Saturday, June 25, 2005
The Times and three "facts" about Iraq
The New York Times informs us that in order to “have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts.” It then sets out three “facts;” however the “facts” are actually tendentious opinions which constitute important aspects of the debate rather than settled facts over which no one could differ.
First, the Times asserts that the
The Times may believe that the contacts were not sufficient to justify military action against Iraq. Reasonable minds may differ over such conclusions of policy. However, to suggest that no contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda constitutes a “fact” about which no one can differ is patently false.
I have a question for the Times and others. Many people attacked President Bush, Secretary of State Rice and others for their “failures” in not preventing September 11 in light of intelligence of possible future attacks in the US. What would have been their reaction if the President had left Saddam in power and an attack occurred from the sanctuary of Iraq? Would the intelligence showing connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that they now denigrate suddenly have become so massive that no reasonable person could have missed? I suspect so.
Furthermore, the “Downing Street Memos” teach very strongly that “If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq.” (Straw to PM dated 25 March 2002) While this merely represents the conclusion of the British Foreign Secretary, it provides an important insight into the possible thinking of the American administration at the time. One may also contend that 11 September should not have impacted American decision making. However, to contend, as the Times does that the “war has nothing to do with Sept. 11” constitutes an unassailable “fact” simply cannot be supported.
The Times offers “The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism” as its second unassailable “fact.” How can anyone reasonably argue that a conclusion that the world is safer or less safe as a result of the war constitutes a fact? Certainly, terrorists are attracted to Iraq to kill innocent Iraqis; no one can deny that. However, that does not answer the question. It merely assumes facts not in evidence and that can never be known - that those individuals would not have turned to terrorism had the US not invaded Iraq.
In fact, with Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists, those individuals might have received training and gone to the US or Europe to conduct their bombing attacks rather than doing so in Iraq. We cannot know that they would have, but the Times cannot know that they would not have. This constitutes a matter of opinion over which reasonable people may differ rather than a fact beyond dispute.
The third “fact” seems to be that “If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan.” This tendentious statement merely seems to provide an opportunity for the Times to take a shot at Secretary Rumsfeld.
The Times correctly recognizes the need for sober debate over the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it attempts to short circuit that debate by arbitrarily decreeing very contentious issues as being unassailable “facts” that cannot be discussed. A fair reading of the editorial suggests that it merely provides cover for yet another attack on the administration rather than attempting to encourage a fair discussion of the war in Iraq.
First, the Times asserts that the
war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy ofAs much as the Times pontificates regarding a lack of relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found the “most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.” (p. 346) Although the Committee found no attempts by Saddam Hussein to use Al Qaeda in conducting terrorist attacks, it found a conclusion by CIA that he might “employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable.” (p. 348)
Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam
Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States.
The Times may believe that the contacts were not sufficient to justify military action against Iraq. Reasonable minds may differ over such conclusions of policy. However, to suggest that no contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda constitutes a “fact” about which no one can differ is patently false.
I have a question for the Times and others. Many people attacked President Bush, Secretary of State Rice and others for their “failures” in not preventing September 11 in light of intelligence of possible future attacks in the US. What would have been their reaction if the President had left Saddam in power and an attack occurred from the sanctuary of Iraq? Would the intelligence showing connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that they now denigrate suddenly have become so massive that no reasonable person could have missed? I suspect so.
Furthermore, the “Downing Street Memos” teach very strongly that “If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq.” (Straw to PM dated 25 March 2002) While this merely represents the conclusion of the British Foreign Secretary, it provides an important insight into the possible thinking of the American administration at the time. One may also contend that 11 September should not have impacted American decision making. However, to contend, as the Times does that the “war has nothing to do with Sept. 11” constitutes an unassailable “fact” simply cannot be supported.
The Times offers “The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism” as its second unassailable “fact.” How can anyone reasonably argue that a conclusion that the world is safer or less safe as a result of the war constitutes a fact? Certainly, terrorists are attracted to Iraq to kill innocent Iraqis; no one can deny that. However, that does not answer the question. It merely assumes facts not in evidence and that can never be known - that those individuals would not have turned to terrorism had the US not invaded Iraq.
In fact, with Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists, those individuals might have received training and gone to the US or Europe to conduct their bombing attacks rather than doing so in Iraq. We cannot know that they would have, but the Times cannot know that they would not have. This constitutes a matter of opinion over which reasonable people may differ rather than a fact beyond dispute.
The third “fact” seems to be that “If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan.” This tendentious statement merely seems to provide an opportunity for the Times to take a shot at Secretary Rumsfeld.
The Times correctly recognizes the need for sober debate over the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it attempts to short circuit that debate by arbitrarily decreeing very contentious issues as being unassailable “facts” that cannot be discussed. A fair reading of the editorial suggests that it merely provides cover for yet another attack on the administration rather than attempting to encourage a fair discussion of the war in Iraq.
# posted by Thomas A. Becket : 3:29 PM
