[lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens' Hypothetical Iraq War
- From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:47:28 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Everyone I read or heard from at the time thought Saddam had WMDs.
1) Everyone in the US government thought he had them because the USA gave them to him. If it
was illegal for him to have them, then certainly it was illegal for the USA to give them to
him. So the accusation against Saddam is an admission of guilt. "Officer, arrest that man!
He has 2 kilos of cocaine! I know, because I sold them to him!"
2) But having them meant... what? He used WMDs against Iran under US training, supervision,
and direction. But that was for his local wars.
There was no indication that Iraq planned to attack the USA. He had no capability of
delivering the weapons. Any usage whatsoever would have gotten a devastating response.
Saddam was a CIA client for decades. He had no intention or desire to attack the USA.
I listened to a CIA expert on C-Span a while back and he objected to the
White House not having utter confidence in their reports. No, they hadn't
predicted the fall of the USSR, and no they hadn't predicted 9/11, but that
was no reason for the State Department to bypass the CIA and rely on
information from such places as Britain. He seemed to be whining.
You should know the answer to this one. I finished Fukuyama's End of History. Fukuyama
explains very clearly why the Neocons had zero respect for the CIA, State, and others.
A reply here would take far too long. In short: The CIA (and basically the ENTIRE government
(State Dept., US military, think tanks, professors, etc.) had a realist worldview. They saw
the USSR as an existing object. There was no plan or intention whatsoever for attacking,
invading, and changing the Soviet government.
The CIA (and the everyone else) overestimated (by factors of thousands) the Soviet economy
and military, because it was in their interest to exaggerate the threat. The more dangerous
the Soviets, the trillions more dollars would flow into the US
military/industrial/intellectual complex.
There was zero interest in peace, cooperation, etc. Zero. It was militarization against an
enemy, without intention to attack.
The Neocons came along from an entirely different direction: they thought it was important
to know that the Soviets were bad and therefore, an invasion was morally justified and
morally obligated. If your neighbor's house is on fire, you are obligated to rush over and
save the kids.
When the USSR collapsed, the Neocons had two positions:
a) The CIA (and the entire US establishment) were incompetent idiots who had no idea of the
facts. They had lied, etc., and never expected or predicted the collapse.
b) Reagan's "Bring down that Wall!" and military buildup had cause the collapse of the USSR.
The US buildup (hundreds of billions for weapons) forced the Soviets into a matching
buildup, and they collapsed.
This is the Neocon's understanding of the collapse. Of course, it's wrong, but they don't
see that. From archives and interviews, we now know the USSR collapsed because of its
inefficiency, corruption, etc. Reagan and the Neocons had nothing to do with it.
So that's why Bush and Gang were contemptuous of the CIA and ignored their warnings and
facts. And the US military as well. Rumsfeld despises the military, and they hate him too.
You should start reading about the Iraqi papers being translated. (...)
New stuff is coming out every week. All of it disclosing Saddam to be more
of a rat, and far more dangerous than anyone realized. Some of the
translations show him talking about WMDs. There are hints that he was
moving stuff about. But none of this stuff was written so that we could
have all our questions immediately answered.
Yes, I am reading them. And it shows that Saddam was delusional, not really in control, etc.
The generals had no strategies. It is deeply embarrasing to the USA: it proves that Saddam
and Iraq were not a threat.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
