TheAgitator.com
Deception in Wartime, Ct’d…
Thursday, September 4th, 2003One minor clarification:
It’s perfectly acceptable for government to use misdirection as part of military strategy in wartime. For example, it’s now fairly well-known that during Gulf War I, the Pentagon leaked to the media that it planned an initial amphibious assault on Iraq. Saddam Hussein allegedly prepared for said amphibious attack, and was reportedly caught off-guard when we first came at him by air.
I don’t have a problem with that.
I also have no problem with classifying sensitive information — although I’d add that it’s done far too often generally, and far too often for reasons of dubious national security value.
But the current neocon crowd is making an argument separate from classification or strategic misdirection.
They’re saying that it is appropriate for our political and military leaders to deceptively justify a war to us for one set of reasons, when, privately, they’re actually waging the war for another set of reasons entirely. Specifically, they’re saying that if it’s proven that the Bush administration knew Iraq wasn’t a direct threat, that they lied to us about Iraq’s imminent danger to U.S. national security, and that we waged war for reasons never revealed to the public, they’re saying that this is an acceptable course of action for the U.S. government.
And I’m saying that’s offensive.
When government uses our tax dollars to wage war — to kill and to send U.S. troops their deaths — it’s doing so in our name, and to (supposedly) defend our freedom. So the reasons for going to war should be laid out to us clearly and plainly, so we can hold those who waged the war accountable should we find them unacceptable. It is never acceptable for the U.S. military to kill citizens of other countries in our name without thruthfully telling us why they’re doing it.
I’m not a big believer in single-issue litmus tests. Bu this one’s pretty much a no-brainer:
If you think it’s acceptable, even desirable, for government to wage war under false pretenses, then you don’t harbor the adequate suspicion of power to call yourself a libertarian.
There are probably hundreds of valid reasons we should have gone to war. Bush picked 2-3 selling points to really focus on — and somehow this makes the other hundred reasons “false pretenses.”
“Bush picked 2-3 selling points to really focus on — and somehow this makes the other hundred reasons “false pretenses”"
If Bush didn’t present the actual reason for the war, then there’s no reason to assume the real justification for war was a good one. It’s just as likely the reason was because he read that the antichrist lives in Baghdad in one of the ‘Left Behind’ books.
I agree with your litmus test. I’ve wondered, too, over the last few months why the administration chose WMD as the driving force behind the war. I don’t think fewer people would have supported the president if the truth had been told in the first place. And a lot of us GWB-diehards feel foolish now.
Bush did present actual reasons for war. There are literally hundreds others listed by other pro-war pundits. Having more than one reason makes it more valid, not less. Your search for one single “reason” or “root cause” is in vain, the world dosen’t work that way.
The right thing is still the right thing, regardless of how it is sold. The fact that a clear majority supported/supports it only shows that perhaps Bush was a poor salesmen, but the American public still saw the wisdom in his actions.
If I stop a crime because I think I will get a reward, but find out after stopping it that there is not, has this made my action wrong? If I told others before that that I why I planned on stopping the crime (though I would be incorrect), has this invalidated the act of stopping the crime? If you also point out that stopping crime is a moral good in itself and someone else points it out it is in your own self-interest, have all these multiple reasons invalided each other? Or are they just additional evidence that stopping crimes is morally right?
“If I stop a crime because I think I will get a reward, but find out after stopping it that there is not, has this made my action wrong?”
No, but if you kill a guy because you thought he might have committed a crime, despite a lack of evidence, and it turned out he didn’t, it’s fair to say your action was wrong.
That’s like, a bad analogy, because rather than “stopping a crime,” the US killed a lot of Iraqis, got a lot of its own soldiers killed, and created a power vacuum in a rather important part of the world.
Yeah, on second thought that’s a really really bad analogy.
Bush, war, lies
I whole heartedly agree with Radley with his point starting here: It’s perfectly acceptable for government to use misdirection as part of military strategy in wartime. For example, it’s now fairly well-known that during Gulf War I, the Pentagon…
I have to ask, why do YOU think Bush took us to war Radley? Do you think he is an evil man?
Personally I think he is a good man with nothing but our national interests in his heart. I think we went into Iraq because we had to:
1. Neutralize a longstanding potential threat
2. Establish a base for regional stabilization (basically wade in to that mess, it cannot be ignored or wished away any longer)
3. Develop new methods for national energy acquisition (since SA was complicit in 9-11, directly or incirectly)
4. Send a strong message to the world…dont fuck with us.
I think only the first reason could be publicly discussed, the others would be torn apart by his opponents world wide…potentially preventing realization of the war (which would be unacceptable for national security). I know you would have prefered a personal phone call from the President to explain all this Skippy, but sorry he was busy.
I find nothing in my reasoning that would disqualify me as a libertarian young man. You do know that to be a libertarian doesnt mean you have to distrust the government, right? You can believe that a limited gov’t role is the most efficient and effective means for a society and not look up once for black helicoptors. Yup, it’s true.
I do, however, find your inability to read between the lines troubling, and I question your ability to appropriately determine an imminent national threat. Because of this I must, with a heavy heart, ask you to hand in your libertarian badge.
Please leave it at the door, we wish you luck with your leftists endeavors. Dont forget the tin foil on your head to disrupt thought-readers, they’re probably on to you kid. You are dangerous now, you know too much.
I love this. Everyone has an opinion and is more than willing to volunteer it and yet the always nagging questions remain unanswered. Why did we go to war? Are we justified in doing so?
The first question has a definite answer but only a few people know it and I know it’s not me. And I doubt it’s any of you. So that leaves us speculating and guessing all day long about strategies and intentions. But what’s the real value in doing that? Some will guess correctly, some incorrectly.
But if you don’t have the inside information then you will only be proven correct IN SPITE OF your information, not BECAUSE of it. In other words, you’ll be correct by accident not by design. Sure you can make an educated guess. But keep in mind, your “educated guess” is based on incomplete information. So how educated is that guess? As good as it could be? I suppose. But is as-good-as-it-could-be really make for an informed decision? Informed enough to decide whether to reelect a President?
How many thought Reagan’s desire to inflate the military would have the effect of collapsing the Soviet Union? Obviously the administration did as history has proven. Sure the Soviets helped out in their own collapse. But it was the Reagan administration that recognized how to take advantage of the Soviet ideology. Does anyone here really feel they have enough information to make a conclusion about the justness or necessity of this war?
How will the democratic movement in Iran be affected by the presence of U.S. troops along the border? How will Iran be affected by a democratic Iraq? How will the removal of martyr payments from Iraq to Palestine effect the Israel-Arab security?
For the sake of argument, let’s say Iraq had no direct ties to terrorism. Where should we have gone instead? Should we have attacked Afghanistan? Should we attack every nation that harbors terrorists or should we choose one enemy and make an example of it and hope the others change their ways? Saddam was far more popular outside Iraq than inside. How many Arab leaders really have popular support? How many of those leaders are now worried that their citizens will welcome a revolution, coup, or invasion?
Will any of this benefit the U.S.? I don’t know. Do you? But just because I don’t know doesn’t mean I wear blinders and ignore the unanswered questions. A lack of patience doesn’t equate to a rash judgement.
The problem is the neocons think they’re smarter than they actually are. That’s why they feel like they have to deceive the public to get what they want. Everybody else is “too stupid” to get it. Hubris is all it is. And that goes for libertarians who supported the war as well.
Radley,
Do you always require advanced notice? Nothing can be communicated to the american people without also communicating it to their enemies.
Do you find it inconceivable that there could be a strong case for a war that would be threatened to the point of likely failure by advance announcment?
How about waiting until the situation is stable, and Iraq has the institutions to defend itself from likely foreign and domestic threats before informing them that their days are numbered?
I think you’re right to be very skeptical. It’s a risky thing either way. In most cases I agree with you that the principle is worth whatever additional risks or innefficiencies it brings. But in this case, the principle could cause us to be dead, so I think we need to be a little more flexible.
That’s why we should elect a president we trust to make the right call in these situations, rather than the one who’s most photogenic or who promises us the best toys.
Perhaps I didn’t get the memo but how does supporting the war tarnish my libertarian badge?
Or, on the other hand, why should a libertarian automatically not support the war?
Gil –
No, of course I don’t always require advance notice. Clearly there are times when a president might have to take decisive action, quickly.
But Iraq wasn’t one of those times. Bush took months to lay out his case.
I’m saying if he or anyone in his administration deliberately misled us, or deliberately mistated the real reasons for the war, they ought not be given a pass under the reasoning that it’s sometimes okay for government to lie to us in wartime.
Alright Radley, I’ll bite. What would be a REAL reason that would convince you that invasion was in the U.S. interest?
Radley Balko – My essay on the deception in Iraq (thanks for the link btw) addressed the issue of why Iraq first, not why Iraq.
Pop quiz, what was Abu Nidal doing in Baghdad? This is only one of the most uncontroversial Hussein/terrorist links. There certainly were others.
Iraq was going to continue offering money for terrorist acts and there was no guarantee that they’d stick with financing palestinian suicide bombers with blood money payments for their families. A regime that did that sort of thing could not be tolerated post 9/11.
Since you’ve now as much admitted that operational and pacing decisions are legitimately the subject of deception, what else is there to protest over?
Wolfowitz was right, WMD was what the government decided it could coalesce around. That didn’t mean that any of the other reasons were false, or unworthy and trying to paint it all as a lie is just not credible in my opinion.
Tom writes: “4. Send a strong message to the world…dont fuck with us.”
Actually, what we’ve done is we’ve demonstrated the limits of our power.
We can put a good hurt on a country by bombing, but our forces are strained just holding onto Iraq.
Which is probably quite educational to other countries. They now have a good idea just how much personnel we can easily field, and they know that right now we’re tied up and unlikely to do anything significant anywhere else.
Things that would justify a war on Iraq, IMHO…
1. Clear evidence of high-level links between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.
2. The publicly documented Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide bombers if it were also the rationale for strong action against Saudi Arabia – that is, treating them as equally complicit.
That sort of thing: actual evidence either of actions being taken or of direct support for actions being taken that threaten the safety of the US, or as part of a general effort to stamp out behavior that threatens everyone’s security.
I’m in a weird unprincipled position here. I’d be ok with having this war for dubious (perhaps disingenuous) reasons IF – in the end – we don’t screw up the reconstruction of Iraq. If we do that job alright all will be forgiven. But if we don’t fix this mess we have on our hands, then I get less forgiving.
IT WASN’T A FALSE PRETENSE! I’M A MEXICAN AND I CAN SEE WHAT YOU AMERICANS CAN NOT! AMAZING! WMD’S WERE USED AGAINST THE KURDS, GO ASK THEM ABOUT IT. THE U.N. WAS SEARCHING FOR THEM WMD’S, THE U.N. ARE NOT SOOOOO STUPID TO SEARCH FOR A NON ENTITY. SHEES AMERICANS, AWAKEN!