The Bellicose Curve

[BVS]

The Bellicose Curve
Faulty intelligence has catapulted the United States into war all too many times before.
By Matthew Wall
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004, at 9:19 AM PT




After dragging its feet, the Bush administration has joined concerned Republicans and Democrats in calling for an inquiry into the intelligence failures in Iraq that helped pave the way for the American attack. But don't count on us to learn from our mistakes. Iraq is only the latest episode in a centurylong series of misinterpreted, misunderstood, misapplied, suppressed, and flat-out incorrect intelligence that has led the United States into war.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094833/fr/ifr/#ContinueArticle

 

[STING2]

#1 It was a fact that Saddam had failed to verifiably Disarm per multiple UN resolutions and a Ceacefire agreement. The fact that actual "WMD" has yet to be found in Iraq is irrelevent to the case for war. Without Verifiable disarmament in cooperation with Saddam, it would have been impossible for the objectives of the resolutions to be achieved which is why military force was necessary. The resolutions were passed to protect the future security of the region and the rest of the world and the failure to enforce them would have been a huge risk to regional and global security. Saddam was the only one required to show evidence of anything.

#2 You can debate until hell freezes over about how much hostages were in danger in Grenada, but the fact remains it would have been stupid to simply pretend the students were safe and do nothing. In addition, the Soviets were putting funds into developing a an air base on the Island with the help of the Cubans.

#3 The Mayaguez Incident, 1975: faulty intelligence for sure, and loss of life that should not have occured, but it was not an example of faulty intelligence leading to war.

#4 "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident/Vietnam, 1964:" Definitely not clear that this was indeed a mistake or faulty. In any event, the USA already had 16,000 Troops on the ground in South Vietnam who were often attacked by the Vietcong and North Vietnamese despite the fact they were advisors. The war had started before the Gulf of Tonkin.

#5 "World War II and Pearl Harbor, 1941:" The United States was already headed towards war in certain ways and if it hadn't been, then everyone would be speaking German or Japanese today. Its unfortunate the that USA did not get into the war earlier.

#6 "World War I and the Zimmerman Telegram, 1917" oops, the Matthew Wall had his own intelligence failure here. He origionally stated that there was no evidence that Germany ever sent the Telegram. Again, unfortunate that the USA did not enter the war earlier to support the Allies.

#7 "The Spanish-American War and the Sinking of the USS Maine, 1898:"

Another "maybe" "perhaps" senerio. But no, lets advance the theory from being a theory into being a fact, so we can have yet another example of faulty intelligence putting the USA into war.

 

[BVS]

#1 It was a fact that Saddam had failed to verifiably Disarm per multiple UN resolutions and a Ceacefire agreement. The fact that actual "WMD" has yet to be found in Iraq is irrelevent to the case for war. Without Verifiable disarmament in cooperation with Saddam, it would have been impossible for the objectives of the resolutions to be achieved which is why military force was necessary. The resolutions were passed to protect the future security of the region and the rest of the world and the failure to enforce them would have been a huge risk to regional and global security. Saddam was the only one required to show evidence of anything.

This has nothing to do with the article. What does this have to do with our intelligence problem?

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,

The whole point of the article is the "USA going to war based on faulty intelligence". The USA did not go to war based on a faulty intelligence against Saddam. It went to war because Saddam failed to verifiably disarm.

I don't think its clear that the USA does have an intelligence problem. There are some things that have been underfunded over the past decade and a lot more funding is probably needed. If there is a problem, its people's perceptions about what the capability of intelligence gathering is in 2004. Intelligence gathering has NEVER been perfect nor will it ever be.

This is why the failure of Saddam to verifiably Disarm was the central case for war rather than whether factory A or B in this arial photo or the other was producing or storing WMD.

 

[BVS]

BonoVoxSupastar,

The whole point of the article is the "USA going to war based on faulty intelligence". The USA did not go to war based on a faulty intelligence against Saddam. It went to war because Saddam failed to verifiably disarm.

I don't think its clear that the USA does have an intelligence problem.

Then why is Bush launching an investigation?

 

[STING2]

"Then why is Bush launching an investigation?"

Because Democrats who only care about the 2004 election and not National Security are attempting to make it a political issue. Also, there is nothing wrong at any time as far as doing an investigation into intelligence gathering to make sure things are the best they can be.

Iraq is a large country most of which has never been searched. The fact is that Saddam could have buried the WMD in such a way that it will never be found. On the other hand, it may be found eventually, especially when you consider that only 10 of 113 military ammo dumps have been fully searched so far.

Either way, its irrelevant to the case for war which was based on Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM.

 

[BVS]

"Then why is Bush launching an investigation?"

Because Democrats who only care about the 2004 election and not National Security are attempting to make it a political issue. Also, there is nothing wrong at any time as far as doing an investigation into intelligence gathering to make sure things are the best they can be.

So he's caving into the Democrats? But you said there is no problem with intelligence.

" Either way, its irrelevant to the case for war which was based on Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM.

It's not irrelevant to what Bush presented to the people, they're two entirely different things. I'm not sure why you can't see that.

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,

"So he's caving into the Democrats? But you said there is no problem with intelligence."

I don't think that there really is a huge problem. Intelligence is always imperfect. It is not a crystal ball.

The facts we knew prior to invasion remain true:

#1 Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM.

#2 There are still all kinds of stocks which Saddam has
failed to account for that were apart of his arsonal at
one time.



"It's not irrelevant to what Bush presented to the people, they're two entirely different things. I'm not sure why you can't see that."


The case Bush presented to the UN and the American people was Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM. Why can't you recognize that? Why can't you recognize that Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm was a serious threat to regional and global security requiring the use of military force to insure his disarmament?