Strange Defense
Shrill liberals accuse the Bush administration of passing up an opportunity to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi years ago because doing so would have complicated their efforts to launch the invasion of Iraq. Now along come Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Adam White in The Weekly Standard to explain that critics have it all wrong. You see, killing Zarqawi "could have interfered with its diplomatic efforts preceding the 2003 invasion." Hm. . . .
Even more hilariously, the interference would have come in the form of a "torrent of criticism for allegedly violating international law." Since, obviously, the administration is well-known for its love of international law and deep-seated aversion to anything that even arguably violates it. Of course. Sure. Case closed.
I wonder just who Gartenstein & White are trying to convince with this "explanation"? Yes, "Adherence to International Law", certainly one of the inviolate Hallmarks of this Administration, from Maine to Guantanamo to wherever they happen to "Rendition" folks to when they feel like it. And think of it, these guys put their NAMES on that rubbish. All I did was read it and I feel like I should go wash up.
June 21, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwlad points out another flaw in this argument: for quite a while prior to the invasion we we're bombing Iraq and could easily have taken him out then.
June 21, 2006 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
While I appreciate your link on TPMCafe, I think you're a bit superficial in dismissing our argument. There's nothing inconsistent about the President working in 2002 to achieve international consensus on the Iraq issue, yet invading Iraq in 2003 despite the objections of much of the international community. In 2002, the apparent gain from the elimination of Zarqawi may very well have seemed not to outweigh the negative effect of such action on the Bush Administration's efforts to win support in the Congress and the international community, just as in 2003 the apparent gain from the invasion of Iraq may very well have seemed to outweigh the negative effect of such action on the Bush Administration's relationship with other nations.
You seem to assume that the Bush Administration had literally zero interest in avoiding any and all insults to the international community, regardless of the cost. That's a rather simplistic view of things; indeed, its demonstrably wrong. If your theory was correct, then the U.S. would have expended zero resources on convincing the international community to join the Coalition (or, for that matter, to work with the international community in Afghanistan, or on the Proliferation Security Initiative).
I'd hope there's room for consideration of cost-benefit analysis amidst the "reality based commentary."
In any event, the link is always appreciated.
Regards,
Adam White
June 21, 2006 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for the Greenwald post, I'm really not sure what to make of it. We don't ignore the fact that there were No-Fly Zone bombings in the run-up to the war. Indeed, we link to materials that say just that.
Our point, though, is that to bomb Zarqawi would have further expanded the rules of engagement in the NFZ, from targeting facilities that thwarted the NFZ (e.g., radar, antiaircraft weaponry) to targeting *anything*.
Greenwald seems to think our article is one about blame-shifting. It's nothing of the sort. Our article demonstrates why there's no reason to "blame" anyone for anything.
June 21, 2006 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, like Britney in "Fahrenheit 9/11", "We should trust our President."
Who cares if Zarqawi got hit then or now? He was a figurehead, nothing more, and got replaced in a day. Mostly he was a figurehead used by Bush as a boogeyman to scare the US public. His reputation was built by the US and the US media, not Al Qaeda or anything he can be proven to have done himself.
Anybody taking Zarqawi or his influence seriously was out to lunch from day one.
In 2002, the apparent gain from" the elimination of Zarqawi may very well have seemed not to outweigh the negative effect of such action on the Bush Administration's efforts to win support in the Congress and the international community..."
Except you haven't done a damn thing to establish that there WOULD have been ANY negative effect of taking out a given terrorist at that time. Most people would have supported the operation given 9/11. Even Iran would have supported it, most likely.
It could also have been done in such a manner as to avoid any negative effects - in other words, quietly and effectively, as opposed to dropping two 500-lb bombs on him and killing civilians in the process.
June 21, 2006 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point, Adam, is that if we could simply take out Zarqawi from the NFZ, we *wouldnt have had to invade Iraq*, because the 'ties to terrorists' argument would have become even more ludicrously false than it already was.
The failure to kill him proves the Bush admin was much more concerned with invading Iraq for whatever reason than with actually securing the US against international terrorists.
June 21, 2006 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the man that isn't assainiated, find what is not going in to the pot of war if you can. A sense of the distruction if being given not only to the man in his chair but to the man in his sight.
June 21, 2006 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, what happened to Adam White and his comments? Did he cut and run?
June 21, 2006 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just priceless -- Our article demonstrates why there's no reason to "blame" anyone for anything. -- ain't it? Adam White claims to have just proven that accountability is an empty and useless concept. I mean, you couldn't even spoof sh*t like that if you tried.
June 21, 2006 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing inconsistent about the President working in 2002 to achieve international consensus on the Iraq issue, yet invading Iraq in 2003 despite the objections of much of the international community.
Huh? Sure there is nothing inconsistent about it on it's face. But if Bush put the value on international law that you suggests he has he wouldn't have invaded Iraq over the objections of the rest of the world. He would have gone back and tried to make a better case. George Bush has little respect for the rest of the world or the rule of law. The only time he cares is when he can strong arm the international community to agree with us. Now that his (and the US's) credibility is in the toilet he all of a sudden has found religion...
June 21, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not at all sure what happened to my comments. I registered with TPMCafe specifically to post those comments, so perhaps something with my registration process got them eliminated. In any event, I also posted them at www.intel-dump.com, in a post related to my article, so you can find them there.
June 21, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
I think it is right that the Bush administration could at least have tried. But as for easily taking him out -- there is still a myth among both liberals and conservatives that America is the genie state -- it just blinks its eyes and its enemy's are 'easily taken out." In fact, nothing in American history, even recently, even with the integration of air and land power and the drones and the computers, justifies this idea. American military power is as fallible as it ever was, and air power, while looking good on film -- all those great explosions -- has proven time and again not to be efficient in doing many simple jobs. It didn't knock out the German, or even the North Vietnamese, industrial base. It hasn't cowed the insurgents in Iraq. It hasn't defeated the Taliban -- far from it.
War is a lot harder to wage than buying expensive missile delivery instruments -- it actually takes the very vulnerable display of manpower on the field. I think if Americans could get over the myth that they had developed some omnipotent war system for their 300 billion bucks per year, they would be more rational about the aggressive actions they chose.
June 21, 2006 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Standing offer: one billion in advance, bin Laden in ninety days.
Telling people you can't take out one guy with a half trillion dollar war machine - not to mention more billions for intelligence services - is just pathetic lying.
Knocking off one guy has nothing to do with using air power to destroy industrial production. The assumption that we would have had to use air power to get Zarqawi is incorrect in the first place. We probably could have simply hired some "associate" to kill him for a very reasonable fee - which, in the end, looks like exactly how he was gotten.
June 22, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
I'm sure that the billion dollars would definitely turn around those who are just sniffin' at that 25 million. Those sheepherders on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border aren't going to give up their lives of luxury for a mere 25 mill! 25 million would hardly decorate a yurt in the style to which they have become accustomed.
Perhaps we could have sent int Charlie's Angels to get OBL. Or Rambo.
I have the unpatriotic suspicion that Americans have serious delusions about the degree of their power.
June 23, 2006 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since, obviously, the administration is well-known for its love of international law and deep-seated aversion to anything that even arguably violates it.
Like our invasion of Iraq? The UN never gave us the ok to invade and we invaded anyhow...that didn't violate international law? What an intellectually fraudulant article.
What's next? Bush is actually an "environmentally friendly" president because he made the NW Hawaiian Islands a national monument?
June 24, 2006 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink