Welcome Back, Stephen

Stephen,
Pursue: to strive to gain or accomplish. I most certainly did read the Dulfer report, and found Saddam to be "striving to gain or accomplish" nuclear weapons capability. Keeping your scientific base intact is pursuit of a renewal of the program. Just as Bin Laden was "Intent on striking in the US" so was Saddam intent on obtaining nuclear weapons capability.

Dulfer's testimony was given1/28/2004. I wonder if Dulfer would give the same odds now that new evidence has emerged. We know that Russian operatives helped Saddam move something out of Iraq, and into Syria. Why would Russians help Saddam move something benign? New evidence indicates that WMD were being moved.

As for the sanctions, it's nice that you trust them to last forever or until the good guys are running Iraq. The European Journal on International Law, however, has not viewed them as particularly effective, and has proposed instituting time limits on sanctions. Read their 2002 proposal matter at www.ejil.org/journal/Vol13/No1/130093.pdf. It seems to me that Saddam had a light at the end of the tunnel. Besides, the sanctions were corrupted. When thugs have wealth and power, they always find a way to use it. The only way to defeat that is to remove the thug. The only way to remove Saddam, was militarily.

* Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

Nevertheless, after 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Senior Iraqis—several of them from the Regime’s inner circle—told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended.

As for your link to the book, I have to say this is not up to your usual standards of argument. First, you link me to info that, if done properly, would take considerable time to respond to. Certainly, you already have read the book, and you could've pointed out the pertinent ideas . I read two reports on the book, then followed the news link. What I found is not enough to support your claim that consequences speak for themselves.

One report stated,

Success in Iraq will require an extensive commitment of financial, military, and political resources for a long time. The United States cannot afford to contemplate early exit strategies and cannot afford to leave the job half completed.

Isn't this exactly what the Left wants to do?


The other read,

UN missions are nearly always undermanned and underfunded, with uneven troop quality and late-arriving components. But despite these handicaps, the UN success rate among missions studied-seven out of eight societies left peaceful, six out of eight left democratic-substantiates the view that nation-building can be an effective means of terminating conflicts, insuring against their reoccurrence, and promoting democracy. The authors conclude that the UN provides the most suitable institutional framework for nation-building missions that require fewer than 20,000 men-one with a comparatively low cost structure, a comparatively high success rate, and the greatest degree of international legitimacy. American or other major power leadership is, by contrast, needed for operations which require forced-entry operations or force levels in excess of 20,000 soldiers. Unfortunately, the United States has been less successful than the UN in learning from its mistakes and improving its nation-building performance over time, and this is reflected in the lower success rate among US-led missions studied in this series.

It does not say that the US is ineffective where <20k soldiers are required. It says that the UN model, typically "undermanned" was nevertheless, historically successful. I thought you were trying to make the argument that undermanning the effort would end in failure. The left calls for more troops, and early withdrawl, neither supported, as far as I can tell, by the authors of the book.


This was the only thing I thought supported your argument at all.

# Relying on its soft power attributes of impartiality and legitimacy, the UN is sometimes able to succeed in stabilizing post conflict societies with remarkably small forces sizes. The U.S., more reliant as it must be upon hard power, has had less success in Afghanistan and Iraq when employing the characteristic UN approach of the small footprint, or low profile.

Stephen, please explain what the authors mean by legitimacy. I question the legitimacy of a body that levels sanctions that it can't protect from exploitation, and resolutions that it won't defend from defiance. Also, please show how the US attempt at small footprint (which I presume to mean less troops) has created the larger number of casualties, and not some other cause. Also, why must the US rely on hard power, unlike the UN?

# The review of U.S.-led operations suggests that the higher the proportion of stabilizing troops to population, the lower the number of casualties they suffered and inflicted. Significantly lower force-to-population ratios in Afghanistan and Iraq, in contrast to Bosnia or Kosovo, have been accompanied by much higher casualty levels. Accordingly, the authors recommend that the U.S. abandon efforts to emulate the low profile, small footprint approach to nation building that has traditionally characterized the UN approach, and return to supersizing the missions America leads, as it did throughout the 1990's.

Here, the authors have pointed out the correllation been high troop numbers and lower casualty rates, but have not proven the cause and effect relationship. Were there other correllations? I see this mistake often, the confusion between correllation and cause. It's unlikely the authors are making this mistake, but you are, and I'd like to know what their opposition thinks. And when did this book come out? A couple of weeks ago, I heard on the news that US casualties have been decreasing since last december.

As for your quote of Wolfowitz, I'd like to see it all, and in context, and from something other than a Left wing blogger saying that's what he said. I think they're not lying that he said it, but I believe he meant that the oil would pay Iraq's expenses. Otherwise, we would have to have confiscated their oil to pay our expenses. Furthermore, Iraq's facilities are not at full capacity, and it's new government is very young. Oil deals in long run could still pay off for the US. Way to think in the short term, guys. Lack patience much? This has not been a long war by historical standards.

And no, my friend's experience is not a joke. Why do you insist on coming to my site to insult me? I am not a liar, nor is my friend. I trust Larry's personal account of his experiences over your poll any day. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what question the poll asked. For instance, did it ask "Would you like to have all US forces out when you can run your own country"? Or did it ask, " Do you want all US forces to leave right now, so you can handle the threats on your own"? Why, I think my answer would be different depending how the question was phrased. That's why I'm distrustful of polls, and refrain from using them.

Stephen, how long did it take you to pump out that shit? It took me 4.5 hours to expose it for what it is. Thoughtful work takes time. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me much time to deal with burnyourtires who has not learned to edit his ideas into concise, cohesive argements. Don't worry burnyourtires, your spanking is forthcoming. I addressed Stephen ahead of you because though he is wrong, he is lightyears ahead of you in the skill of argumentation. I considered him a higher priority.

And now, if you'll excuse me, my lawn needs to be mowed.