Amusing Anomalies

Today on Meet the Press, there was an interesting exchange between Tim Russert and John Edwards concerning Edwards' vote to Authorize the Use of Military Force in Iraq. Edwards has been telling any and everyone who listens to him these days that his vote was a mistake. Russert, seeing an opportunity cued up a speech that Barack Obama gave on October 26, 2002 that was eerily prescient. In that Speech Obama said:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But
I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Obama gets good marks for getting it right but I think there is a great deal of smoke concerning the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. A lot of the smoke comes from not recognizing what the vote actually did and secondly not recognizing the context in which the vote was taken.

First of all the setting. Prior to the AUMF, Saddam Hussein refused to allow inspectors back into Iraq. Given that there was considerable intelligence that could lead one to conclude that he had WMD, it legitimately caused a lot of people a great deal of concern. So when the vote occurred the following things were known. First, there was considerable intelligence that suggested that Saddam possessed WMD and second, Saddam was refusing to allow inspectors into the country to verify his claims that he did not possess them. In this context, voting to give the president the authority to use military force made a great deal of sense. Saddam wasn't budging and we had concerns about potential WMD programs. In addition, providing the President authority created additional leverage to force Saddam to cooperate. Consequently, I think that given the context of what was going on, providing George W. Bush authority was not a clear error. Especially if one assumes that the President would use the authority prudently.

Congress gives the President authority and what happens? Congress votes on September 11th 2002 and Saddam caves and agrees to allow inspectors on September 17th. So the vote worked and Saddam blinked. Given this, it seems to me that the vote itself isn't a mistake. If one assumes the President would act prudently.

Okay what happens next? The UN Inspectors enter the country and begin the inspection process. As part of the inspection process the inspectors discover that some of the intelligence that we were relying on was erroneous. Despite that the administration starts their public relations campaign toward the war.

On March 18, 2003, President Bush says the following.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. ~~George Bush March 18, 2003

However, the Defense Intelligence Agency apparently believed there was some doubt. Two months after the September 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report (see September 2002)—which found there was no conclusive evidence Iraq has chemical weapons—another secret document titled, “Iraq’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapon and Missile Program: Progress, Prospects, and Potential Vulnerabilities,” is completed. It also says in very clear terms that there is no solid proof that Iraq has chemical weapons.

So exactly what is the administration relying on when they say there was no doubt? It seems that there was “some doubt”. The lie was telling the American people that there was “no doubt”. They seemed to have intentionally oversold the intelligence information that they had.
The Bush administration decides that it is going to invade Iraq prior to the completion of the UN Inspection process and without another vote before the UN. At this point, one might legitimately conclude that their vote on September 11th was a mistake because the assumption that the President was going to act prudently was in error.

With respect to Obama being lucky. I don't think Obama was lucky I think he was right and I think he had a reason to believe that Saddam was contained. Why did Obama have reason to believe that Saddam was contained? Because that is just what the White House told the American people before 911. In fact, there was a paucity of evidence to suggest that Saddam broke containment. On the issue of sectarian violence, that too was predictable. In fact the CIA was informing the administration during this period that forming a western style democracy in Iraq was likely to fail.

Labels: AUMF, Barack Obama, John Edwards