Better Readers Needed

Jonah Goldberg receives (and republishes) email from some real morons:

1. The toppling of a regime that was a constant threat to its neighbors and, potentially at least, to us.

2. Removing the Iraqi threat allowed us to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia. The US presence in the Kingdom was the #1 motivator for Bin Ladenism, and the long term benefits this will have after Iraq are hard to calculate but will no doubt be significant.

3. Worst possible case scenario, we retreat to Kurdistan. No matter what happens in Greater Iraq, the liberation of the Kurds and the implantation of a nascent democracy there is a genuine success.

4. Also in the worst case scenario, we retreat not only to Kurdistan, but also to Kuwait. The virtual military encirclement of Iran will remain, and that is important. An encircled Iran, even with a nuke, is a far different scenario than the opposite.

Toppling a regime that was a potential threat to its neighbors and to the USA is an accomplishment if and only if it's not replaced with a more threatening situation like, say, pervasive chaos.

The other points all seem to involve misunderstanding the pre-war status quo. Kurdistan enjoyed de facto autonomy from Baath Iraq before the war. Our troops could have been moved out of Saudi Arabia and into Kuwait and Kurdistan before the war. Iran was "encircled" before the war. And what does encircling Iran accomplish, anyway? This seems like the kind of thing someone who's been playing too much Diplomacy would care about.

Comments

Moronic, or wilfully disingenuous? Tough call.

Posted by dj moonbat | November 28, 2006 4:52 PM

like, say, pervasive chaos

Why in the world would that be more threatening to us?

Posted by Al | November 28, 2006 4:52 PM

Our troops could have been moved out of Saudi Arabia and into Kuwait and Kurdistan before the war.

Oh, please. If that could have been done, Bill Clinton would have done it.

The SOLE alternative to our troops protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq, and enforcing the sanctions against Saddam, was allowing Saddam to restart his WMD program (as the Duelfer Report states, this was the intention as soon as sanctions were ended) and letting Saddam treaten Saudi Arabia again (just as he did in 1990/1).

Posted by Al | November 28, 2006 4:56 PM

Kurdistan enjoyed de facto autonomy from Baath Iraq before the war.

Only because of our presence in Saudi Arabia!

Posted by Al | November 28, 2006 4:58 PM

Jonah Goldberg receives (and republishes) email from some real morons.

He's a big fish in a stupid pond.

Posted by RSA | November 28, 2006 5:03 PM

Only because of our presence in Saudi Arabia!

What? No. Because of no-fly zones enforced out of Turkish air bases. There was, moreover, nothing in particular stopping us from simply stationing troops in Kurdistan as opposed to invading the rest of Iraq.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 28, 2006 5:06 PM

matt, why you hatin' on diplomacy?

Posted by dij | November 28, 2006 5:14 PM

And, if things go as they have been in Iraq, we certainly won't be able to station large forces in Kurdistan: the supply lines would have to run through (a) the rest of Iraq, (b) Iran, (c) Turkey, or (d) Russia, otherwise known as Putinland.

Posted by Barry | November 28, 2006 5:15 PM

I just had an enjoyable Thanksgiving game of Diplomacy with the cousins, thank you very much.

Posted by Marsh | November 28, 2006 5:18 PM

The US presence in the Kingdom was the #1 motivator for Bin Ladenism

This is more than a slight overstatement as well. Yes, bin Laden was enraged when his offer to protect SA from Iraq during the first Gulf War was rebuffed, and the presence of US troops in SA was a source of anger for bin Laden and many of his followers.

But, er, now that the "#1 motivator" has been removed, should we expect a decline in bin Ladenism? Will Osama himself pack it in?

Not likely. Because in reality, his objectives extend light years beyond expelling US troops from SA, and his list of complaints is much considerably longer as well.

Besides, isn't that appeasement of terrorism?

(As an aside: don't we still have some troop presence in SA regardless?)

Posted by Eric Martin | November 28, 2006 5:24 PM

presumably whoever composed this little paean to the brilliance of our magnificent adventure in iraq is aware, at some level, that cost-benefit analysis exists and is trying, desperately, to find some benefits in here, somewhere.

a waste of time, ultimately - it is perfectly clear that the benefits of this invasion are negligible from the standpoint of us national security interests (if not downright detrimental) whereas the costs in blood and treasure are still mounting - but, to be fair, at least embodying a recognition that otherwise, intentions are all that matter!

Posted by howard | November 28, 2006 5:32 PM

No need to insult Diplomacy! Assuming that Iraq was a front in the war on terror, it was a stable one, and anybody who's played Diplomacy before knows this: a stable front is a rare and precious thing. In Diplomacy, you don't break up a stalemate unless you're damn sure that it's going to be broken up in your favor. A lesson that the Bush administration would do well to learn.

Posted by OhioBoy | November 28, 2006 5:33 PM

What? No. Because of no-fly zones enforced out of Turkish air bases. There was, moreover, nothing in particular stopping us from simply stationing troops in Kurdistan as opposed to invading the rest of Iraq

The Northern No-fly Zone and the Southern No-fly Zone were two parts of the same policy. Ain't no way Turkey would have let us enforce the northern part absent the southern part. Not with their history with the Kurds. And I think you underestimate the difficulty of creating a giant air base in Kurdistan.

Posted by Al | November 28, 2006 5:40 PM

A good Diplomacy player also knows going alone is stupid, and going without an ally adjacent to the invaded territory is also stupid. Why you gotta harsh on us war game geeks, Matt?

On a side note, has anyone ever won that game as Italy or Austria-Hungary? It seems nigh impossible to me. I'm happiest when I draw the English, French, or Turks.

Posted by Cain | November 28, 2006 5:49 PM

Kurdistan enjoyed de facto autonomy from Baath Iraq before the war.

Also, I suspect an actual "Kurdistan" will create problems that beggar the other ones associated with Iraq. With a concentrated ethnic population of 25 million people, in (I think) four nations, "Kurdistan" will be greeted with all of the joy that would meet the establishment of Israel II: Electric Boogaloo.

I suspect that we're going to screw the Kurds again, and that they know it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 28, 2006 5:50 PM

If you're a Diplomacy fan, you really ought to check out this site. Diplomacy is one of the few board games that actually plays better online.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 28, 2006 5:50 PM

This seems like the kind of thing someone who's been playing too much Diplomacy would care about.

I'm going to make the charitable assumption that Matt meant to say "Risk".

Posted by Eric Scharf | November 28, 2006 5:51 PM

Let's not forget that putting US troops into Kurdistan would have been without question an act of war against Iraq...and so there would have been no way of selling such a move to Congress or to the UN as anything other than an act of war against Iraq. An imperialist war explicitly to carve an oil-rich puppet state out of another nation's soverign territory, at that. That is, to understate wildly, an even tougher sell than Regime Change...

Posted by Jeff R. | November 28, 2006 5:51 PM

The SOLE alternative to our troops protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq, and enforcing the sanctions against Saddam, was allowing Saddam to restart his WMD program (as the Duelfer Report states, this was the intention as soon as sanctions were ended)

Interestingly enough, this is completely, 100% wrong about what the Duelfer report actually says. But I doubt more than five people in the United States have actually read all of it.

For instance:

Throughout the 1990s [Saddam Hussein] tested Washington's willingness to open a dialogue. On multiple occasions very senior Iraq's close to the President made proposals through intermediaries (the author among others) for dialogue with Washington. Baghdad offered flexibility on many issues, including offers to assist in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Moreover, in informal discussions, senior officials allowed that, if Iraq had a security relationship with the United States, it might be inclined to dispense with WMD programs and/or ambitions.

Saddam derived prestige from being an enemy of the United States. Conversely, it would have been equally prestigious for him to be an ally of the United States -- and regular entreaties were made, during the last decade to explore this alternative...

On multiple occasions very senior Iraqis close to the President made proposals through intermediaries (the author among others) for dialogue with Washington...

Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States...

In 2004, Charles Duelfer of ISG said that between 1994 and 1998, both he and UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus were approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States, and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington's "best friend in the region bar none"...

In a custodial debriefing, Saddam said he wanted to develop better relations with the US over the latter part of the 1990s. He said, however, that he was not given a chance because the US refused to listen to anything Iraq had to say.

Then there are other sections reporting that Saddam told his underlings on numerous occasions that Iraq would give up even the ambition for WMD and follow UN resolutions under the right conditions.

It's kind of amazing this type of "SOLE alternative" ignorance about what the Duelfer report says still exists.

Posted by Jon | November 28, 2006 5:52 PM

Interestingly enough, Jon is completely 100% wrong about the Duelfer Report. Jon points to some discussion about a "dialogue" during the mid-Clinton Administration. But Jon conveniently omits the following:

Throughout the UNSCOM period, Iraqi leaders extended a number of feelers to the United States through senior UNSCOM personnel offering strategic concessions in return for an end to sanctions. The stumbling block in these feelers was the apparent Iraqi priority on maintaining both the Saddam Regime and the option of Iraqi WMD.

Moreover, the Jon completely ignores the "Key Findings" of the Duelfer Report, including the following:

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted. ... Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed.

So, it's hard to tell whether Jon is purposefully obfuscating or just ignorant.

Posted by Al | November 28, 2006 6:07 PM

"An encircled Iran, even with a nuke, is a far different scenario than the opposite."

Truer words have never been spoken!

At least, "X is a far different scenario than the oposite".

By the way, this "surrounding of Iran from Kurdistan and Iraq" reminds me this old joke:

During the Mexican revolution, an old grizzled guerilla brought to the camp ten government soldiers whom he took prisoner. Asked how could he do it, he replied: "I surrounded them and forced to surrender."

One could think that a bad point about "loosing the Arab part of Iraq" is a possibility of territorially contiguous aliance that can similtaneously threaten Israel and the Strait of Hormuz. But hey, we can surround them and force to surrender, can't we?

Posted by piotr | November 28, 2006 6:16 PM

well, al, since you insist upon getting into the weeds, the Duelfer report does not state that it was saddam's intention to restart his WMD program as soon as sanctions ended.

that is not an accurate rendering of the very words you quote: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized." not at all.

and since you insist, you aren't really attempting to argue that this little piece of hubristic over-reach was a good frickin' idea are you?

Posted by howard | November 28, 2006 6:36 PM

An encircled Iran, even with a nuke, is a far different scenario than the opposite.

An encircled nuke, even with an Iran? Definitely far different.

Posted by RSA | November 28, 2006 6:48 PM

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted. ... Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed.

Sure, the beginning of the Duelfer report says that. Then if you actually read it, you find it presents close to zero evidence for this conclusion -- whereas there's a ton of evidence that the U.S. could have made some kind of deal with Iraq on all kinds of issues, including WMD (and that Al's "SOLE alternative" statement is therefore completely, 100% wrong).

In other words, the Duelfer report is just like many, many government reports -- the key findings are spun extremely hard for the needs of the people in charge, and then the body of the report is more honestly presented. Anyone who's been conscious for the past five years will surely be aware that this is standard.

But again, the only people who will know this about the Duelfer report will be those who actually read it. And this requires a desire to learn about reality, rather than an ideological commitment to predetermined conclusions.

Posted by Jon | November 28, 2006 6:55 PM

Well, Howard, if you want to quibble with my phrase "as soon as", that's OK. The point is that if we moved our troops out of Saudi Arabia, sanctions would have ended and Saddam would have restarted his WMD program. I think the Duelfer Report is crystal clear on that, if not on whether it would happen "as soon as" sanctions ended.

And, of course I think the war was a good idea. I think it has been beneficial for US national security, for the Middle East, and for Iraq as a country. And it will been even more beneficial for all of those if we don't abandon it now.

Posted by Al | November 28, 2006 6:57 PM

I think the Duelfer Report is crystal clear on that

Well, not if you actually read it. But as I say, that's the kind of thing that only people interested in reality would do.

Posted by Jon | November 28, 2006 7:04 PM

whereas there's a ton of evidence that the U.S. could have made some kind of deal with Iraq on all kinds of issues, including WMD

Of course, again, this ignores the statement (which I quoted) right there in the body of the report that all potential deals with Iraq on WMD floundered because Iraq wanted to retain the WMD option.

It's funny how you extol the body of the report while ignoring that the body of the report specifically and explicitly contradicts the very point you are trying to make.

(and that Al's "SOLE alternative" statement is therefore completely, 100% wrong).

Um, no. Since the report specifically states that the dialogue you are so fond of extolling occurred during the mid-Clinton Administration, not during the relevant time period.

Posted by Al | November 28, 2006 7:04 PM

And, of course I think the war was a good idea. I think it has been beneficial for US national security, for the Middle East, and for Iraq as a country.

Shorter Al: "I'm happy that 600,000 people have died. It's funny because I didn't know them."

Posted by JP | November 28, 2006 7:12 PM

Again, Al, if you have some interest in the reality of what the Duelfer report says, I recommend you actually read it. It's really very interesting. If you then want to further explore the reality we share, I could then recommend some congressional staffers who traveled to Iraq, members of the Clinton administration, etc. for you to talk to.

But if you want to remain in a fantasy world, well, that's up to you. There's nothing I can do about it.

Posted by Jon | November 28, 2006 7:18 PM

Why in the world would that be more threatening to us?

Because while Iraq under Hussein was no threat to the United State whatsoever, and would have continued not to be a threat even if it had acquired some mustard gas or something, the terrorists who will be able to proliferate in the anarchy currently existing in Iraq certainly are a threat to the U.S. The idea that the Iraq war has improved American national security is utterly absurd.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | November 28, 2006 8:01 PM

The idea that the Iraq war has improved American national security is utterly absurd.

Sure, here in reality it's absurd. But I understand there are several very nice fantasy worlds where it's improved American national security -- and also, the SOLE alternative to our troops protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq, and enforcing the sanctions against Saddam, was allowing Saddam to restart his WMD program.

These fantasy worlds are really great places. Their only drawback is that they're not, you know, real.

Posted by Jon | November 28, 2006 9:18 PM

But I understand there are several very nice fantasy worlds where it's improved American national security -- and also, the SOLE alternative to our troops protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq, and enforcing the sanctions against Saddam, was allowing Saddam to restart his WMD program.

Maybe no one noticed but by 2003 invasion most of the armor that even made an appearance had to be towed into place and act as an artillery unit. The idea that Saudi Arabia needed to be defended from them is laughable to begin with.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 28, 2006 9:58 PM

Why don't you get William F Buckley to stomp out all the trolls?

I can't believe Matt has gone all day without mentioning that Marty Peretz is now on record as saying that James Earl Carter will be remembered above all else for being a Jew-hater. (I actually heard about that Larry King thing on Democracy Now, and promptly went to the New Republic site to see if Mr. Peretz had gone batshit crazy over it. I wasn't disappointed.)

Posted by Linus | November 28, 2006 11:12 PM

Peretz's comment on Carter being a Jew-hater would seem to be a slow softball for Matt.

Posted by Gabriel | November 28, 2006 11:55 PM

Thank God we got our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and into Iraq where they are so much safer and free to intervene anywhere in the region.

Posted by Alex | November 29, 2006 6:40 AM

#1. Iraq had quit being a threat to its neighbors > 10 years prior.

#2. Sure, if appeasement and capitulation to bin Laden sounds like a win for you.

#3. Kurdistan had been there since 1992.

#4. Sure, if spending hundreds of thousands of deaths and hundred of billions of dollars in revenue for status quo ante is a win for you.

I can't believe I once thought that there were intelligent right wingers.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 29, 2006 1:38 PM

2. Removing the Iraqi threat allowed us to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia. The US presence in the Kingdom was the #1 motivator for Bin Ladenism, and the long term benefits this will have after Iraq are hard to calculate but will no doubt be significant.

* Im confused. I thought the number one motivator for "Bin Ladenism" was our freedoms? Is this person an apologist for terror? (feels so good to say that)

4. Also in the worst case scenario, we retreat not only to Kurdistan, but also to Kuwait. The virtual military encirclement of Iran will remain, and that is important. An encircled Iran, even with a nuke, is a far different scenario than the opposite.

*The Iraq war made Iran into a regional power. If it acquires a nuke, which there is no evidence to say it is developing one, it is because of the confidence gained from seeing a beleagured US army caught in an Iraqi quagmire. Iran is not the least bit intimidated at the United States, because Iran, unlike Jonah Goldberg's admirers, views the world with more sophistication than a kid playing command and conquer.

Put it this way: Iraq was part of the axis of evil. Thanks the efforts of Bush, Iraq is now an ally of Iran, another member of the axis of evil. The difference is astounding.

Oh yeah, and a few hundred thousand people died.

Posted by NealMurray | November 29, 2006 4:11 PM