Video: Cheney on Iraq, 1994 edition
posted at 12:20 pm on August 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Nuance.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
 |
|
posted at 12:20 pm on August 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
|
|
GreenRoom
- Enough to make me want to move to Canada
- Democrats Sold Their Party’s Reproductive Soul
- ObamaCare: Dithering while the economy burns
- A Tale of Two Mentalities
- Anti-gun nuts: Let’s ban more guns because of Fort Hood
- 39 Lone Voices Of Sanity
- Only One GOPsmacked Fool!
- Maybe This Time…
- Photo o’ the day
- How’s That Iran Negotiation Going?
Hot Links
- Right Channels
- Left Channels
- War on Terror
- Cartoons/Satire
- Audio podcasters
- Entertainment
- Industry/Internet TV
- Hangouts
- Talkers
- Hot Air Affiliates
Feeds
© 2006-2009 Hot Air Network, LLC | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Wow. No one found that until now?
frankj on August 11, 2007 at 12:28 PM
9 11 1994 is a far different time then 9 11 2001
William Amos on August 11, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Let’s see…something happened between 1994 and 2003 that made us change our minds…something that changed our willingness to say, yeah, whatever happens in Baghdad won’t affect us…
Something…
see-dubya on August 11, 2007 at 12:35 PM
That’s fine, but that doesn’t answer (a) why Iraq as opposed to anywhere else, given Cheney’s obvious grasp of the difficulties of taking it over, (b) why they didn’t plan for a more robust counterinsurgency if they expected a “quagmire.”
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 12:39 PM
9/11 changed everything. Is that so hard to understand? I’m sure he had the exact same concerns but they were outweighed by the risks of doing nothing. Since we haven’t been hit since I willing to go out on a limb and she the Admin’s strategy was right.
Have you gone over to the darkside? What’s the deal? HA turning into a gutcha blog now? All gotcha’s all the time?
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Exactly. If they knew that much back then, why didn’t they have a better strategy going in this time? Also he mentions the interest the Syrians and Iranians would have in a splintered Iraq. Wouldn’t they still be interested? We’ve got good indications that they’re aiding the insurgents, so why aren’t we tougher on them?
Jezla on August 11, 2007 at 12:45 PM
AP Asked a legit question I have no problme with it. If we cant answer why things are different now rather than then we have a lot of problems.
Its fair because I have looked for old video of dems who were for takling out Saddam when BC was president. That is the same type of question
William Amos on August 11, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Wow. That’s interesting.
Spirit of 1776 on August 11, 2007 at 12:47 PM
As if he were being a prophet of the way it is. I’d say he had a damn good grasp. Damn good. I still think the Kurds are our best deal there.
auspatriotman on August 11, 2007 at 12:50 PM
First, since the time Cheney made those comments until 2003, there had been over a dozen U.N. resolutions condemning Iraq, over a decade of subversion regarding inspectors culminating in their being cast out, firing upon our jets in the no-fly-zone, and bribes of U.N. security council permanent members. There were no other radicalized Islamic regimes that had the amount of pre-text that Iraq had, not even Afghanistan.
I think they did. The fact that Turkey hasn’t invaded the North yet is amazing, and I remember a story about a week ago in which our spec. ops. were helping disrupt those Kurdish elements that were threatening to Turkey. There was a poll last week that showed that the number of Iraqis who viewed themselves as “Iraqis above all else” was increasing.
It could still all fall apart and fracture; but so far it hasn’t been a quagmire. Has it been perfect, no. Has it avoided all the pot holes it could, no. Has it been a quagmire, no.
Weight of Glory on August 11, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I suppose nobody wants to mention that the intelligence really did say they were planning something with those obsolete items known as WMDs and they kept breaking the rules regarding the UN inspectors.
However discredited that reason is now, you can pick between the idea that it was a trumped-up charge or that it was a sincere but incorrect premise.
Anwyn on August 11, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I can’t criticize Cheney on an obvious contradiction without appealing to the “dark side”? That’s exactly the kind of quasi-religious rhetoric the left engages in when one of their own criticizes their side.
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Remember that days before we crossed the Kuwaiti border in 1991, 47 Senate (D)emocrats voted AGAINST liberating Kuwait, in spite of the 1/2 year long buildup. And, if we had gone to Baghdad in ‘91 no ally would have gone with us as no argument had been made for “regime change”, which was adopted by the Clinton(D) administration.
Also, don’t forget that these same (D)efeaticrats rushed to condemn Bush-41 when the Shi’ites rose up leading to implmentation of the no-fly semi-occupation and eventual discovery of Saddam’s WMD programs.
Cheney’s interview demonstrates the Bush administration did know the risks and therefore did have a ‘plan’ that fully appreciated those risks.
In other words, any failures have been honest shortcomings in execution not conspiratorial efforts to sieze Iraq’s oil or create a fascist America.
What changed is that Bush decided to implement an optimistically comprehensive strategy, and the (D)emocrats voted FOR it, and we had a set of allies willing to go along with us.
Now, in a calculated attempt to postpone the impeachment vote Clinton(D) started bombing Saddam 3 days before that vote, and stopped 1 day afterwards, never to bother Saddam again. Clearly “regime change” was the official, but not the actual, policy of the Clinton(D) administration.
Trapped by their own rhetoric supporting Clinton(D)’s Wag-The-Dog bombing of Saddam, and their perception of the countries mood after 911, the (D)emocrats voted FOR invading Iraq.
But they didn’t mean it, as they’ve demonstrated, any more then Clinton(D) meant ‘it’ in 1998.
DANEgerus on August 11, 2007 at 12:53 PM
[Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 12:39 PM]
I agree wholeheartedly with your (b), AP. On (a), it’s a sensible question for the beginning of the discussion but I believe the answer would have been “Iraq” hands down. So, on the whole, I don’t think (a) is all that relevant.
Dusty on August 11, 2007 at 12:53 PM
That’s also fine, but of course it was Iran, not Iraq, that had the burgeoning nuclear program in 2002 when we were talking about invading. And it was Iran and Saudi Arabia that were/are the main engines of jihad in the region, not Saddam.
I can appreciate the pragmatist argument here — Saddam’s regime was the weakest, the easiest to remove with the fewest consequences, and that’s why he was chosen — but Iran was and is at least as much of a global threat. More so, I think.
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 12:54 PM
“quagmire” does not necessarily mean “insurgency”.
The sort of quagmire predicted in 1991 was chemical weapons used against our troops, WMD-packed scuds fired at the neighbors, and protracted urban warfare with the Iraqi army–not a sustained international Islamist movement.
Al Qaeda was brand new and wasn’t really on our radar yet, and Hezbollah was an Iranian/Shiite thing. Terrorism in 1994 meant Italian communists kidnapping businessmen, Libya setting off bombs in nightclubs, and the Shining Path mowing down villages in the Andes. And the occasional truck bomb at home.
What I find fault with is Cheney’s understanding of the political pressures at stake–Turkey, Iran, and Syria all wanting a chunk of real estate–or in Turkey’s case, worrying about losing Kurdistan. Those were present then as now, but doesn’t seem like we planned for that or if we did, the plan just didn’t get it right.
see-dubya on August 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM
What I find interesting is that Cheney was making the case back then, that the Dems. are making now in retrospection. And the Administration now is making the case that the Dems. did in 1998. Both have switched; and it is important to examine what was their motivation for changing.
Weight of Glory on August 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I will honestly state in 1991 I was against the drive on Baghdad. I felt it wasnt worth the bad feelings it would cause us in the world to get rid of Saddam.
Why was I for it in 2003 ? Because 9/11 made America appear very weak. Not since the Mexican American war had an enemy hit the Mainland of the US (not counting the ineffective japanese baloon attacks or sub attacks) with an attack.
I knew that Afganistan wasnt enough. The Taliban had faded into the mountains and would protract the war. They would have been made to look like they had gotten away with 9/11.
Iraq had to be made as an example to our enemies. Saddam swinging from a gallows is a far more important message than a snipe hunt for Osama.
We had to show effectiveness or we risked 9/11 over and over again. And we still do
William Amos on August 11, 2007 at 12:56 PM
I wasn’t reading blogs in 2002. Iraq’s failure to comply with inspectors was what was in the news that filtered through to me, not Iran. In fact I distinctly remember North Korea first bursting on the scene as a nuclear power in 2002. Again not Iran.
In other words, a) I only know what I’m told and b) the braying media that wrings its hands now was reporting every repulse of inspectors by Saddam.
Anwyn on August 11, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I notice that the Sunni-Shiite schism was not mentioned. Hmmmm…
JimK on August 11, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Above addressed back to Allah’s last.
Anwyn on August 11, 2007 at 12:57 PM
He didn’t say anything in the clip predicting radicals from neighboring countries coming in to fight US forces and kill civilians; he doesn’t predict any Sunni/Shia conflicts.
Our overthrow of Saddam Hussein happened after ten years of his brutality towards his own people; after ignoring 14 UN resolutions aimed at disarming Iraq and permitting inspectors to verify the fact. I do believe that Bush and Cheney thought he had WMD’s – hell I still believe it myself. But things did change after 911, and the current “Quagmire” isn’t exactly the one he describes in the video. Still, it is quite a clip. I am amazed that no one has come across this until now.
Dork B. on August 11, 2007 at 12:58 PM
And the theory is that they were spirited away to Syria. If WMD were the big issue that determined Iraq, then why haven’t we been more forceful with Syria?
Spirit of 1776 on August 11, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Are you kidding me? This is very old news. You think this is the only interview where he’s said these things? This interview has been showed in one for or another for years now. Is this the first time you’ve heard it?
You aren’t criticizing him. In fact you provided none of your own analysis at all, simply one word, Nuance. If that’s not gottcha what is?
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Jim K–Yeah, I noticed that too (although he may have mentioned it elsewhere in the interview; this is a segment chopped out and tubed by a leftist site).
I suspect there’s a bit of butt coverage going on here. Cheney’s probably wanted to put the decision made by Bush 41 in the best light–and abandoning the Shiites to Saddam’s mercy wasn’t Bush 41’s finest hour, at all. Cheney’s loyal and Colin Powell-like second guessing isn’t his style.
In other words, he may have been spinning here and reiterating the official explanation; in fact, given his advocacy in this administration for action in Iraq, I think that’s likely.
see-dubya on August 11, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Good question, but I don’t think the intelligence community, both domestic and foreign, as sure about the idea that they were shipped to Syria, as they were about their existence in Iraq. Years and years of House and Senate intelligence committees, along with NIE’s that have been declassified during the 90’s, all seemed sure that Iraq had WMD. That volume of evidence doesn’t exist for their being shipped to Syria.
Weight of Glory on August 11, 2007 at 1:07 PM
It was news to me and to frankj and Spirit of 1776, apparently, since they both said “wow.” As for “gotcha,” we’re talking about it in the comments. There’s the analysis.
Fair point, although that’s not the quagmire he’s referring to. He uses the word quagmire to describe what would have occurred after we had overthrown Saddam, as the country started to splinter under the influence of its neighbors. I’m assuming that means he anticipated Sunni/Shiite tension but maybe he had something else in mind.
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Yeah, that’s another way to watch the clip — to note what wasn’t mentioned. Although, as I say, in fairness to Cheney, I think he was tacitly recognizing this in his reference to the country splitting up into Syrian/Iranian/Kurdish components.
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Well said. I would add the argument that Bush once mentioned in regards to North Korea: In so many words, he said that we had only recently begun putting diplomatic pressure on N. Korea, whereas in regards to Iraq, diplomacy had run its course, with UN resolution after UN resolution ignored by Saddam for several years – in a post 911 reality.
Dork B. on August 11, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Implicit in your question are the assumptions:
1) The Admin lied about Iraq’s WMDs and attempt to develop nuclear weapons
2) Iraq was not really a threat to the US and not actively supporting terrorists
3) The sledding would have been easier if we invaded Iran
4) The Saudi government supports terrorism against the US
5) Congress would have authorized action against Iran or Saudi Arabia.
What’s your evidence for those assumptions?
Do you really think surrounding Iran wasn’t part of the calculus?
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 1:11 PM
How can it be a contradiction when the statements and actions were 9 years apart? If that were February 2003 you might be able to call it a contradiction but even then, things change in this world day to day.
Because Iraq was viewed as an easy starting point and the strategists were hoping for a domino effect, which is actually what we saw at the beginning of the war. Quaddafi giving up his weapons, opposition parties in Syria, Egypt and even Iran stepping up, the Lebanese forcing the Syrians out. Right after Saddam was toppled we started to see the beginning of change in the Middle East. The longer it has taken to get things settled there, the more effort the left in the US and around the world put towards defeating our actions there, the more emboldened and encouraged the dictators and islamofascists have become. What would have happened if the un hadn’t turned tail and run and if we had another 100,000 coalition forces at the beginning? It would have been a much different Iraq and a much different Middle East today.
peacenprosperity on August 11, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Guess. Speculate. Wonder…..
First of all who the hell knows? Something went wrong….it will be tomorrow’s history books that will let you know. None of which will be published before I check out.
My two cents is Cheney planned and expected a scorched Earth kind of war but GW, for whatever reason, kept the four horsemen in the barn. The plan? Afghanistan to the east, Iraq to the west, Iran was toast. Then somebody pulled the batteries out of the bunny.
Limerick on August 11, 2007 at 1:12 PM
[see-dubya on August 11, 2007 at 1:03 PM]
Might be, but as you note, it would be nice to see more of it, say, the five minutes before and after.
Dusty on August 11, 2007 at 1:13 PM
That makes sense to me. What about the lack of support for Santorium when he tried to make an issue of the ones they did find? WH said basically, eh, not a discussion we want to have – that just for expedience sake?
Spirit of 1776 on August 11, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Yes, but that’s begging the question. How much had changed and how much was the same? See-Dub points to 9/11 as something that tipped the balance towards invasion; I point to the fact that Cheney obviously had a robust sense of the difficulties of occupying the country to ask why the occupation didn’t go better. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 1:15 PM
What does this show/prove? not a damn thing,
Bob
Bobnormal on August 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM
I made one inescapible argument for the lefties
Saddam had WMDs – lefties no he didnt
Saddam was a threat – lefties no he wasnt
Saddam was an enemy to the US- lefties ?????
They counldnt refute that. They simply took the argument back to “he wasnt a threat” And I point out that 19 men wthout armies and vast numbers of weapons killed thousands. What is important to realize that any enemy of the US is always a threat. YOu cant turn your back on enemies.
William Amos on August 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM
My impression is that most in the administration felt that they were losing any control over Iraq in the UN and that it was just a matter of time that Saddam would have nukes and use them as a club to anyone who threatened his imperialistic goals. In other words: he would go after Kuwait again, and if the US threatened him, he would threaten Israel with nukes. Not to mention giving more aid and comfort to terrorists trying to kill more Americans and Israelis.
That you have to ask the Pentagon
bnelson44 on August 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM
The other thing to consider is the fact they wanted an insurgency to some degree. They want to create a lure to attract as many Jihadists as possible and kill as many as possible in favorable terrain. Better there than in the impossible terrain of Afghanistan. It’s just a theory I have zero evidence…
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM
For me what is interesting about this clip is that all the issues that Cheney mentions are the very same issues of which the Press and the Left believe the administration to have been ignorant when they planned the invasion. It is really interesting that despite all that CHeny mentioned, the call was still made, knowing fully what would have likely happened.
Weight of Glory on August 11, 2007 at 1:21 PM
They still hadn’t grasped what a movement islaofascism had become. They were still looking at it as small terrorist groups as they had the terrorist goups in europe in the 70s that had faded away in the 80s. They finally understood in 2003 that we are in a struggle for the survival of Western civilization that is not going to fade way in 10 or 15 years. The President has said it’s going to be a long struggle but he hasn’t come right out even to this day and said we are going to be fighting this for 100 years.
peacenprosperity on August 11, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Dots….
I’m no black helicoter guy. History is made up of SNAFU’s and FUBAR’s but my gut feeling is that whatever stopped GHWB also stopped GWB. The Saudis? The Russians? The Borg?
Dunno…….all that crud about the ‘highway of death’ and ‘compassion’ and ‘we won so why keep killing’…..balderdash.
Limerick on August 11, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Well, that begs the question as well, AP. Just because you know something will be hard doesn’t mean it will be easier. You assume that there was some sort of series of political and military provisions that could have been taken at the outset that would have prevented the insurgency.
I can point to a lot of obvious mistakes (eg not stopping looting) and theorizing some less obvious ones, but I can’t really point to anything and say, if we had only done X, or if we had had the greatest plan of all possible worlds, Iraq would be in OK shape right now and the insurgency wouldn’t have formed or would have been swiftly defeated.
That’s not an epistemological “we can’t possibly know what might have happened” argument–I’m just saying–with benefit of hindsight, too– that I think the insurgency was inevitable no matter what we did or how we planned.
see-dubya on August 11, 2007 at 1:26 PM
The same thing can be turned over to Afganistan. We went in expected that the Afgan and Iraqi people wouldnt fight for Osama and Saddam respectively. That was true. What we underestimated was the ability of mostly Osama and to a lesser extend Saddam would make the war a war with Islam.
I remember Saddam sitting there proclaiming he was a “true son of Islam” just before the Iraq invasion. Old Zawahiri keeps pumping out “America is the enemy of Islam” slogans on a daily basis.
We should have knew when the Palistinian were cheering on 911 that the US was at war with all of Islam IN THEIR MINDS. We hoped to make it just about Afganistan and Iraq.
Truth is that the clash of civilizations is going to happen and we didnt foresee it.
William Amos on August 11, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Well, when I look at a map of the Middle East, I think to myself: which country has a port to unload all our military hardware and is smack dab in the middle of all my enemies, like, oh, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia? Which country’s leader deserved being taken out and made an example of, all the while giving us a whole country to base our armed forces, and keep the lid on the simmering cauldron of the Middle East? If I happen to take over Iraq, then it will complete the ring of military bases around Iran, which is a win, win in my book.
Historically speaking, this war has not gone badly, it’s just noisy.
Plus, the jihadis are coming to fight the best military in the world, and are getting creamed.
Stormy70 on August 11, 2007 at 1:30 PM
That’s the fact that gets lost. How many Jihadists have been killed in Iraq? What would they have been doing if we weren’t in Iraq?
This whole idea that because it wasn’t worth it in 1991 it wasn’t worth it in 2003 is ridiculous along with the notion that because you expected it to be tough in 1993 it should have been easy in 2003.
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 1:41 PM
The left would have you believe they would be living peacefully in their home countries, going to work and watching soccer on al jahzeera.
peacenprosperity on August 11, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Flying kites, too.
see-dubya on August 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM
People, people….the answer is quite simple.
When Cheney spoke these words, the occupant of the White House was a Democrat ; )
The Ugly American on August 11, 2007 at 1:46 PM
indeed.
zane on August 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM
hahaha
zane on August 11, 2007 at 1:49 PM
…assuming that he’s speaking in reference to Bubba’s own Iraq disarmament crisis…
The Ugly American on August 11, 2007 at 1:50 PM
No, not prevented, but probably limited. More U.S. troops, retaining and reconfiguring the Iraqi army, etc. At the very least, they could have acted to prevent expectations that there’d be no insurgency. Note that it’s Cheney, not Bush, who supplied most of the rhetoric about “last throes” and “a few dead-enders.”
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Bingo.
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2007 at 1:54 PM
I imagine that the American navy would have rolled their eyes on December 6, 1941, if you had told them they had to conquer and hold the Pacific against a vastly superior Japanese navy.
But . . . something . . . happened . . . just . . . can’t . . . put . . . my . . . finger . . . it.
Playing gotcha journalism using decade plus old video never proves much, IMHO. The world changes every day, and more on some days than others. As things change, problems that appeared insurmountable in the past suddenly MUST be confronted.
Labamigo on August 11, 2007 at 1:55 PM
If this proves that Cheney lied later, why do we assume that he was telling the whole truth then? As I remember the time, he was trying to concoct a reasonable excuse for not going into Baghdad then.
The ugly truth his pretty lie covered is not that the U.S. would not have been alone going into Baghdad but that it would have an Islamic armed force in their supply chain. Those allies were united in their opposition to an infidel army toppling a Muslim leader.
That’s why Bush 43 created a coalition without Muslim veto.
Chaney refused to dump on our allies in 1994, so now the Hot Air community is dumping on him. What a country.
And yes to repeat the obvious, 9-11-01 changed everything; not only for us but for our enemy. The bombing of the Golden Mosque was unthinkable in 1994 but almost defeated a superpower in 2006.
TunaTalon on August 11, 2007 at 1:58 PM
You don’t think it there was a huge fight between the State Department and the Pentagon when Bremer disbanded the Army?
Is this all new to everybody?
Wrong Turn at a Postwar Crossroads?
Decision to Disband Iraqi Army Cost U.S. Time and Credibility
Thursday, November 20, 2003;
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Eh. That video’s no more nuanced than this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE
Good Lt on August 11, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Yup. I’ve never understood why admitting that post-invasion Iraq has been a poorly planned goat screw is somehow a political statement.
It seems like kind of an obvious statement to me.
We had the wrong strategy, wrong force shape, wrong mentality, wrong leadership, etc etc etc.
The difference is that now we’ve got the right strategy, right force shape, right mentality, and right leadership.
That’s war folks. You adjust, regroup, and continue the mission.
John from OPFOR on August 11, 2007 at 2:09 PM
You’ve joined the dark side, my friend. I cast thee out.
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 2:14 PM
giggity!
journeyscarab on August 11, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Power of Christ compels me?
I just wanted to use “goat screw” in your comments section.
John from OPFOR on August 11, 2007 at 2:16 PM
How different would Iraq be today had the 4th ID been allowed to transit through Turkey and if Bremer hadn’t disbanded the Army, and refused to pay them as we had promised? The original planned called for using them for security.
I think you need to say it would be no different in order to claim the originally strategy was wrong.
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Agree. Should have had almost double the on-the-ground strength with massive air support. If you’re gonna go to war, GO TO WAR.
I still want us to win, of course, but poor political leadership and infighting from both sides of the aisle and from all fronts in our dysfunctional government have made doing so significantly more challenging.
I know our boys can handle it – its just that the clowns in Washington can’t. One side can’t handle victory (Democrats), and the other side can’t seem to decisively secure it (GOP). Of course, both sides are working against each other, and that’s the problem.
So AllahP is right and it doesn’t make you a heretic to say that the invasion and occupation should have been planned better. That’s not the fault of the Military – its the fault of Washington. EVERYONE in Washington. The Democrats look extra shameful at this point because they voted for the action in Iraq too, but have proposed no assistance to helping the effort proceed to closure. None. At this point, it also doesn’t matter. That water is still flowing under the bridge and all.
Good Lt on August 11, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Nobody mixes a metaphor quite like you, Limerick ;-)
mikeyboss on August 11, 2007 at 2:21 PM
John, AP, it’s such a shame that y’all don’t support the troops.
Seriously, though, John: I’m surprised you’re surprised that this is political. Everything as simple as body-armor procurement turns into a gotcha–and adds to the Beauchamp futility narrative.
see-dubya on August 11, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Ya, nothing political about digging up a 1994 interview which has been shown many times in one form or another since 2003 and using it as the basis for questioning the whole reason for invading Iraq. Na. Nothing to see here. Move along.
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Timely point AP.
Everyone listen up. No one should vote for Cheney in 2008.
He’s clearly a liar who wants the US military humbled on the battlefield. Always has been.
Stephen M on August 11, 2007 at 2:32 PM
The situation in Iraq was very fluid from 1991 on. In 1994, after three years of UN sanctions, Cheney is reflecting back on Iraq as it was in 1991 and he was not projecting forward to a war in the future.
Al-Qaeda was the wild card in Iraq. It fostered sectarian violence until, in 2006, it destroyed the Golden Dome and there by escalating the sectarian violence to genocidal proportions.
Iraq was chosen because we had the legal authority, through UN sanctions, to attack and depose him. With Iraq pacified, the pressure on Iran would increase exponentially until the Iranians would decide to join the 21st century.
We definitely needed more troops and we assumed to many variables would go as we expected. The idea was sound, but the plan underestimated the affects the insurgency would have.
csdeven on August 11, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Trolling for a little right-wing dorkwad anger, AP?
Looking to rile the natives a bit with a little Saturday afternoon contrarian flirtation with a popular left wing meme?
Hell, where’s the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam? Why not go the full Kos?
Get a life. I just came back from hitting some golf balls and this post inspires me to walk right back out the door and do something, anything other than read the internets.
I recommend the rest of you do the same and reject the bait that AP has set out for you. Let Mr. Pessimism enjoy the flickering computer screen by himself. He’s laughing at you, folks.
Fred on August 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Hey OPFOR’s Marines have been all over Dragon Skin since that stupid NBC segment. I understand that nutroots will do everything to politicize the war, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge reality when it backhands us across the jaw.
John from OPFOR on August 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM
So, I’ve re-read my post at 2:32 PM.
It just seems stupid.
What was your effing point if any?
Stephen M on August 11, 2007 at 2:42 PM
I didn’t “dig it up.” I found it on YouTube’s Top 100 news/politics videos, where it’s currently number two. And I’ll repeat what I said before: I’ve never seen it before and, pretty clearly, neither have frankj or Spirit of 1776. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? How many people have seen this before?
And with that straw man, I think this debate has run its course.
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Yeah, it’s all a big ruse on my part. Just me being pessimistic. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 2:44 PM
John – You are speaking in clear 20/20 hindsight. As I recall, there are people who have noted the drawbacks of occupying the nation right away with a 500,000+ strong troop force.
Just because it seems that the initial strategy did not work, does not mean that the alternate strategy would have worked perfectly without any OTHER problems. Yes, we may have prevented an insurgency, but then we have the problem of being seen as an occupying force and all the headaches and propaganda that goes with that. Also, with the occupying force, the strategy of the enemy would have also changed from what they have been using to something else.
It is too easy to sit here and say, “well, had we done X, Y would have never happened.” Well, sure, maybe doing X would have prevented Y from happening, BUT maybe Z would have then happened, which was prevented by NOT doing X.
To just generally say that everything we did up until late 2006-early 2007 was just plain wrong is ridiculous, in my opinion. Nothing is static. The enemy’s strategy has been changing in response to what we have been doing over there and it would have been different had we had the 500,000+ strong occupation force. The reaction of the locals would have been different as well.
People make it seem that we just hold everyting constant in our strategy scenarios and if we just replace strategy X with strategy Y, then all the problems caused by strategy X would have been solved and no new ones would have been caused by strategy Y. That’s ridiculous.
As you yourself said, John, this is war. You react, adapt and push forward. And, in war, this is done on a consistent basis as the enemy is doing the same to our adaptations and changes in strategy.
Michael in MI on August 11, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Allahpundit….why do you hate America?
The Ugly American on August 11, 2007 at 2:46 PM
He is clairvoyant.
TheSitRep on August 11, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Yeah.
So?
John from OPFOR on August 11, 2007 at 2:49 PM
My effing point was to contrast Cheney’s remarkable prescience about the consequences of occupying Iraq in 1994 with the foolhardiness of some of the administration’s planning before invading in 2003. Publicly, at least, they expected an easy time of it. Cheney in 1994 knew better. Why the discrepancy? And why are you so irritated that I’d post this?
Allahpundit on August 11, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Also, John, I seem to recall that this is the most successful military mission in history with regards to military casualties and civilian casualties. For you to broad brush it with everything up until late 2006-early 2007 was just wrong, wrong, wrong is completely dishonest.
Yes, some mistakes were made and some strategies did not pan out and some underestimations and overestimations were made. Tell me a war in which none of that happened.
I am not an apologist for the mistakes that were made in this war, but I am also not going to stand for ingenius 20/20 hindsight analysis.
How about we focus on unifying the damn country to WIN this f***er and then bitch and complain about all the obvious-to-any-schmuck-with-20/20-hindsight mistakes that were made by our idiot leaders later, huh?
Michael in MI on August 11, 2007 at 2:52 PM
This reminds me of how Sullivan got to where he now is.
He too began with vague and uncertain finger-pointing.
Moved rapidly to demonize those who did not agree with his “points”. From there he went like one of those dominoes vids.
Even now, lots of snark from the AP man but no direct answer to, “Well, if we are wrong about what your point was – please tell us – what is your point”?
Yelling, “Strawman.” and then running away is a disservice to your readership.
This clip coupled with your, “Nuance.” What are you getting at?
Stephen M on August 11, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Yes. No one has mentioned that the sanctions were in place and relatively new at the time. Cheney may have been reflecting the view that Saddam would be contained by the sanctions. If you compared sanctions to the quagmire he described, at the time sanctions would have been the preferred option. Between then and 2003, we saw the sanctions weren’t respected by Saddam or our allies, and 9/11 brought home what the forces Saddam supported where willing and able to do.
I don’t see a flip-flop there.
Mallard T. Drake on August 11, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Uh, isn’t that what you’re doing right now?
John from OPFOR on August 11, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Man, you people a freakin’ scaring me.
Sully???????
Good lord…
The Ugly American on August 11, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I asked John and he didn’t respond so I’ll ask you now since you called them “foolhardy.” How different would Iraq be today if the 4th ID was allowed to transit Turkey and if Bremer, over the objections of the military, didn’t disbanded and refuse to pay the Iraq Army?
Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake?
Do you think the conditions in Iraq substantially changed from 1991 to 2003?
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Not I and, apparently, none of my leftist friends who surely would have pointed it out to me if they had seen it.
Mallard T. Drake on August 11, 2007 at 2:59 PM
John from OPFOR on August 11, 2007 at 2:49 PM
So leave that until after we win the damn war. Right now, we don’t need all this BS 20/20 I’m a genius war analyst and would have done things MUCH more better and perfect with my 20/20 hindsight that I have now, but didn’t have in 2003 analysis.
You talk about not making the war political, but that is exactly what I see you doing here.
Tell me how this all helps us win the war effort by pointing out how obviously much more smarter you are with 20/20 hindsight than those in charge in 2003 with strategies they felt would work, but went up against an emeny in wartime and were challenged and holes were found.
Maybe if some of the people calling the war effort “foolhardy” and obviously wrong, wrong wrong now were on record in 2002 and 2003 against the strategies, then fine. But I believe one of the few who was against the invasion was Howard Dean. Are we now going to say that we should have voted for Howard Dean in the 2004 election?
And those who think we should have gone somewhere else other than Iraq in 2002-2003, where praytell were those places? Iran? Syria? Based on what reasoning? And then you’re assuming that we could go into Iran and/or Syria while Saddam and all the terrorists he was training in Iraq would just stand by and watch and no problems there.
This hindsight game is a lot of fun. Can I major in hindsight analysis in some military college?
Michael in MI on August 11, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Three words: STIR THE POT. This is why you’re so good at what you do AP. If we don’t ask the questions then we don’t consider the arguments and we don’t have logical and thoughtful responses. We also don’t learn from mistakes if we don’t recognize and analyze them. And if we don’t have debate and controversy then AP doesn’t get posts and page views and interested, motivated readers.
D0WNT0WN on August 11, 2007 at 2:59 PM
AP, I have never seen it either. What is interesting is that this thread has moved away from whether we should have gone into Iraq, to a debate on the strategy in the occupation after the invasion. Cheney’s words in that clip have more to do with weather to invade based on the challenge, not how to best approach the challenges once you have invaded. In other words, you don’t need this clip to critique post invasion occupation, many on the right have been doing that for a while.
Weight of Glory on August 11, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Right. And the simple answer to that is that a LOT changed between 1994 and 2003 to make the invasion worth tackling the challenge.
Cheney is simply saying that it was not worth the challenge in 1991, and the decision to try the sanctions was better. After 10 years of trying that and seeing that strategy fail, then seeing Saddam make friends with Islamists, including Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and use the Oil-for-Food program to bribe the United Nations to remove sanctions so he could start up his WMD programs again, it was the right thing to do to invade and then do whatever it takes to succeed.
Michael in MI on August 11, 2007 at 3:06 PM
You acknowledge the fact that the original strategy has failed. Then you plan a new one.
How can you fix mistakes if you refuse to acknowledge that they even exist?
John from OPFOR on August 11, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Cost V. Benefit. In 1991 it wasn’t worth it. In 2003 (after 9/11) the danger to the homeland was worth the cost. The threat of WMD’s was credible enough to go in even though Clinton had decimated our military and intel communities and we weren’t really ready to go.
It is possible that one of the strategies, that could never be admitted to the American people, was based on the fact that we knew any war on any Muslim holy land would draw the extremists to us to defend their soil. (Just as we defend our soil first) This exhausts their resources fighting us in Iraq instead of being free to expend resources planning the next attack on American soil. In this era of PCness, that tactical fact would have been met with absolute rebellion by the left and some moderates if that had been our stated reason. I find this scenario credible because, as Cheney explains in this video, we were quit aware of the ramifications of an occupation of a ME country.
csdeven on August 11, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Yup, I’m lying about this being old news… let’s see now… Yup. Old News….
Exclusive: Cheney Holds Firm on Iraq Achievements
Feb. 23, 2007 —
I’m not going to waste any more time on this. I have to mow the lawn and it’s a gorgeous day here in Boston. Go and Google “Cheney Quagmire” and you’ll see how old this story really is. If your readers haven’t seen it before, so be it. There are also interview with Powell and GB1 where similar comment are made. They all had to justify why the didn;t go all the way back in the day…
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Thanks for the info.
Weight of Glory on August 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM
The exact video is new to me, but I’ve heard the general idea over and over. As for “Why Iraq?” and why the change, it’s because the U.S. had to contend with Iraq for 3 or 4 years in a world where Shi’a terror was the main terrorism problem in 1994, versus 11 or 12 – in which Hussein kept things “interesting” – by 2002 in a world where Sunni terror was the main terrorism problem. I mean, even Clinton’s stance on Iraq was tougher than G.H.W. Bush, and it’s not because Clinton was tougher on dictators (witness Somalia). It’s because things had changed. Changed pre-9/11.
As for the counterinsurgency plan – and the even more important matter of post-invasion planning in general – I suppose they assumed that exiles would be seen as heroes and obvious leaders of anyone who would prefer freedom to tyranny – that is, 99.9% of Iraqis. Stupid, yes, but unfortunately that was Rumsfeld’s world – we were only living in it.
As for irritation, Allah, it might have helped if you’d posted the video with more than one word of commentary. I thought Bush should’ve dropped Cheney in 2004, but even I think the “Nuance” treatment is kind of harsh.
calbear on August 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I have no problem with acknowledging failures. But that is not the only thing you are doing.
You are using hindsight to critique plans AND say that people should have known those plans were going to fail. That is disingenuous. NO plan is foolproof. Only NOW can we OBVIOUSLY say that the previous plans were failures.
Critique previous plans and postulate as to better ones GOING FORWARD. Anyone who sits here and says “well had we done MY PLAN back in 2003… we would have avoided all these obvious mistakes and things would be just peachy in Iraq right now”. Please, give me a freaking break.
You fix mistakes and you move forward and WIN THE DAMN WAR. *Afterward*, you can go back and postulate as to a better strategy that MIGHT have worked better.
Michael in MI on August 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Never said that. What else ya got?
John from OPFOR on August 11, 2007 at 3:14 PM
I’m going to try one more time with you. Let’s see if I can catch your eye this time and you seems to be cherry picking to whom you reply.
How different would Iraq be today if the 4th ID was allowed to transit Turkey and if Bremer, over the objections of the military, didn’t disbanded and refuse to pay the Iraq Army?
Don;t you have to say that there would be ZERO difference in order to claim the military strategy was wrong from the start?
TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM
csdeven on August 11, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Excellent comment, csdeven. Were I more rational in my responses than emotional, I might have come up with something more eloquent like this.
Michael in MI on August 11, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I hate it when those on the right, who are very well aware of the tactics of the left, continue to allow the left to define the discussion from a revisionists history perspective! We were, from 1991 onward, following the same exact tack that the loony left is calling for with Iran. Diplomacy and UN sanctions. Well, Saddam used up all his good will and we had every right and were completely justified in going in there and killing that SOB and the rest of his ilk.
Now, after the fact, they want to define the atmosphere as something that it was not and many on the right are buying into it!
Saddam did everything he could to make it appear that he had WMD’s. Not to provoke us, but to appear stronger to his enemies than he actually was. He played the game that Carter and the Clenis got him used to; empty rhetoric and finally we capitulate. Saddam’s mistake was that Bush called his latest bluff and then it was too late.
We were totally justified and I’m sick of listening to conservatives kowtow to the lefts skewing of the historical facts!
csdeven on August 11, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »