Category Archives: War

War Apologists Still Unapologetic

In a letter to Barely a Blog, in response to Tibor Machan’s Iraqi War Blues,” Lawrence Auster writes rather impatiently:

For the ten thousandth time, the whole world, including those opposing the war, believed Iraq had WMDs, and there was ample reason for that belief.”

This is absolutely false. As someone who was on top of every fallacy promoted by this administration from the onset (as of September 19, 2002, to be precise), and who has been proven right on each and every point, I refuse to countenance this Sean-Hannity inanity. It seems that those who were 100% wrong on the war want to, somehow, retain their credibility and pretend that those of us who got it 100% right, did so by coincidence.

Not if I can help it.

There were many experts, credible ones, who absolutely rejected the contention that there were WMD in Iraq. They were as numerous as the loud voices who promoted this lie. However, the media, the Hannities, the Judith Millers, the dissidents, their handlers, and their followers—shut them, and us, out.

In What WMD?,” I wrote that, in his attempt to find the missing weapons,” David Kay, a former top U.S. weapons inspector who endeared himself to the media as an invasion enthusiast, had done no more than validate some very old verities. No, not everyone was bullish about the Bush administration’s WMD balderdash:

What Kay now parrots,” I averred, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council before the war: There were no nuclear-designated aluminum tubes in Iraq; no uranium was imported, and no nuclear programs were in existence. Between 1991 and 1998, the IAEA had managed to strip Iraq of its fuel-enriching facilities, tallying inventories to a T. Or in Kay’s belated words: “Iraq’s large-scale capability to produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced, if not entirely destroyed, during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections.”

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Congress in 1999 was privy to intelligence reports which similarly attested to a lack of “any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox (1998) to reconstitute its WMD program.” Accounts of this nature have evidently been available to Congress for years. They reiterated, as one report from the Defense Intelligence Agency does, that, “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were [sic] destroyed between 1991 and 1998.”

“Kay’s news ought not to have been new to the blithering boobs in Congress,” I observed. The CEIP further bears out that in October of 2002, Congress was apprised of a National Intelligence Estimate, a declassified version of which was released only after the war. Apparently, entire intelligence agencies disputed key contentions that the administration—its experts, and its congressional and media backers—seized on and ran with.”

“While clearly pandering to policy makers, U.S. intelligence reports were still heavily qualified by conjectural expressions such as, “we believe Iraq could, might, possibly, and probably will.” The State Department and the White House, however, cultivated a custom of issuing “fact” sheets with definitive statements from which all traces of uncertainty had been removed.”

“Condoleezza Rice (who had categorically denied she possessed the analytical wherewithal to connect the dazzlingly close dots between Arab men practicing their aeronautical take-off skills and terrorism) was suddenly doing nothing but connecting disparate dots. She, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush never stopped gabbling about a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear-weapons program, chemical and biological blights, Scuds and squadrons of unmanned aerial vehicles streaking U.S. skies, and traveling laboratories teeming with twisted scientists. The language they used… ignored the deep dissent in the intelligence community.”

All that information addressing pre-war knowledge was culled from my column, What WMD?”

Coalesced in Ink Stains and Blood Stains” is information I had given my readers in 2003-columns such as Bush’s 16 Words Miss the Big Picture” and “High crimes vs. Hillary & Her husband,” among others. In Bush’s 16 Words Miss the Big Picture,” I beseeched readers to somehow show an ability to “see Bush’s sub-intelligent case for war for what it was”:

The administration’s war wasn’t about a few pieces that did not gel in an otherwise coherent framework, it wasn’t about an Iraq that was poised to attack the U.S. with germs and chemicals rather than with nukes; it was about a resigned, hungry, economic pariah that was a sitting duck for the power-hungry American colossus.

By all means,” I implored, “dissect and analyze what, in September 2002, I called the “lattice of lies leveled at Iraq: the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes from Timbuktu, the invisible meetings with al-Qaida in Prague, an al-Qaida training camp that existed under Kurdish—not Iraqi—control, as well as the alleged weaponized chemical and biological stockpiles and their attendant delivery systems that inspectors doubted were there and which never materialized.”

“But then assemble the pieces and synthesize the information, will you?”

In Rationalize With Lies” I dealt a blow to the Hannity inanity Mr. Auster now advances, namely the creative post-hoc arguments made to justify the unnecessary war the United States waged on a sovereign nation that had not attacked us, was no threat to us and was certainly no match for us.” The argument resembles the one Tibor Machan makes today on Barely a Blog. I wrote:

“To say that Saddam may have had WMD is quite different from advocating war based on those assumptions. It’s one thing to assume in error; it’s quite another to launch a war in which thousands would die based on mere assumptions, however widely shared. It was not the anti-war-on-Iraq camp that intended to launch a war based on the sketchy information it had. The crucial difference between the Bush camp and its opponents lies in the actions the former took.”

Second, it matters a great deal when during the last decade someone said Saddam was in possession of impermissible weapons. To have said so in 1991 is not the same as saying so in 2003, by which time Iraq had so obviously been cowed into compliance and was crawling with inspectors.”

Naturally, at certain times during Iraq’s belligerent history, opponents of this war would have agreed he had a weapons program. But by 1998, sensible people realized that Operation Desert Storm, followed by seven years of inspections, made the possibility of reconstituting such a program remote. The Defense Intelligence Agency reached the same conclusion in September 2002, writing that, “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998.” President Jacques Chirac said as much to both Bush and Blair, who pretended not to hear.”

I (and my fellow libertarians) was right all along because I am not a partisan who genuflects to Our Side. To arrive at the correct conclusions about Bush’s undeniable drive to war, I employed facts and reality, the Jewish teachings which instruct Jews to robustly and actively seek justice, Just War Theory, developed by great Christian minds like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the libertarian axiom, which prohibits aggression against non-aggressors, the natural law, and what the Founding Fathers provided”:

A limited, constitutional republican government, by definition,” I wrote in March 12, 2003, doesn’t, cannot, and must never pursue what Bush is after—a sort of 21st-century Manifest Destiny.”

I was right because, like many of the silenced, I adhered to reality and followed immutably correct intellectual and moral principles. I’ll be damned if I allow anyone to deflect from the intellectual and moral corruption of those who failed to do the same.

Iraqi War Blues By Tibor Machan

America, BAB's A List, Democrats, Economy, Iraq, War, WMD

I’ve said before that I’ve nothing new to say about the crime the Bush administration perpetrated in Iraq. Other than the necessary repetition, few have. I take that back. My guest today on Barely a Blog is Tibor Machan, who has come up with this philosophically acute principle: “Believing something that’s unjustified to believe doesn’t count as a reason for acting on the belief.”

Machan is RC Hoiles Professor of business ethics & free enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

IRAQI WAR BLUES
By Tibor Machan

It is blues because it’s such a torment—to most Americans, to those who have died—and to a lot of families who have lost members—in this war, and to the supporters because they can’t advance a convincing reason to stay the course.

President George W. Bush may have wanted to hit Iraq even before 9/11 and his reason may well have been that he thought Saddam Hussein did hide some weapons of mass destruction. I have no idea whether Bush was honest but even if he was, it’s no excuse because believing that WMD were hidden in Iraq doesn’t appear to have been justified. Believing something that’s unjustified to believe doesn’t count as a reason for acting on the belief. Say you irrationally believe your spouse is cheating on you and so you decided to meet out punishment. It’s no excuse to say, “But I believed you were cheating on me— even if you did but in fact had no reason to.

Did Bush have good reasons, compelling ones, to think Iraq had WMD? There seems to be no support for this view anywhere now. So then attacking Iraq, while not anything most reasonable people could be too upset about so far as Saddam Hussein is concerned, doesn’t appear to have been justified.

How does this bear on the current debate as to whether the war in Iraq is “a war of choice”? Yes, this seems to be a big deal now—was the war necessary or did Bush decide to wage it as a matter of preference, something he didn’t need to do? Some—for example Republican pundit Morton Kondracke of weekend TV news program “The Beltway Boys”—think that since Bush believed there were WMD in Iraq, the war was not one of choice but of necessity. But this is the kind of justification I sketched above for punishing one’s spouse because one honestly but irrationally thinks one has been betrayed. Even if Bush honestly thought Iraq had WMD, if that belief was ill founded, as it evidently was, the war could be considered a war of choice. There was no objective necessity for it.

Mind you, most of Bush’s critics from among the liberal Democrats have no good case against him either. They haven’t ever objected to preemptive public policies that intrude on innocent people, let alone those under serious if mistaken suspicion. Just consider as a perfect current example how eagerly former VP Al Gore is urging his various precautionary measures—ones that would intrude on millions of us without any regard for civil liberties and due process—because he feels we face big risks from environmental hazards (global warming, climate change, what have you). Gore and his supporters, who complain about Bush’s preemptive war policies because they were preemptive, are hypocrites.

Only those who consistently uphold what we might dub the George Washington doctrine about getting America militarily entangled have a case against Bush & Co. These folks believe that free countries may only go to war when there is a justified and dependable belief that the country is under attack or about to be attacked. The emphasis here is on justified and dependable. Forcibly intervening in other people’s lives is only justifiable when these other people are mounting or about to mount an attack. A war is just, in other words, only when it is defensive.

George W. Bush’s war against Iraq was never defensive, not because he may not have believed the country needs defending from WMD, but because his and his administration’s beliefs about Iraq’s WMD were unjustified, ill founded. Nothing in the meantime, since the war commenced, has changed this fact. Not that there was nothing at all murky about Saddam Hussein and WMD. Yes there was, what with all that hide-and-seek involving the United Nations’ team of inspectors. But war is too big a deal, military, and indeed any other kind of aggression is too big a deal, to start in a murky situation.

Bush, of course, is no consistent follower of the George Washington doctrine. Nor are most of his liberal Democratic critics. So their quarrel about the war in Iraq is mostly incoherent. The only part that has some bona fide relevance concerns the issue of how long to keep American troops in Iraq now that the American military is there.

Updated: The Death of A Devil (No, Michael Berg is Alive & Well)

Islam, Israel, Terrorism, War

Al Zarqawi was scum. Even Ayman al-Zawahiri, another bottom feeder, sent him a letter, asking that he reconsider the wisdom of culling so many Iraqi Shia.
Al-Zawahiri had broached the topic by telling his murderous mate that, although it is necessary to bring “the Muslim masses to the mujahed movement,” killing so many of them is probably not conducive to recruitment. Yes, the Shia are a handful, Zawahiri conceded. They aren’t kosher theologically, have cooperated with the Americans against Saddam and the Taliban, and, all together, have a history of “connivance with the Crusaders.”
If it were possible for the mujahedeen to kill all Iraq’s Shia, Zawahiri’d be game, but it wasn’t.
So, Zawahiri is no fan of the Shia. But logistics being what they are, he thinks they ought to be forgiven—not slaughtered for—their “ignorance.”
Al Zarqawi, as we know, disagreed. And now he’s dead. I say good riddance. Many jihadists are grieving. So is Michael Berg, whose son Nicholas al-Zarqawi beheaded.
Berg said the following: “I’m sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that… I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace [toward Zarqawi].”

In some ways Berg is more evil than was Zarqawi: The latter had his own idiosyncratic notion of right and wrong and he’d, at least, fight for those he considered his clan. The former has no moral preferences, and no loyalties, not even to his poor son.

**
Civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz offers an interesting observation:

“As the civilized world justly celebrates the long overdue killing of Abu M al-Zarqawi, it must recall that his death was brought about by what has come to be known as ‘targeted assassination’ or ‘targeted killings.’ This is the same technique that has been repeatedly condemned by the international community when Israel has employed it against terrorists who have murdered innocent Jews,” writes Alan Dershowitz on the Huffington Post.

“When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: ‘targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified.’ The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.

Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community?”

The rest of the post is here.