptian corrupt dictatorships. The same Saudi dictatorship which is in bed with Bush family and the oil interests here.

Dont know Itsba though. Enlighten me please.

[MMMMMM]

Gamblor, I think you may be remembering another of al-Qaeda's released statements. I cited this one after it occurred. It was part of a threefold demand announced by al-Qaeda, that the USA and (UK or Europe, I forget which precisely):

1) stop supporting Israel

2) withdraw from (Saudi Arabia or Arab lands, I forget which)

3) convert to Islam or face further attacks

al-Qaeda has released a number of videos and statements over the last few years. I am completely sure of this one and recall discussing it specifically on 2+2. Also it was in the news as part of a lengthy released al-Qaeda publicity piece. This should be verifiable for anyone who cares to take the time gather all known released al-Qaeda statements and read through them.

I don't doubt they also said what you are recalling.

Regarding the militant Hamas lunacy, and the widespread religious fanaticism: it is my opinion that a fair slice of Palestinians, and a lesser percentage of Middle Easterners, are for all intents and purposes, actually in the grip of a cult.

[MMMMMM]

Supremacy is not having the ability to kill your military enemies if they also have the ability to kill you; it is having rthe ability to do that without suffering incapacitating or devastating losses on your side too.

As for Vietnam, I believe the USA could have definitively won the war if we had been fighting to win it rather than having stalemate as our objective. Ultimately, it was public opinion, not military defeat, which led to withdrawal.

[andyfox]

"As for Vietnam, I believe the USA could have definitively won the war if we had been fighting to win it rather than having stalemate as our objective. Ultimately, it was public opinion, not military defeat, which led to withdrawal."

Absolutely incorrect. Public opinion may have helped lead to withdrawal, but not to defeat. Nixon intended to go back in when the north violated the terms of the peace agreement anyway. But he would have had the same results as before. The war was unwinnable. We could have, I suppose killed every last person, but short of that, the war could not be won, and that's not a very good definition of victory.

The idea that the United States fought the war with one hand tied behind its back is incorrect. We devastated the place, killing millions of people, dropping more bombs than had been dropped in the history of the world. Most of it on the south, which was the "country" we were supposed to be protecting.

Public opinion, anyway, was solidly behind the war effort during the Johnson administration and for a good part of the Nixon administration. The peace candidate George McGovern lost in a landslide.

Incidentally, each bomb we dropped created more enemy than it killed. The famous interview where a soldier, when asked by Morley Safer why he was setting fire to a village, replied, "We need to destroy this village in order to save it," shows why.

[adios]

"Public opinion, anyway, was solidly behind the war effort during the Johnson administration and for a good part of the Nixon administration. The peace candidate George McGovern lost in a landslide. "

Disagree with this take. Mid sixties the public supported the war but gradually support eroded and the war became very unpopular. Just for the record I think Viet Nam was a major blunder by the US; wrong war, wrong time, wrong reasons, wrong place. To be fair though, those that say we fought with "one hand behind our back" make the point that a policy of never invading Nort Vietnam was a policy doomed to failure. They state that the US would have won the war if they would have invaded North Vietnam. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just stating what their position is and was.