Reuters: Jeb Bush says 'knowing what we know now,' he would not have invaded Iraq
Republican Jeb Bush reversed field on Thursday after a week of criticism and said that based on information known now, he would not have launched the Iraq war carried out by his brother, former President George W. Bush.
Bush, who is expected to run for the Republican nomination, had told Fox News in an interview broadcast this week that "I would have" authorized the invasion that his brother carried out in 2003.
Without prompting, Bush addressed the issue on Thursday at a town hall event in Tempe.
"Knowing what we know now, I would have not engaged, I would have not gone into Iraq," the former Florida governor said.
WNU Editor: And he is suppose to be the "smart one" in the family?
11 comments:
The comments of Mr. Bush are nothing new. Generally speaking this has come to be acknowledged by all.
Based upon what we know now. At the time, it was not known that the intelligence would be in error nor was the general level of incompetence of the civilian or military leadership accounted for. Also the enemy proved much more formidable than initially assessed.
Again, based upon what we know now. What is not known is what would have happened had a mortal enemy of America who posed a greater threat to America in 2002 (before the war) than either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or ever could have been allowed to remain in power and grow in strength as the enemy was having largely beaten sanctions and having the sanctions on the verge of complete collapse. Since the Iraqi government was not allowed to remain, we cannot know how that would have worked out.
I concluded back in 2005 that this was a mistake and would have moved to get our forces out at that time. Having achieved a face saving exit with the "surge" it's hard to fathom why we would want to reenter this situation. I've long been for redeploying all US forces to positions along America's borders and off its coasts that will at least give us a fighting chance to defend America.
I'd also suggest reforming the intelligence services getting rid of the incompetent boobs and left wing political hacks who currently operate it. This was not done. As such, any current or future POTUS would be ill advised to relay on anything it advises.
Why is Jeb even running at all? His brother GW left office as the most hated man in American history. It must be something about Bush's that they enjoy humiliating themselves. Perhaps even more confusing is why anyone would donate to the campaign of a man who cannot possibly win and why the Republicans would even want to be associated with him.
B. Poster,
In 1999, Gen. Kemal, Saddam's Brother in Law, and the guy in charge of Iraq's Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons program, defected to Jordan.
He was debriefed by the CIA, the NSA, all the alphabet Agencies, and he testified that Saddam had ordered all the programs shut down, and the viable stockpiles destroyed, in 1994. By 1999, he testified that it had been completed by 1997, but there were some remainder chemicals, and remaindered weapons, that were too unstable or degraded, for safe disposal with the technology the Iraqi's had, and maybe a few " past due date" weapons "lost" in the massive Iraqi weapons stockpiles.
In 2001, Gen. Kemal was lured back to Iraq with an "all is forgiven, you wife and kids miss you" series of messages, which he fell for, returned and was arrested and executed.
You might want to google White House Office of Special Plans. the Iraq War was the triumph of Marketing and Fear, over Intelligence, and Intelligence.
The Occupation of Iraq, was proof that the neo-Con, neo-Liberal doctrine, that the "natural state" of a Country stripped of Regulation, Governance and Social Services is a Free Market Democratic Utopia.
There is not one single American who is not aware of this. As such, no need to "Google" as you say what ever single American is aware of as the media has made sure they are aware of. Congratulations on being able to point out to me that which EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN over 5 has been made aware of.
This confirms what I've long suspected. You either have never been to America or your contacts live in a left wing bubble who have no idea of the challenges faced by real world Americans.
While the WMD were not "there" in the sense they were not where most of the world's intelligence agencies thought they'd be even if they opposed US operations in Iraq, the points you make which are intimately familiar to EVERY American as no American student gets past 5th grade without being able to paraphrase your post will be allowed to the next grade.
This information comprise less than 1%, if that, of the decisions made in regards to Iraq. With that said your reply leaves unanswered what the Bush Administration was to do with an enemy who posed a greater threat to America than either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or ever could have and the so called sanctions against it were collapsing and faced imminent collapse.
As I pointed out, I concluded back in 2005, the best course of action would have been a complete redeployment from Iraq and all positions around the world to defensible positions along the American borders and off the American coasts.
As it was, American leaders panicked when faced with the dire threats to the country. Saddam's Iraq likely would have destroyed us or hurt us on the mainland very badly if left alone. They could have called for a draft to get us the forces we needed to give us a chance in Iraq. That may have worked given the situation after 911 but being good leftists they chose not to do so.
Now after achieving a face saving exit with the "surge" some people are stupid enough or ideologically blind enough to choose to recommit to Iraq. The desire of the American people and many of its leaders to the democracy and the will of the people makes the country extremely susceptible to manipulation and outright stupidity.
I advocated in 2005 and now to redeploy all military forces to defensible positions along our borders and off our coasts. At least this way we have a fighting chance of defending the country. Since the nation will not support a draft and I don't think democracy is a panacea nor am I willing to place in peril lives to achieve it and such would only place America in even greater peril as the people would only vote in even greater enemies to America
Can you please explain how Sadsamwas more dangerous than the Nazis or Imperial Japan? You lost me there.
Another tough question here, how does the IPhone auto correct Saddam was into Sadsamwas?
Jay,
Everyone is aware of the polls. They also know the polls you reference are complete fabrications designed to further demonize America and its people. By choosing to reference this you only further solidify you do not understand America.
The actual numbers of Americans who believed Saddam behind 911 in 2003 was about 5%. That number in 2011 until now is roughly zero percent or at least as close to this as can be without actually being zero percent.
Very respectfully I'd suggest taking the time to actually understand America and Americans rather than rely on misleading polls.
While few Americans ever believed Saddam had any role in 911, they typically did not dismiss the threat posed by the Iraqi government. Furthermore due to the vast network of allies the former Iraqi government had, its operatives who had worldwide reach, its support on the UN and among the weapons inspectors, and the fact it could count on Russia and China as stalwart allies made it a greater threat to America than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever were or ever could have been.
It is speculation to to say Iraq was more of a threat than Japan or Germany based on their aliances when both Germany and Japan had already ammassed massive casualties. Imperial Japan and especially Germany were already well into campaigns of global domination long before the U.S got involved. If left alone, the Axis would have continued to gain territory and murder millions, and Germany was also very close to the atom bomb and already had some serious rocketry concepts understood by the end of the war. In my opinion, only the The U.S.S.R and the U.S could be said (until recently) to have the kind of power to dominate the world the way the Japanese and Germans wanted too. You seem like a smart person B. Poster, but to say that Iraq was even a suggestion of the danger the Axis once posed is laughable. Maybe Iraq would have continued to jockey for power in the Middle East (against more formidable adversaries like Iran and Saudi Arabia) but to say they were a threat to global security like the Axis was is a joke. Iraq had absolutely no way under their own power to dominate a region the way the axis did. To say they posed a greater threat because of their alliances is to neglect the fact that their allies were more powerful and it can certainly be said That the U.S.S.R was a much more formidable power than the Axis and yet posed very little threat to the world by the time the post 911 Iraq war got rolling.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here,but I still don't see a case that shows Iraq at risk of dominating the planet by themselves or through their alliances. I think history has shown that Iraq was infact more responsible for maintaining order in the Middle East and much less of a threat to regional security, let alone global security than most other countries in the region. If anything, Iraq was a force that maintained regional security. By their engagement with other regional militaries they helped keep military ambitions localized. Now the Middle East conflicts are spilling across borders and regional militants have global ambitions. If anything, it was the U.S who, through regional destabilization, who set the stage for broader conflicts. So who actually posed a greater threat to the world, Iraq and their relatively local ambitions, or the U.S who ultimately ended up destabilizing Iraq and upsetting balances of power we are still trying to sort out over a decade later?
Ropestuff,
Through various alliances with terrorist the Iraqi government could have and likely would have at some time introduced some combination of suitcase nuclear weapons and dirty bombs into America very likely killing millions and perhaps 10s of millions. Perhaps this threat could have been contained via other non military means.
It seems problematic though given that the sanctions were failing and likely would have collapsed fully in a few months had the invasion not taken place. Furthermore with Iraq's various network of allies who would have gladly assisted Iraq in their attacks on the US including Western European countries.
Nazi Germany nor Imperial Japan ever really had the capability of attacking the Us mainland as Iraq under Hussein did. While this enemy posed a greater threat to America than the above WWII enemies did, the enemy is different. Furthermore America was not the same country in 2003 that it was in the early to mid 1940s.
As such, the strategies used to defeat this enemy would likely be very different from the ones used to WWII. I will reiterate that perhaps non military could have been used and very likely should have been used to confront this threat.
You do raise good points that all Americans are generally aware of. By engaging in the actions US and its coalition partners engaged in did bring much destabilization and seems to have made things worse. I've long advocated that the US redeploy all forces to areas off its borders and along its coasts to give its forces a fighting chance to defend its country.
When faced with mortal enemies and the powers that be in the world will not help you and actively seek to undermine you and what you attempt to achieve in certain places and things and are actively working even gleefully so to destroy this seems the only viable option for America right now. Certainly reengaging with Iraq is a bad idea and activity in places like Ukraine is an even worse idea.
In summary, while Hussein did provide some degree of stability his government was a mortal enemy of America and the trends indicated the problem was only going to get worse. As such, I can understand why the decision was made, however, due to a combination of sloppy execution, false assumptions (Arabs are going to embrace Democracy?!!?), and incompetent intelligence services things did not work out as hoped. Unfortunately some refuse to learn from prior mistakes.
I'd suggest praying for America. Also, honest attempts to understand America rather than demonize it some are inclined to do would be helpful. (I'm not suggesting you've demonized America as it does not seem you have, however, many do.
Ultimately the Arabs are going to have to be responsible for their actions. With the removal of Hussein they were presented with a fabulous opportunity to construct something better for themselves. The same with regards to Libya. Unfortunately they chose to squander this in sectarian fights.
MAYBE had the US and its allies contributed enough forces to provide security in the post invasion phases of Iraq and Libya the factions may have had breathing space to reconcile, however, not likely as we could not stay forever nor did we ever have any desire to. As such, the only viable option is a complete redeployment now. It seems foolhardy in the extreme to try and reengage.
Sorry about the multiple posts. Some might argue that the instability created by Sunni and Shi'ite forces tearing one another part is less dangerous for America than having a stable situation of Saddam's Iraq actively plotting harm and destruction to America. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with that assessment.
It seems for America whether it's Saddam's Iraq, Putin's Russia, China, Iran, ISIS or any other enemies America has or has had it is "out of the frying pan into the oven!!" Personally had I been in charge of the American side in the Iraq war I would not have put all my eggs into the "Democracy" basket as America did. Also, I would have withdrawn all American forces from the country and not gone back in by 2005 given how the situation was developing. While this may not have been helpful for Iraq, we might have been able to preserve a modicum of our fighting capabilities. As it is right now, the US military is worn down to the point where even basic national defense is going to be problematic for quite a while, at best.
Interesting points I'll have to chew on. To add to your last paragraph in addition to worn down we (a generalized notion of America) are also war weary. Many of us have had our fill of watching our human and non human resources drained away while there has been little evident gain. Or lasting evident gain. This might be a good thing as the American people seem less likely to support random military campaigns we don't fully understand, but it could also put us in positions where we don't fight some of the fights we should engage in perhaps. I agree that U.S involvement in Ukraine would be unwise, but I'm not so sure we should not have done more to help stabilize Syria. Before Iraq, I suspect support for involvement in Syria would have been much higher. I think America was more idealistic before so many of us lost faith is military endeavors in the wake of Iraq. Not saying Syria would have been a good fight, but it seems like a lot of evil has spilled out of Syria and at one time, much of that evil was hoping the U.S would come to their aid. Now there are many who were fighting in Syria who are bitter that the U.S dangled some prospect of aid but did not follow through (at least openly in readily tangible ways). We have enemies where we may have had allies if we had stepped up a bit. Perhaps we could have been living in the post apocalypse as well, who knows. My point here is simply that in addition to the tangible drain on our resources, there will be some serious psychological reservations about lending much in the way of military assistance for a while. That said, on one hand I agree that we might be better served by reigning in our horses and redeploying to our borders, but every indication (to me) is that the world is radically destabilizing as a trend, and pulling back to watch it burn from the safety of our borders could end up being a tragic mistake. I think that non-military means, or more limited military engagement in Iraq (smaller more targeted assassinations) might have left us in a better position, certainly a better economy, and could have resulted in less regional destabilizations.
As a disclaimer to everything I have said or ever will say on this site: I am a fiercely proud American with no military training, and as much as I may appear to throw my opinions around I am mostly trying to grow my own understanding of global military affairs, and improve my ability to weigh and debate these issues in the future.
Post a Comment