Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer officially wrapped up his investigation into Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by again conceding that no stockpiles have been found after an extensive search, calling speculation that Hussein transferred WMD to his Syrian neighbors "unlikely." "As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible," Duelfer explained in a supplement (released Monday night) to his main report (released last Fall). "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted." Meanwhile, Duelfer's former boss, departed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, conceded last night that his characterization of Iraqi WMD as a "slam dunk" were "the two dumbest words I ever said." Yet, right now, in the furthest recess of the Internet, some Republican hack types away about the immanent discovery of Iraqi WMD stockpiles in a manner reminiscent of the jilted Miss Havisham obsessing about her wedding day.

Told you so.

What he said.

'...calling speculation that Hussein transferred WMD to his Syrian neighbors "unlikely."'

QED.

Brad: I understand that belief doesn't always follow reason where it leads... but, dude, when you gonna give up your faith on this one?

Article of faith? I believe it. And I believe it for a number of reasons (journalism, e.g., Washington Times, history, etc.), none of which have anything to do with Bush-adoration.

Obviously they aren't there (wherever "there" is) now. So forgive me if I don't take the inspector's revelation that they're not there now as revealing of anything.

Will history record that the Republican Party took the country to war by cherry picking intelligence reports so as to solidify support around a "wartime president"? (And his followers didn't really care?)

Guido

Guido: Why limit your approbation to Bush's "followers"? You are cherry-picking the people you critique, but let's not be partisan. Let history record that the Democrats in Congress followed along blithely as well.

I sold all of my WMD to Syria, Pakistan, Afganistan, Congo, Lybia and the Taliban to make the great George Bush look like fool! Ha-Ha-Ha it worked!!! Americans so stupid!

Guido and Short,

To "cherrypick" intelligence reports in an effort to have people infer the presence of WMDs would mean that there were many intelligence reports which disputed the presence of WMDs (to be rejected for picking). That is a gross mischaracterization of the facts. Every report that says the intelligence was faulty has also said that almost all major international intelligence gatherers also believed WMDs were there and that no pressure was put on U. S. intelligence. But some people cherrypick the parts of these reports they find credible.

DocMcG: Whose post is a "gross mischaracterization of facts"? There were many intelligence reports prior to the war that questioned the presence of WMD in Iraq. A DIA study explained six-months prior to the war that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." The month prior to the war, a CIA report noted: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs." Others were more adamant. Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and various figures intimately involved in the WMD search disputed Bush's pre-war claims. Leaving aside your inaccurate history lesson on the pre-war debate on WMD in intelligence circles, does it make the Bush administration less wrong because others were wrong too?

Latest issue of TAC mentions some CBS/NYT poll (I know polls are sketchy beasts) which shows that 51% of Republicans think we should "try to change a dictatorship to a democracy where [we] can" as opposed to "stay[ing] out of other countries' affairs."

I guess the GOP has gotten back to its Lincolnian roots after a momentary blip of Goldwater-Reagan conservatism; but it always strikes me as funny that political groups often take on names that reflect the exact opposite of their actual beliefs/principles/actions. Republicans are clearly "democrats," agressively so, not supporters of republicanism.

It is really strange as well to think that the GOP takes much of its numbers from the south where Democratic party Jeffersonian uhhh---republicanism, and anti-imperialism used to hold sway (think opposition to northern Republican bludgeoning of the south over first slavery and then civil rights). So how would that 51% of republicans number break down regionally?

Docmcg, all major intelligence that got it wrong probably relied on Israeli intel, which was itself questionable, and should have been questioned, however Political Correctness and Neo-conservatism would not allow it.

I did not dispute reports about direct facts. The relevant issue is whether our intelligence reports and assessments differed from other nations's assessments; Not whether Hans Blix saw any WMDs. The reports about the lack of reliable information at the time are telling, but not in the way Dan intends. The lack of reliable information was exactly the problem. There was no reliable information and the Iraqi regime had bought peace by promising reliable information. If I have no reliable information that my people will be safe from a known criminal, then I have a problem.

If a policeman believes a murder is being committed behind a closed door and he breaks the door down only to find actors rehearsing a play, there is some sense in which he was "wrong" but we could not impute guilt or "wrongdoing" if most other policemen facing the same clues would have come to a similar conclusion.

The administration acted on the best assessments available to it. Assessments not contraindicated by other nations's assessments.

To imply that a policeman (or an administration) is morally wrong because it acted, in good faith, on beliefs that turned out to be wrong would be to create a moral standard only the indecisive could ever meet. Meanwhile murderers would continue their murderous ways.

To answer Dan's rhetorical question then: that others were wrong (in the facts they implied) not only makes Bush less "wrong" but completely exonerates him (in the moral sense).

DocMcG: During the 1990s, did you write for the Clinton administration on the side? "It depends what your definition of 'is' is" seems to be cut out of the same cloth as the last sentence of your post.

Dan, It is true that I have a couple definitions of the word "wrong" but I didn't get that from the Clinton administration. Near as I can figure out the only definition they had for that word was "Whatever loses us votes."

Docmcg,

First there was not unanimity on the existence or Iraq's weapons and weapons programs. The United Nations had always maintained that Iraq had unaccounted for weapons but the Bush Administration went beyond the United Nations by suggesting that Iraq had CURRENT WMD programs and that it still had stockpiles of WMD. The United Nations and Hans Blix made no clear cut assertions. Mr. Blix stated that just because some weapons are unaccounted for doesn't mean they exist. When Blix finally left Iraq points of a U.N. meeting noted that weapons inspectors found no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm

UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES

AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL

Now this surely doesn't harmonize with the statements made by George Bush on the eve of war " Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

DGSE, French intelligence, said Iraq didn't have any WMD and Mr Putin also said he had seen no evidence Iraq had weapons.

The problem is that everyone here keeps saying that our intelligence was "wrong." This is inacurrate. We had no intelligence on Iraq's weapons, so our intelligence was neither right nor wrong; it was non-existent. In the place of intelligence and evidence we found a convenient substitute: speculation. It seemed to go something like this: Saddam is an evil madmen and although we can't find any weapons or locate any facilities that are producing weapons, let's assume he has weapons.

In other words the problem is not one of intelligence but a really fallacious marketing campaign. During the run up to the war we had Vice President Cheney stating that he believed Iraq has "reconstituted a nuclear weapon," and then we had President Bush and Condoleezza Rice warning Americans of "mushroom clouds." It was a terribly long and horrendously inaccurate infomericial. They sold their product though.

Too bad the dead Americans can't get a refund.

There isn't much that I'd like to add to Dan, Brian, and Eric's efforts right now.

I would like to quickly point a major flaw with the whole "faulty intelligence" argument. As Eric and others have pointed out, there was no "unanimity" regarding WMD in Iraq either internationally or even within our own intelligence community. What this means is that the administration is completely incompetent (why was "slam dunk" George Tenent given a Medal of Freedom again?) or it actively deceived the American people into fighting an unnecessary war of global democratic revolution against a third world country crippled by years of economic sanctions. Either way, why should conservatives -or anyone who takes job performance seriously for that matter - support this administration?

Speaking of different definitions for a word, the particpants in this discussion obviously disagree about "intelligence." Some seem to think "intelligence" is certain knowledge; others (like me) think it means "best guess."
I come from the conservative school that says rationality-based knowledge is almost always imperfect and government rationality is very defective. I not only apply this insight to domestic affairs (where it tends to contraindicate governmental innovation) but also to foreign affairs (where it can have surprising implications).
I find the implied moral demand that foreign policy acts must only be undertaken after the acquisition of "good intelligence" to be tainted with the progressive dogma that postulates the existence and ease of "enlightened administration."

"In the place of intelligence and evidence we found a convenient substitute: speculation." -Eric Wilds

Sure, but speculation is just part of how intelligence works. It's like in cosmology or geology, they don't have any real "evidence" for, e.g., how the moon got there. It's a bunch of sci-fi dreamers who can come up with good theories based on mimimal number of puzzle peices. These theories then go down in textbooks. The fault came when the Iraq weapons theories were made to seem more verified than they were. That is where the moral fault occurs --- esp. with Cheney and his chirping disciples, because they over stated the case grossly.

"The administration is completely incompetent ... or it actively deceived the American people into fighting an unnecessary war." -James

No, there are more possibilities than those two. Why "completely incompetent"? Isn't this too strong?

Acc to DocMcG: "I come from the conservative school that says rationality-based knowledge is almost always imperfect and government rationality is very defective."

What the heck is "rationality-based knowledge" anyway, and what is its main competitor? Imagination-based 'knowledge'? Sensory-based 'knowledge'? Ignorance and error? Yes, your conclusion seems to be: ignorance and error! Let's embrace them! "Intelligence" is always defective, so there's nothing wrong with invading and occupying other countries based on false intelligence!

Question: "The limitations of human practical and intellectual abilities used to make conservatives reject government schemes at home and abroad. What happened?"

Answer: "The 2000 election crisis."

The main competitors to rationality-based knowledge are exerienced-based knowledge and revelation. Yes, there are times when we must plan for and expect ignorance and error (though that is hardly "embracing" them).
The premise of your final question is flawed by being double-barreled. The limitations on knowledge do tend to have conservatives be skeptical about governmental schemes at home. But in dealing with other countries the implications of the limits of knowledge are much more complex. I again cite the example of the conservatives who launched and supported the American Revolution.

P. S.
For those of you who don't accept the Founders as conservative, I offer the further example of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy--including his aggressive stances in Granada, Afghanistan, Nicaragua and many other places. For good or for ill, this type of conservativism has never rejected all "governmental schemes . . . abroad."

If rationality-based knowledge means "knowledge based solely on procedural reasoning," then I would say that doesn't exist at all, because there must be a "given" to start off with. But in order for experience or revelation (=givens) to become 'knowledge' there must be in addition some activity of intelligence. Thus your psychology of knowledge entails a false dilemma. Moreover, I think this is all completely irrelevant here.

So the limitations on human knowledge and ability cause you caution when dealing with federal highway construction and social security, but encourage the unnecessary invasion and occupation of countries around the globe. It's beyond me.

I follow eighteenth century political thought in using my distinctions. While all non-synthetic, non-revelation based, conclusions must involve elements of both reason and experience, theorist like James Madison used the words "experience" and "reason" in this context to discriminate between modes of conclusion-reaching by indicating the element that predominated.

One reason why foreign concerns are more problematic in this tradition is that more than one government is involved. The severely limited rationality of governments like the Soviet Union's, Hussein's Iraq, or George III's Great Britain can create situations where even poorly informed and implemented U. S. actions are preferable to doing nothing. Few domestic challenges can have such irrationality combined with such destructive potential, since most such challenges come out of the society itself.

While we can quibble about the use of the word "intelligence" and what it means, nothing changes the fact that President Bush used the word in a specific way.

"Intelligence...leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to conceal and possess some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." President George Bush

Can "best guesses" or "speculation" leave "no doubt" Iraq possesses and conceals WMD?

President Bush was claiming our intelligence regarding the existence of Iraq's WMD was conclusive, incontrovertible, and without question. I would like to know what intelligence i.e. evidence President Bush citing that left "no doubt" Iraq possessed WMD.

While Bush partisans fizzle anytime someone suggests President Bush and his Administration misled America into war, that seems to be exactly what happened.

I think the debate on whether or not we must have verifiable intelligence before we go to war -- or make any other policy decision misses the point. Certainty is rarely, if ever, a part of our decision-making process. How many new businesses would America create if people felt they had to be certain of making a profit before they started? How many Americans would invest in the stock market unless they were certain of receiving a gain? How many marriages would there be?

Opponents of the war in Iraq didn't oppose the war because we felt our intelligence on Iraq's WMD had to be certain. My opposition to the war was very simple: Iraq isn't a threat to our national existence nor does Saddam Hussein have the ability to legislate away one American freedom.

Now the case for the war in Iraq has degenerated into absolute absurdity. Nation-building, alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people, and establishing a "democracy" now seem to define the "conservative" approach to foreign policy. It's ironic isn't? The first (modern) conservative tract was Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, which rose in opposition to Jacobinism. Now embracing Jacobinism is the criterion for being accepted as a conservative.

That last thought is the one that's been perplexing me for some time.

The world has changed significantly since Burke's time. Had he seen Islamist fanatics fly a jet-liner through the Tower of London, he might have written different Reflections.

"Iraq isn't a threat to our national existence nor does Saddam Hussein have the ability to legislate away one American freedom."

This straw man must be tired from all the action he's gotten. The argument in favor of invasion was that Saddam might sell WMD to another enemy of the U.S., viz., Islamist terrorists. Dispute that if you will, but at least get it right.

For sure, the rherotic was subsequently adapted to new circumstances. Political concerns demanded some justification for war after the failure to discover WMD. Don't like it? You should have voted for Kerry.

The hawks threw in every argument they could think of, plus the kitchen sink, to justify this thing. Brad, you are pretending that the one argument you found most plausible was "the" argument used.

Edmund Burke did want to wage war against the fanatics of his time -- the Jacobins. He exhorted Europe to gather the collective will and eliminate Jacobinism. Now, the same doctrine that Burke wanted to fight against, is the leitmotif of the conservative movement.

" On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." President Bush.

Iraq wasn't a threat of any sort, much less a unique one of any urgency. In October of 2002 the CIA declassified a paper on Iraq's possible use of WMD against the United States and the conclusion was clear: Iraq is highly unlikely to use any WMD against the United States.

"My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack — let me put a time frame on it — in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low." Senior Intelligence Witness

So even if Iraq had and was producing WMD in 2002 and early 2003 the intelligence was still against Iraq being any sort of threat to the United States. So Bush's repeated use of the word "threat" in connection with Iraq had no basis in any assessment of Iraq, but with a cheap propaganda campaign to grease the wheels of war.

So my argument was hardly a strawman. I heard Sean Hannity say repeatedly that Iraq's WMD were a threat to "civilization."

The new rhetoric is just a grand rationalization for not uncovering any WMD in Iraq. In other words, the rhetoric isn't sincere nor does it reflect a new "conservative" foreign policy. The rhetoric exists to conceal the failures of the Bush Administration.

Eric,

"Iraq is highly unlikely to use any WMD against the United States."

More straw. The danger was not of Iraqi ICBM's landing in Boston, but rather the transfer of Iraqi WMD to terrorists. Iraq was an indirect threat to the U.S., it was argued, because of the possibility of proliferation. How hard is this to grasp.

Short,

The main line from the beginning was always WMD. And, again, no one mentioned being directly attacked by Iraq. Therefore, the concern over Iraqi WMD was a concern about proliferation to terrorists. Other causes may have been added peripherally, but you didn't see the Secretary of State at the U.N. talking about nation building or democracy.

Brad: Newsflash....There was no WMD....Newsflash....There was no WMD. If you agree that the "main line from the beginning was always WMD," then you admit that the administration justified the war on something that turned out totally false.

Brad,

I don't know how that is a "strawman argument" since I never contended that Iraq had any ICBMs capable of striking the United States. Iraq's al-Samound 2 missiles could go no further than roughly 150km. This was known to everyone, suprisingly even the CIA. So it's you who is making the strawman argument.

Iraq never had any intetion of using WMD against the United States or providing its WMD to terrorists.

If you read the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism the only terrorist group that Iraq directly supported was the MEK, an anti-Iranian terrorist organization. Iraq wasn't sponoring terrorism against the United States so the risk level was low that any of Iraq's WMD would be used against American citizens -- by Iraqis or terrorists.

Not that it matters, but just for the record our "intelligence" didn't claim the threat of Iraq's WMD was only through Saddam's nexus to terrorism.

"Senator Bill Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones."

"The danger was not of Iraqi ICBM's landing in Boston, but rather the transfer of Iraqi WMD to terrorists." Brad

Well, Brad it looks as if President George Bush disagrees with you. Sorry, maybe you'll have better luck in another thread.

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." President George Bush

While Hussein might not have supported terrorism directed at the United States but he did make payments to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers. This alone is reason enough for neoconservatives to support the war - if military action enhances the national security of Israel they're all for it. Its a consequence of a strategy that has merged the national interests of two nations into one. Unfortunately, its very difficult to have an intelligent discussion about this without the usual labels being thrown around.

On another note, Brad continues to astound me with a political philosophy that seems to be the antithesis of conservatism with its emphasis on the "new world" and "new paradigm" we live in. Its the same sort of philosophy that insists that we gut the just war theory of Aquinas and Augustine to accomodate our global crusading. The essence of authentic conservatism is respect for tradition and a willingness to apply the timeless principles of the past to the problems of the present.

Those who find Burke to be the first modern conservative will certainly have some disagreements with Madisonian conservatives, but calling us neo-conservatives ignores the fact that Madison wrote his major works first.

You can pile the insults on this administration for multiplying its arguments for the war and for exaggerating them. On that score the administration is certainly vulnerable. But the reasons for the war were obvious in their first reactions to 9/11 "Those who are not with us in this fight are against us," Bush said.

Saddam Hussein refused to say he was with us. He offered to support the terrorists who attacked us and was directly supporting other terrorists. Putting pressure on Osama Bin Laden would likely drive them together. Hussein was defying his international obligations and his obligations to us.

This situation constituted for us Madisonian conservatives the reason for war. Because others do not understand how dangerous the situation described was, the Bush administration went into selling mode, using other arguments that appealed to progressives and liberals. In doing so they overstated their case. The true reason for the war was still valid.

Perhaps I can explain the older conservative view (that some of you put together with other views and mistakenly call "neo-con"), without going into too much length, with a quick ana-logy. Foreign policy is a place where there is no real higher authority. The closest most of us have come to this situation is in the school yard.

Imagine you are the strongest guy in the school. The weaker kids keep you in sight because you won't allow the bullies to beat them up (If you would allow bullies to beat them up, you can quit reading. I will be unpersuasive). One bully resents the situation, sneaks up from behind, cracks you in the head with a brick and runs away. You go looking for him.
His little toady, pretending to have a knife to stick you with, (you know he had one yesterday)laughs and starts to taunt you. Those of you who who wouldn't bash the little toady before you did anything else have both superhuman control and no sense of how truly precarious your situation is (unless of course you want your life to be run by the bullies, too.)

Whether the little toady actually had the knife matters to the scold old maid schoolteacher, to people who resent you anyway, to people who don't think you should protect weak kids from bullies, and to other people who don't understand the situation.

I find Bush's "Those who are not with us in this fight are against us," which DocMcG quotes favorably, to be a blatent act of hubris. Bush is substituting himself and his political aims for Jesus's name in a quote uttered by Jesus in the Gospel. Really poor taste.

Besides, do we want to get into a battle of genealogy? We older "Aristotelian-Thomistic conservatives," for whom the "Madisonian conservative(s)" are indeed neo and modern, aren't too interested in school yard fantasies. We are quite content with just war theory.

DocMcG: There is much to be admired about Madison. But having been active in the conservative movement for almost fifteen years, I have never heard an individual (save you), let alone a collection of people, refer to himself as a Madisonian Conservative. What are you talking about? What does Madison have to do with the war in Iraq, or the conservatives supporting the war, who to a man, don't invoke the name of the fourth president in justifying their position?

DocMcG,

I really liked your schoolyard ana-logy, it is very creative. I am uncertain, however, how to transfer it from the schoolyard to the world of nations. Most vitally, how exactly does this take into account national boundaries? This ana-logy strikes me as straight out of the Walt Disney "It's a Small World After All" liberal/globalist fantasy, which takes a Christian truth of the equal dignity of all men before God and turns it into extra-nationalist mush (no offense intended there). What I think I am unclear on is who exactly are these "weak kids" that the strong kid (U.S.) is protecting in the schoolyard? I would hope they are American citizens as those are the only kids our government has any legitimate reason to protect (accepting legitimately instituted alliances and treaties). But if that is the case, and the schoolyard is our country (which would fit the idea of a bully sneaking up and hitting us w/ a brick) then going after the toady Saddam (who isn't in our playground in the least) could only be a miserable distraction from the one thing needful, that is destroying the brick-wielding bullies.

But if the School yard equates to the entire globe then we have a bigger difference of opinion as I definitely am not interested in an Imperium. Neither was Madison I believe.

So in order to know if I am one of the unpersuadables who do not see "protecting weak kids from bullies" as the purpose of civil government I need to see more clearly how your ana-logy accounts or doesn't account for the seperate existence of independent states and peoples.

James,

I am not sure that it is accurate to say Brad has strayed so far from conservatism. At least I take him to be justly concerned with "conserving" the American regime and its citizens. His ends are certainly conservative even if the particular means we disagree on (invasion of Iraq) is not. Also, the Iraq War has made people who are naturally much closer allies seem farther apart than they should. By this I mean that many aspects of the awkwardly named "war on terror" certainly conform to traditional principles of just war and conservative political theory, such as the invasion of Afghanistan and search for Osama, and various other means of disrupting terrorist cells.

But I really think your overall point that traditional just war theory was dismissed in the case of the Iraq War is a crucial one, as is your criticism of the "new paradigm" language. It is easy to overreact to the particularity of some historical atrocity, and its technological or otherwise "new" aspects, and thus think that our traditional moral principles have become outdated or outmoded. But to do so is just that, an overreaction, it is rash.

For example, crazy scientific developments in biotechnology (like cloning) have not at all negated traditional moral principles regarding the dignity and sanctity of the human person, only, they invite practical reason to apply the natural law to new and unique situations. Same holds for politics and foreign affairs.

Overreaction to a threat or inordinate fear can cause even a nation to use atrocious means of fighting back and lose all sense of proportional means. Thankfully we haven't gone so nuts that we have started dropping nukes on people (as we did unjustly against the Japanese people) so as far as atrocious acts go the unjust invasion of Iraq is clearly not the worst act ever. But such a preemptive war on false pretenses (and undeclared of course!) sets a miserable precedent. Particularly since we are told by our government that this "war" on terror is going to last our lifetimes and beyond.

A recipe for endless war for endless peace. Quite Nietzschean I suppose.

I think Brian's questions about DocMcG's schoolyard amalogy are good. I want to point to another disamalogy: "defending the little guy from the bully in the school yard" really means, chosing to cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Short, Bush can't help it if Jesus said it first. In certain circumstances it is true and it is right to say it is true, and one of those circumstances is the post 9/11 international situtation.

Dan, I used the term "Madisonian" to distinguish traditional American conservatives who are not Burkean, libertarian, or agrarian. It is not a common term because for much of the history of the United States it was the mainstream, traditional, position (amazingly Madison won nearly every dispute about the shape and direction of the new government in the first four decades of the republic). Then the progressives dissented, gained control of the academy, and created a new "paradigm." Note that America could not really be Burkean because we began in revolution. Also note that Madison played leadership roles in taking the country into 3 wars fought for the sake of principles, not defense. That most conservatives who support the war don't know the names of the theorists who articulated the modern intellectual foundations of their belief system is a great pity that I try to address by calling them Madisonian conservatives. What would you call them?

Brian, the weakest kids are (as I am afraid you feared) the countries like Kuwait and Israel. But it looks like all the kids in Europe will soon be too weak to protect themselves. We do have treaties with all these nations to protect them from bullies in some circumstances. Protecting others is not an imperium. You need not be a bully to stop the bullies. I believe "with great power comes great responsibility" and when we see a great injustice that we can stop without violating laws or putting ourselves in great danger we should stop it. We don't have to do it, but it is good that we want to do it. But whether we were right or wrong to protect the little kids, the bullies were out to get us and we had to beat up one of them.

I have thought about the schoolyard ana-logy some more and am beginning to think that it actually illustrates perfectly well the differences of opinion on the right regarding the Iraq War. I think the schoolyard which is inhabited by various "weak kids" and a few "bullies" must mean the Middle East (with there really being only one supposedly "weak" kid, Israel). Some people in the playground resent that we have such power there and so snuck up and hit us on the head with a brick. Instead of reconsidering whether or not we should be concerned with maintaining hegemonic power (that is an Imperium) we go raging through the schoolyard killing anyone who taunts us for getting blindsided or supports the bully's actions.

Thus the ana-logy demonstrates what many conservatives have claimed all along (and is in fact obvious), that the reason the terrorists attack us is for our interference in the region in which they live. That is why even the Egyptian people and Iraqi people (among others) who want democratic countries also hate America. They all hate us because we won't let them govern themselves or their own regions. Just look at the British-U.S. history of interference in the governance of Iraq, it is really atrocious and has lasted for almost a century now.

The Monroe Doctrine already allowed for as much of an empire as my taste could handle, I must admit. Heck, I don't want the federal government of the United States being much involved in governing my home state of Georgia let alone governing some country halfway across the globe.

DocMcG: You have neither an argument that Madison played leading roles in three wars, nor do you have an argument that those three wars were for principle (or abstraction) rather than self-defense. Please tell the readers of FlynnFiles the rank that the twentysomething Madison held during the Revolutionary War.

Brian,

Does "their" region include Spain as Osama claims?
We citizens of Maryland have committed to protect Georgia (see the Republican Guaranty Clause for example) but we have also committed not to "rule" Georgia. The problem is that progressives can't see the difference and seem to have taught this inability to see to a new generation, even the new generation of conservatives.
We actually got in more trouble by protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (Osama couldn't stand the fact that we had troops in his "holy land" after the Iraq war). But even if it was only Israel that we were protecting, does it matter that the little kid we won't let them beat up is an unlikable little brat?

While I think the British did a terrible job of ruling and ending its rule, the Arabs would have hated us anyway. The entire region was a basket case when the Ottoman empire fell apart. Their religion hindered their ability to keep up with Western innovation, but they can't abide that thought, so they turn in hatred against the West, and their scriptures and traditions seem not to constrain this irrational hatred.

Interesting references to Madison. Are we supposed to look at the War of 1812 as an admirable and prudent war though?

Dan, what I wrote was "Madison played leadership roles in taking the country into 3 wars." I assume you won't dispute the War against the Barbary Pirates or the War of 1812 (in both of which he was one of the most prominent figures). So I will quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica about the young Madison: (his health) "did not prevent early advocacy of independence (1774)." . . . "His health improved, and he was elected to Virginia's 1776 Revolutionary convention." Another brief biography points out he was a "member of the committee of safety from Orange County in 1774; (and a) delegate in the Williamsburg (Va.) convention of May 1776"

While this represents only a minor "leadership role," it is true he was only 23 in 1774 (of course he had saved a couple years by finishing Princeton's four year program in two years.)

On the question of whether these wars were fought for abstract principles rather than self-defense, an adequate answer would take much too long. Progressive historians have distorted the story beyond brief repair. I will only say that other peoples faced with similar choices, capitulated, (they paid the illegal tax, they paid off the pirates, they ignored the rights of their citizens) avoided war and were not destroyed. Americans chose the harder path even though they were quite aware of the historical record.

Brian: I think we can look at the War of 1812 as admirable and prudent, because it satisfied (I think) the conditions for a just war. It was winnable (we did win, for what we wanted), and the British were attacking our national security in two very concrete ways: a refusal to vacate their military from our national territory, and their abductions and impressments of our citizens into their military service. But my defense of the second war of independence relies on rejecting DocMcG's claim that it was done out of principle rather than self-defense. A good proof of this is that it was waged on our soil, not theirs. And this is only ONE war created by Madison. DocMcG has left it up to us to figure out the other two.

DocMcG: I don't dispute that Madison played leadership roles in the War of 1812 or the war against the Barbary pirates. But he played no leadership role in the Revolutionary War. The wars he did play leadership roles in were not wars fought for abstractions, but wars to combat very direct acts of aggression taken against Americans. In the earlier conflict, the privateers based out of North Africa attacked American ships, kidnapped Americans, and succeeded for many years in getting the U.S. to pay them ransom. Tripoli declared war on us. This is not a war based on abstractions, but one fought to combat real abuses against Americans. The War of 1812, though more complex, involved some of the same issues. The Brits burned the city in which I live. Ridding our soil of them was not an act of defense? C'mon. Conscripting Americans for the British Navy wasn't an act of British aggression? C'mon. Stop abusing history to paint the current foreign policy debacle in a picture consistent with American tradition, which it plainly is not.

The bottom line is that the point you made in the above post that Madison played leadership roles in three wars (false: two) that you allege were fought for principle and not defense (false in every case) doesn't stand up to any defensible reading of history.

Dan.

I stand by my assertions. Being a member of the Virginia Revolutionary Convention is being a leader. Being one of the first in your state to publicly call for independence is being a leader.

We declared war on Great Britain in the second war of independence. We immediately began to implement a plan to attack them in Canada because they had violated the principle of national sovereignty in their actions toward us and our citizens.

European nations paid extortion payments to the Barbary pirates. On principle, the Jefferson administration would not. That is why they attacked our ships and, on principle, Jefferson and Madison responded with force not negotiation. As Americans of the time said in another context "Millions for defense; not one cent for tribute."

DocMcG: You clearly don't stand by your earlier assertions. In a post above you claim that Madison helped take us into "3 wars fought for the sake of principles, not defense." In the post directly above, you describe how the Berbers "attacked our ships." If a state repeatedly attacks Americans and America reponds, that is an act of defense. The tortured logic that you are using above holds that this is "not defense."

Dan,

In each of the three wars under dispute there was a clear alternative (employed by most all other countries) to avoid attacks on Americans (paying the illegal tax, paying off the pirates, giving in to Great Britain on sovereignty issues). The country each time (led in varying degrees by Madison) chose war. The choice of war certainly and foreseeably led to more American deaths than the alternative courses. Thus, I conclude, they were fought not to defend American lives but for principle. While you might call this logic "tortured" I call it "impeccable." Moreover their own descriptions of their motives indicate these wars were chosen to uphold principles.

Patrick Henry spoke for his generation when he said "Give me liberty or give me death" and one implication of that sentiment is those who agreed with him went to war for an abstract principle, not to defend their lives.

But perhaps we don't disagree that much on this issue. Perhaps you see defense more broadly than I do. Perhaps for you it encompasses defense of a way of life not just of life itself. Then we could agreee on that point (fighting to defend a "way of life" and fighting for principle seem to me practically synonymous) though we would likely still disagree about whether our way of life should encompass the occasional protection of weak nations far away.

DocMcG: You contradicted your own point. In one post you claimed that the Barbary Pirates War was "not defense." In a later point you concede that they "attacked our ships" and we responded militarily. Both statements can't be true. American history shows your latter statement true and your former statement false. When history is abused to vindicate current political positions, these types of errors are common. You are guilty of this in your far-fetched comparisons of the Iraq War with the War of 1812, the Barbary Pirates campaign, and the American Revolution--of which you still curiously maintain that the twentysomething Madison played a "leadership" role "in taking the country" to war.

Thanks for being patient with us Doc.

I don't have much to argue with in your response to me above. I agree that the distinction between protecting and ruling between the sovereign states of the U.S. is little understood or adhered to. I had complained about the U.S. govt's rule not protection so we agree there, at least domestically. But I also think this applies internationally, I don't want the u.s. to rule internationally and whether or not we should ever protect other nations, or how we choose to do so is an issue of prudence, but one in which our own national interests must hold sway and we must be very circumspect in involving ourselves in alliances that do not benefit us.

So your example of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are interesting. The original Gulf War is extremely problematic in this regard, however, since Saddam arguably only invaded Kuwait after being assured that the U.S. had no policy or opinion regarding the borders of Iraq vis-a-vis Kuwait. Also, the fact that Kuwait was not a part of Iraq is only a result of the imperial legacy of the Brits in Iraq.

As for Israel, they are a nuclear power and have never been defeated in war, they can protect themselves, particularly with all the technology that we legitimately sell to them and all of our technology and info that they steal through espionage. How it could possibly be just to invade Iraq and sacrifice our troops and treasure to protect them, or any other country, is not clear to me at all.

I basically agree with your pessimistic assessment of Islamic religion and culture but given that the region is/was a mess after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and given Britains horrible imperial rule in that vacuum, why are we supposed to believe we have any obligation in correcting that mess? And more importantly, why do we think we can, when it has been outsiders dictating the government of those various peoples which has caused so much disarray? The Brits installed Faisal as a puppet government, the nationalist-minded Iraqis chafed at such patently foreign-imposed rule, we helped install the Baathist Party which then tyrranized the Iraqi people, again making Iraqis see Saddam as a western imposed ruler, the same cycle is continuing today w/ our ignorant imposition of a new "democratic" and "constitutional" Iraqi government. How bout let's try leaving these people alone and let the region figure out how they are going to govern themselves.

The middle east is basically in a similar situation to Europe in the nineteenth, they have a multitude of nationalist movements with dreams of the greatness of their nation or people and thus are balking at what they consider outside rule. The more prudent course, imo, would be to refrain from playing the role of Napoleon trying to whip the region into shape according to our model.

Dan,

You wrote: "In one post you claimed that the Barbary Pirates War was "not defense." In a later point you concede that they "attacked our ships" and we responded militarily. Both statements can't be true."

If you want to see how they can both be true, substitute "World War I" for the "Barbary Pirates War" and "the Louisitania" for "our ships."

I am not using any of these to vindicate the war in Iraq. I had given my opinion of why we had to fight in the posts before that. I was only responding to your questioning of my use of "Madisonian conservative." Such conservatives are more likely than some others to be willing to fight some wars for principles, but that doesn't vindicate this war. Vindication would depend on the situation and the principles involved. Can we agree that some wars should be fought for a principle? If so, I was pointing out some conservatives are more likely to so fight.

Brian,

I'm glad we can agree on a few things. Let me point out that you misinterpret my justification for the war. You write: "How it could possibly be just to invade Iraq and sacrifice our troops and treasure to protect them, or any other country, is not clear to me at all."

I did not justify invading Iraq to protect Israel or any other country. But if we exercise our right to protect others and Iraq explicitly or implicitly joins with others who attack us for exercising that right (This is an oversimplification of the situation. See my post above for my description of the actual situation.) then I believe it would be just to invade Iraq.

DocMcG: As Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, "You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts." The Flynn addendum to this is that you're not entitled to your own system of logic, either. Your contention that the Barbary Pirates war was "not defense" and subsequent admission that the war was fought in response to attacks on Americans can't be reconciled. Your attempt to do this (by changing the meaning of the word defense) makes me wonder if you're less interested in truth than in defending an argument because it's your argument.

The Berbers attacked Americans and declared war on America. America responded militarily. This is a defensive action by everyone's definition save one guy.

I think there is someone who agrees with me on this.

"From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever."

In his first annual message to Congress Jefferson said: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

Note the explanation does not entail any references to attacks on our ships.

P. S. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.

We had paid the tribute for more than a decade--including when Jefferson was secretary of state--prior to the rhetoric you cite. What changed? They kidnapped one-hundred Americans, attacked our ships, and declared war on us. We responded. This is called defense. The "style of the demand" Jefferson cites is force. We responded to force with force. I'll say it slower this time: This...is...called...defense. The record of history proves your ridiculous claim--that the Barbary Pirates war was "not defense"--false. No amount of parsed quotations change what happened, which is that the Berbers initiated force against Americans and we responded. Stop it with the sophistry.

What happened was Jefferson became president (with Madison as his secretary of state), refused to pay the tribute, and faced the response the pirates would obviously make by attacking them. The other kinds of conservatives, like John Adams, were willing to pay the tribute to avoid confrontation.

I will now quit what you call "sophistry" because obviously we are disputing my choice of words now (which I admit are not always the most appropriate since I often fall into eighteenth century English). My point about the nature of Madisonian conservatism and one of its features has been made as best as I can make it: the people in this tradition have always been more likely to fight (even when that meant the loss of more American lives) when others would still negotiate and compromise.

Part of the sophistry is your cherry-picking of Jefferson's first message to Congress, where he characterizes our actions in the Mediterranean as "defence." You had the gall to say that Jefferson agreed with you that this was "not defense" when the document you cite to back up your point has Jefferson explicitly stating to Congress that our actions didn't go beyond what the Constitution authorizes: "defense."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/sou/jeffmes1.htm

DocMcG, that was really, really weak to distort Jefferson's words into the exact opposite of what he said--just to win an argument.

I apologize for my misinterpretation. I was not dealing with the original source and gave you whole of the quote I had. I defer to you and Jefferson that it was defense. I will change my use of the word in the future.

I might not be too quick to adopt the conventional wisdom that is being reported in the main stream press that Saddam's Iraq did not possess "stockpiles" of WMD. The following articles give a slightly different take on this issue. www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050427-083109-3511r.htm

It has been Mr. Duelfer's judgement that nothing of great significance was transferred to Syria even though the ISG was never able to fully complete its investigation. I have wondered why he is so optimistic. To the best I have been able to determine, he believes that only limited WMD could have been transferred because former Iraqi senior officials who have been detained deny that that a large scale transfer took place. While interrogations of senior offiicials are no doubt valuable, they will probably be among the least reliable of intellegence sources and will need to be corrobated with other sources before reaching a firm conclusion.

Suffice it to say, if we conclude Saddam did not have the so called stockpiles of WMD we may be acting prematurely. I actually hope he really did not have these stockpiles because, if he did, that means there is a stockpile of WMD somewhere and no one knows where it is!! If someone does know where the stockpiles are, they don't seem to be saying so publicly. Given Saddam's nature, I just can't be that optimistic that he did not have these stockpiles of WMD.

Hilarious: "Suffice it to say, if we conclude Saddam did not have the so called stockpiles of WMD we may be acting prematurely." -Poster

The hawks are now concerned about our 'acting prematurely,' lest we conclude that the war was the wrong move.

Poster: shouldn't we rewrite that sentence to make it a bit more realist? "Suffice it to say, [since] we conclud[ed] Saddam did ... have the so called stockpiles of WMD we ... act[ed] prematurely [in starting a bloody war]." What do you think?

Short

I find nothing hilarious in anyting I wrote. My snetence was as follows: "Suffice it to say, if we conclude Saddam did not have the stockpiles of WMD we may be acting prematurely." I thought I made it clear. I am going to try again. It is too early to say for certain the stockpiles did not exist. As the links I posted will show, the ISG was never able to definitively rule out whether or not the weapons were moved. This means either A.)nothing of signifigance was moved and their really was no stockpile of WMD B.)Saddam's stockpiles of WMD were moved elsewhere prior to the war. If B is correct, this means there is a stockpile of WMD that we cannot account for. I think B is a far more dangerous situation than A. What I am saying is, if we draw conclusions too quickly and decide that the stockpiles did not exist when in fact they have been relocated to another place, this could have a very bad ending. We need to know for certain. If the stockpiles were moved, this means we are not certain where they are, at least not publicly. If this is so, it could be argued that all we have accomplished is to assist in the proliferation of WMD!! The fact that you thought the statement was hilarious either means I was unclear or you have no idea of the gravity of this situation. I hope you thought it was hilarious because I did not make my position clear.

I actually detest the labels of "hawks" and "doves." My support for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" would best be described as hesitant and reluctant. I simply take the position I think is proper for national defense. The positions I take on this and other issues are acquired through much reading on the various subjects. If I find I am wrong, I change my position.

I think the sentence was written just fine, however, maybe my grammar could be better.

The sanctions that were in place against Iraq were going to collapse very soon. UN oil-for-food made certain of that. Saddam worked very hard to keep his WMD personnel together. If he did not have the stockpiles, he would have reconstituted his weapons programs very soon. Saddam had every opportunity to avoid his fate. He refused. Many news reports have detailed his elaborate deceptions. The blame for this falls on Saddam not on America. America acted to remove a grave and gathering threat to its national security. Fortunately the trheat was taken out before it could fully materialize.

Poster: I'm sorry if I lumped you in unfairly with the "hawks." The reason I found the sentence hilarious was not the grammar or because I don't recognize the "gravity" of a Arab nation with WMD. It was incredibly ironic, as I made clear in my rewrite.

Some people want to say the war-supporters turned out to be wrong about Iraq and WMD. Many of those who supported the war are urging us to be prudent, not to jump to conclusions based on incomplete information. We wouldn't be in this mess if the people who supported the war followed their own advice two years ago... Get the irony?

Short

Thank you for the comments. I think I do get the irony. As far as I know, even most of those who supported the war now think there were no stockpiles of WMD. For the record, I think you do understand the gravity of the situation. I think we just have a difference of opinion in how it should be dealt with. I hope my choice of words was not offensive to you. If so, I apologize.

What I do think is clear is both we and our allies will need to improve our human intellegence capabilities.

Best Wishes
B.Poster