Bring It On!

By SteveIL on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

I don’t hate Hagel.  But, he is forgetful.  Pretty much like every other hypocritical political hack in Congress.  Subsection 2(a) of H. J. Res 64 (the AUMF from 9/14/2001):

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Does Hagel remember this?  If he did, he didn’t mention it.  Of course, neither did the interviewer.  So, one has to wonder about this statement from Hagel (from above):

Exactly right. And if you recall, the White House had announced that they didn’t need that authority from Congress.

A more accurate and honest statement would be that Congress had already given him that authority.  You take a look at the AUMF above, is there a restriction on where Bush could go?  You know the answer.  Yet, Bush did get another resolution from Congress for Iraq.

So things suck in Iraq.  No argument from me on that.  However, Al Qaeda, the vermin the President is allowed to use military force against because of 9/11, is still in Iraq (they were there before, but I’m in no mood to argue that; they are there now).  So, if Hagel and the others want to pull our troops out of Iraq, aren’t they violating their own military resolution to destroy Al Qaeda?  And don’t go on about “we didn’t invade Saudi Arabia and they were Saudis” or “we don’t go into Pakistan and they are there”.  Yeah, except Al Qaeda is seeking the destruction of Saudi Arabia, so us invading and destroying them kind of plays into Al Qaeda’s hands.  They’re in Pakistan, but they’ve promised (kinda sorta) to fight them, and do when pressured.  Somalia was loaded with Al Qaeda and we hit them hard within the last couple of weeks.  No further congressional authority was needed or required by law or the Constitution.  The problem is that Bush has hamstrung the soldiers from effectively destroying the enemy, and putting our troops in unnecessary danger.  That is the problem, and Hagel would have been more honest to mention it this way, especially since he was a Vietnam vet who knew how politics screwed around too much with our military efforts back then.

Why do you think we conservatives know that Hagel is a squishy RINO?  He’s telling half the story, and only that part that will get him re-elected to the Senate, or elected President.

By ken grandlund on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

Well SteveIL, let’s break things down a bit…

The first AUMF (as you inserted above):

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Okay…it was well known in the government about al-Qaeda…the previous administration both left intel for the Bush team as well as having had launched limited attacks on them in Afghanistan previously. The Bush gov’t was briefed that al-Qaeda, operating from and with the consent of the Afghani government, was seeking to attack the US mainland, and may well use airplanes to do so. There was no mystery after 9-11 about who was responsible for that crime and where they were and who was harboring them. In that light, I think that most of the Congress believed that this first AUMF was to authorize use of force against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The rest of the vaguely worded resolution could be construed as permission to go after other individuals from al-Qaeda who specifically helped plan that attack, but not really to wage war on an entire area of the world. No congress would blithely give a president permission to carte blanche attack anywhere at will at anytime. It clearly says that this authorization is to avenge the 9-11 attacks and to disrupt the group/country that perpetrated that act. The restriction is in the nature of the purpose of the authorization.

We know that Iraq did not plan, authorize, commit or aid in the 9-11 attacks. If they harbored an individual or two who were associated with bin Laden or al-Qaeda, that is hardly the same as harboring and actively supporting that group as the Afghani Taliban did. When you claim that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we went in, you may be right, so far as a few individuals were concerned. But they were not an organization being harbored by Hussein, nor were they vast training camps in Iraq, nor was there material support for them. The two groups were ideologically opposed, and there was no real love between them. And we don’t wage war to catch a single terrorist or two, or at least we didn’t used to.

Yes, the wording in the first AUMF is vague, and someone intent on looking only at the letter and not the spirit of the resolution can claim that it did in fact allow Bush to go anywhere at anytime with his warring ambitions. (This is a specialty of the sinking Republican ship- write vague laws, stick to the vague letters while destroying the intent, claim that you did nothing wrong. Technically legal, but realistically as rotten as it gets.) I don’t think this is what the congress intended, but in the rush to seek redress for the 9-11 attacks, many things were rushed through without full thought. Call it human nature. We should be able to expect more from thinking leaders, but even they are human. But I don’t think they were offering Bush the opportunity to go on an unrestrained rampage.

Apparently the Congress (or at least some of it) and to some degree the White House, felt the same way, which is why Bush went back for a new AUMF to go after Iraq. The intel supporting that resolution was riddled with misinformation though, and your claim that the whole Congress had access to all relevant information regarding Iraq is not believable to me.

This interview with Hagel is speaking to the Iraq AUMF, which he says was as vaguely worded as the first one. At this, several lawmakers balked at giving the president carte blanche to wage unrestricted war throughout the middle east.

Further, Saudi Arabia has no love for the US, only our money. Many in that country and it’s government still support al-Qaeda and it’s aims. Not attacking them or even pressuring them in any meaningful way is due to the oil relationship between the Bush family, the oil barons, and the House of Saud. But if unrestricted warfare to seek out and hunt down those that harbor or support al-Qaeda is the goal, Saudi Arabia deserves no pass. Neither does our other ‘ally’ Pakistan. (Don’t get me wrong…I’m not suggesting an even wider conflict or the attack of either of those countries. Just showing the hypocrisy of the application of the AUMF.)

We do agree that Bush has made Iraq a serious failure and is making life for the troops more dangerous than necessary. I will go further and say that he is making this country and the world at large much less safe.

Hagel a RINO? Why, because he doesn’t support Bush’s fantasies? Okay, fair enough. We consider Lieberman a DINO for the same kind of reasoning, but on the opposite end. However, imperialist warfare is not really a Democratic trait. Are you implying that it is one of the Republican party?

By Tom Baker on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

Good summation Ken. You just saved me a lot of typing. 

And lets not forget, Hagel has been critical of this Presidents handling of the war longer than most Democrats.  He called out the mistakes and the now way to real outcome almost two years ago.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

Ken,

It is clear to me that the original AUMF intentionally did not restrict action to one country. Why?

1. Look at what happened. We went into Afghanistan and those who realized that standing and fighting us was futile, fled Afganistan. Surely that entered into the equation. The President needed the flexibility to chase them wherever they went. Also,

2. Al Qaeda is not, and was not at the time, wholly contained in any one nation or even one continent. There are AQ people in many nations. Again, the President needed the flexibility to go wherever AQ could be struck.

3. Bush said, “Nations of the world, you are either with us or with the terrorists” (paraphrased). I think the original AUMF was drafted and passed in order to pressure those nations where AQ had a presence, not to side with AQ lest they get what Afghanistan got. The point was to deny state hosting and support of AQ.

So I disagree with you completely. This was not a badly worded resolution that Congress thought would only apply to Afghanistan or that would require a fresh authorization for each new nation. It was deliberately left the way it was to allow maximum flexibility and maximum threat should any nation decide to side with the terrorists.

In my estimation, they went for a new authorization in Iraq because Iraq was not a part of AQ, a state sponsor of AQ, nor did it have a hand in planning or executing 9/11. Therefore, Iraq could not, in accord with the wording of the first AUMF, fall under that first authorization.

In my opinion, had we stuck with the original war, against AQ and its state sponsors, and resisted the temptation to extend ourselves into Iraq, we could have executed the war against AQ and its state sponsors more effectively.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

Aargh. They did not flee TO Afghanistan, they fled FROM Afghanistan TO Pakistan and points elsewhere. My goof.

By SteveIL on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

Ken,  I will agree with Tom that you made a great summation and rebuttal.  And Craig added some excellent points.  My reply on a couple of points.

Ken said:

However, imperialist warfare is not really a Democratic trait. Are you implying that it is one of the Republican party?

Absolutely not.  If it were, we would take the oil fields and leave the rest of Iraq to fend for itself.  As it is, the Iraqi oil is still part of the nationalized infrastructure. 

I agree with Craig in that the wording of that first AUMF was deliberate.  It was known that Al Qaeda groups were around the world, but other nations are actively fighting them.   There was a victory by the Filipino army against the Al Qaeda network group Abu Sayyaf.  We are helping the Somali government (with Ethiopian ground troops and our air power) to destroy Al Qaeda there.  And on the bad side, another Al Qaeda group claims to have begun fighting Fatah in Palestine.  Don’t know how factual this is, or what the intentions are.  But a valid guess is them helping their Islamist brothers in Hamas to take out Abbas and Fatah, then strike at Israel.

Ken said:

When you claim that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we went in, you may be right, so far as a few individuals were concerned. But they were not an organization being harbored by Hussein, nor were they vast training camps in Iraq, nor was there material support for them. The two groups were ideologically opposed, and there was no real love between them. And we don’t wage war to catch a single terrorist or two, or at least we didn’t used to.

See, I don’t get why you believe that just because Saddam and bin Laden were ideologically opposed (and I know they were), it means there was no support by the Iraqi government.  Hitler and Stalin cooperated on Poland.  Sure they went at each other later; in this case, neither bin Laden nor Saddam got to the point of attacking each other.  If Al Qaeda was in Iraq and causing trouble, you’re right; Saddam would have crushed them.  But he supported the ideologically identical Hamas as long as they were causing trouble to Israel.  There’s no reason to believe Saddam wouldn’t support Al Qaeda to do the same thing to us, but not necessarily 9/11.  There’s still gobs and gobs and gobs of stuff captured from the Hussein regime to find out what was going on, and it will take years to go through.

Adding on to that, knowing that Saddam would support the type of terrorism against his enemies (the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel) as he had done with Hamas, the US could’ve factored that into assessing the potential threat he posed.  If we hadn’t ratcheted up attacking him, the US would have been greatly pressured by the UN, and those governments financially benefitting from illegally dealing with him, to lift sanctions against Iraq, freeing his hand and allowing him to use the windfall of selling legit oil to fund any group he wanted, and provide weapons if desired.  I don’t believe this is too much of a stretch as there were calls by UN members to drop sanctions before Bush got into office (Oil-for-Food gave them a motive), and he was sending money to Hamas while under sanctions, and while his people starved.

Ken said:

I will go further and say that he is making this country and the world at large much less safe.

It’s less safe here because we have open borders; unfortunately, we don’t have a Congress in place that is too interested in fixing this either.  As far as the world being less safe, it would be if we left.  Where we pick candidates based on the principle of the “lesser of two evils”, there are no lesser evils in the Middle East; they’re all equally bad.  This garbage has been going on a long time.  Before we called them on it, the Iranian government was developing nuclear weapons (that’s what the intelligence says), and had been for many years.  You had Saddam Hussein, who would support any terrorist activity outside of his own country.  He already had a grudge against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, along with us.  You had Al Qaeda spreading its terrorist activities in many countries.  You had Hezbollah slowly building up their arms in order to take over Lebanon (which they are trying to do).  You had Yasser Arafat.  Well, Arafat is gone.  Hussein is gone.  Iran’s nuclear activities are out in the open, and the Saudis are helping us undermine them and their influence in Iraq.  Hezbollah is actively trying to overthrow the Lebanese government and turn it into a Iranian-Syrian satellite state.  Hamas is in charge in Palestine (not a good thing), but at least are very minimized by the world, yet still dangerous.  Believe it or not, things are a little better than 5 1/2 years ago, but could be a lot worse.  Especially if we leave Iraq.  And besides, Al Qaeda is still there and there is a Congressional mandate to crush them out of existence.

I know I didn’t mention Afghanistan and Pakistan, but I’m getting tired.  Later.

By ken grandlund on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

Craig-

I think you make some good points, but I don’t know that I can agree with your conclusions. You say that the initial AUMF did not restrict action to one country. While I readily agree(d) from a semantically precise POV, I still assert that the intended spirit of the law may have been otherwise, at least for the less hawkish of the congress at that time. (I seriously doubt that such an open ended resloution would have been passed under a democratic controlled congress, or a congress less controlled by an overtly war anxious administration. But if we do assume your position on the purposeful vagueness of the initial AUMF then,

Point 1- Those Taliban and al-Qaeda who initially fled from Afghanistan in the 2001 US offensive did not flee to Iraq, the presidents next point of war. Most fled into Pakistan, and apparently some to Iran and other points. After the US invasion of Iraq, many went there. Following the ‘flexibility’ concept you put forth, the president should have turned towards Pakistan or even Iran if he were to divert anywhere. (That he left Afghanistan unfinished to go after Iraq is the sad irony.) He did not though, so the turn towards Iraq was not in the spirit of this first AUMF. And perhaps it is why he went for a second, and apparently much more expansive (according to Hagel) AUMF for that fateful diversion.

Point 2- That there are/were AQ in many nations also shows the faulty premise of attacking Iraq. Again, as per my rebuttal in point one, the flexibility portion of the first AUMF may have better allowed for action, albeit more likely coordinated police action rather that military, in a variety of places without turning the middle east into a growing tinderbox. That Bush still chose to launch a military strike on Iraq rather than take a more sensible and likely proactive approach to containing terrorists reveals the single minded fixation this group had with Iraq.

Point 3- Bushes dictate to the world does not necessarily make it valid. I am sure that many nations would just as soon have nothing to do with either side. Think Switzerland. The ‘choice’ Bush presented was nothing of the sort. It’s like a bully asking if you want to lose your lunch money or lose your lunch money AND get punched. Gee, what a choice. I admit that when he first uttered those words, in th eimmediate aftermath of 9-11, I thought they sounded good. Simple, tough, the words a wounded nation needed to hear. That he has so demolished the good will we had internationally then makes those words little more than parody. If the AUMF was so loosely worded based on that faulty concept, that black and white apparition, then it had little use as a diplomatic tool to begin with. In the war of terror, our diplomatic efforts have ranged from threats to pouts to assaults to bribes. Who could take our foreign policy seriously any more? The only thing they can be sure of is military action. And clearly, even that has not stopped states from harboring AQ or others, since the only ones Bush really wants to attack are Iraq and now seemingly Iran.

So, if indeed the first AUMF was purposely drafted to retain maximum flexibility, as you believe, then Bush has indeed bungled it badly. In that regard, granting him an even broader latitude towards Iraq, as Hagel suggests was requested, would have been even more frightening.

BUt with your final conclusion, we can both agree. Had Bush stuck through with job one- AQ and Afghanistan- things would be a hell of a lot better.

Steve- Some of my comments to Craig address parts of your latest comments so I will try to address the others.

Yes, Saddam did support terrorists, that I will not deny. He was paying Palestinian suicide bombers’ families. He himself was a terrorist to his own people. I have no love lost on Hussein. However, my assertions that he did not support AQ also come from government reports that say he didn’t. I’m not going hunting right now, but they are there. And support for one kind of terrorist does not imply support for all. After all, the US is allied with some dictators but not with all.

That economic sanctions were in the course of being lifted is probably true. But the economic sanctions were separate from the no-fly zones maintained by Britain and the US. And I doubt we would have backed off of those so readily. It was the no-fly zones, more than the sanctions that prevented Saddam from getting his military back on track. The economic sanctions did not hurt him one bit, but hurt the average Iraqi terribly.

Things are no safer than 5 1/2 years ago, despite the more ‘open’ nature of our adversaries. In fact, the last 5 1/2 years have wrought so much havoc across the ME and Asia, that an entire Muslim generation is being taught through words and experience to hate America and the west…to fight and avenge forever. Safer? No, I don’ tthink so. Exponentially less safe, and for some time to come, thanks to the path taken by Bush. Whenever we leave Iraq, it will be bad for Iraq. It will be bad for many. We can prolong that time and wreck many more lives in the interim, or we can shorten the length of the ongoning trauma, assess the real damage, and move towards repair. And what that will eventually entail is anyone’s guess.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

Ken,

I had not supposed that you would be persuaded but to make the best case that I can for my POV is all I can do. 

I agree that Iraq has turned out to have been not at all what Bush thought it would be. Sadly, I think they believed that after several weeks of fighting, Baghdad would fall, as indeed it did, and the rebuilding would begin and most of our troops could go back to go elsewhere while rebuilding both a new government and the infrastructure of the country. Foolish indeed.

I am all in and going to bed.

Bless you all. 

By ken grandlund on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

Nice to debate with you again Craig. And I think you did a good job from your POV. We just don’t see this eye to eye.

Sleep well.

By SteveIL on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

Ken,

You mentioned some government reports, and I think I know the ones you’re talking about: the reports that came out of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.  Call me skeptical, but that second one was put out due to political pressure to put out something instead of something accurate, and pre-election jitters, not because they had all the information.  There’s still tons of stuff that has to be examined, and I would not consider this report reliable.

Ken said:

In fact, the last 5 1/2 years have wrought so much havoc across the ME and Asia, that an entire Muslim generation is being taught through words and experience to hate America and the west…to fight and avenge forever.

This hasn’t gone on for just 5 1/2 years, but for nearly 30 years.  The rise of the Shiite religious fascists in Iran and Hezbollah, the rise of Sunni religious fascists in Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Hamas, Al Qaeda, not to mention the continuing efforts of the Wahhabists from Saudi Arabia, all of these things were already going on.  The Sunni-Shiite clash was already brewing, but had not been out in the open (just like Iranian nuclear weapons development).  9/11 brought all this out.  What we found out over the last 5 1/2 years was that we were already hated by the governments of the above countries (except Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; yes, the Saudis love our money) and the terrorists; not because we supported Israel or had troops in Saudi Arabia, but because we were in the way of their own ambitions.  I tend to disregard the hatred of the “Arab street” as the people are primarily ruled by despots who have control of their media, and the everyday Arab is forced to do what their governments, and even their imams, tell them.  (This never comes out by our drive-by media, nor by our government, as it would actually require more than a soundbite to make an impact.)

Ken said:

We can prolong that time and wreck many more lives in the interim, or we can shorten the length of the ongoning trauma, assess the real damage, and move towards repair. And what that will eventually entail is anyone’s guess.

Well, the ongoing trauma of our country would end for now, but the result of the end of US support to South Vietnam should provide a clue.  Genocide of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq, maybe on a scale like it was in Cambodia under Pol Pot.  And this is assuming the other nations that are predominantly Sunni Arab (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, possibly Egypt) do not intervene.  If they do, it’s the war that was already coming before 9/11, but that will occur now instead of a few years from now.  Then expect further open Syrian and Iranian involvement in Lebanon, and a clash with Israel.  Add Turkey into the mix as they’re going to want to stop any possibility of a Kurdish state (this is not news) that may want to be formed to separate itself from the violence in the Arab sections of Iraq. 

The economic impact on our country will be immense, not to mention that there will be all kinds of calls for US intervention.  One lesson from Vietnam that has not been learned by many is that losing wars becomes easier and easier, until it becomes too easy, and will occur at the worst time.

One other thing.  There are many who want something done with the Darfur genocide being perpetrated by the Sudanese government.  There are some in Congress, those who are calling for the removal of forces there, who say we have to intervene with a military presence in Sudan, albeit in a protection role, not an attacking one.  What happens if those US forces are attacked?  Leave, like they want to do in Iraq?  And does anyone think the American people will support any military involvement in Sudan if we pull out of Iraq?  I know I wouldn’t.  Not that I want the genocide to continue; I don’t.  I wouldn’t support it because I don’t believe our politicians would have the guts to stick it out once our troops start getting shot at (and they would).

By SteveIL on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

Quick correction.

I said:

There are some in Congress, those who are calling for the removal of forces there, who say we have to intervene with a military presence in Sudan, albeit in a protection role, not an attacking one.

It should say:

There are some in Congress, those who are calling for the removal of forces in Iraq, who say we have to intervene with a military presence in Sudan, albeit in a protection role, not an attacking one.

I forgot one other point that I had said somewhere else.  Where’s NATO?  Not to involve them in Iraq, but in Afghanistan.  Why hasn’t Congress, along with the President, forcefully insisted that our NATO allies send tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan (with the approval of President Karzai; I think we’d get it) to help get bin Laden and the rest of the vermin?  A complaint from so many, and not without merit, is that we didn’t stay in Afghanistan to get bin Laden.  But this is a NATO operation now, and has been for some time.  Why isn’t our government addressing this, including Congress?

By ken grandlund on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

SteveIL- If you assert that the report concluding that Iraq and aq-Qaeda were not cooperative with each other is false and/or politically motivated, you should have no reservations agreeing that the pre war intelligence was lilkewise politically motivated and not accurate in its findings. Yet you often insist that the ‘congress had the facts’ when they voted for the Iraq AUMF. I don’t think I’m going to let you have it both ways here.

You are certainly right that conflict has been simmering under the surface in the ME for decades. No argument here. But I lay a lot of the blame at repeated US interference as well as at the hands of the regional players. As far as the Arab street opinions, I concur- they are shaped by their rigidly controlled media. Similar to the party faithful in this country who get their news from political hacks and partisan talking heads. The difference here is that we get bias from both sides, not just one. But the hawks running the show right now use media propaganda much more akin to the mullahs IMO.

Yes, we opened Pandora’s box and violence will continue regardless of American presence in Iraq. We are responsible for kicking things off. However, without our Iraqi endeavor, the violence would have remained contained (as it was- degrees here) and not emerged as a regioanlly destabilizing force. I think many would have preferred the former to what we see now.

Economically speaking, this war has already been a disaster for America. Massive deficits, mortgaged to the hilt to China, and necessary budget cuts to programs of social natures already are happening. Worse? Sure it could be, but to pretend that Bush’s war in Iraq has not already damaged our economy is lookin gthrough rose colored glasses.

As for Darfur- my knowledge, beyond the reported bloodshed, on that conflict is limited. Is it an Islamic attempt at subjugation, inter-tribal tensions, or other root cause? If we were asked to go in as a protective force, I’d have no problem with that. That is where our international military expertise should be expended. When people ask for help. To my knowledge, Iraqi’s didn’t ask for our interference. Define the mission properly, commit the proper resources to the mission, define conditions for satying or leaving…American’s support those kinds of military actions. Bush is incapable of this though, so I doubt anyone will ever support a Bush military build-up anywhere ever again. That is more damage he has brought to our country.

And now NATO? We have asked NATO members to step up, but again, with America at the helm (sure a Brit now leads NATO forces in Afghanistan, but we are still the 800 lb gorilla calling the shots) who can trust our motives, instincts, actions, etc. And while Afghanistan is under NATO auspices, we still run NATO more than not…we provide the bulk of troops, weapons, and finances. But what can the congress do here? Bush has overextended our military in Iraq, our material is so degraded that it will take years to get even enough armored HUmvee’s into Iraq to protect anyone. Bush is myopic on Iraq, and despite the recent 3000 troop increase to Afghanistan and the billions promised in aid, our mission there is falling apart largely due to Bush’s Iraq detour. We could use the help, I agree, but when you basically thumb your nose at the world and begin unilateral wars, you’r allies dwindle, if not in name than surely in support.