Slashdot Mirror
Book Review: The Terrorists of Iraq
benrothke writes: The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting random typewriter keys for an infinite amount of time will eventually be able to create the complete works of Shakespeare. Various scientists such as Nobel laureate Arno Penzias have shown how the theorem is mathematically impossible. Using that metaphor, if you took every member of United States Congress and House of Representatives and wrote their collected wisdom on Iraq, it's unlikely they could equal the astuteness of even a single chapter of author Malcolm W. Nance in The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014. It's Nance's overwhelming real-world experiential knowledge of the subject, language, culture, tribal affiliations and more which make this the overwhelming definitive book on the subject. Read below for the rest of Ben's review.
The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014, 2nd Edition
author
Malcolm W. Nance
pages
404
publisher
CRC Press
rating
10/10
reviewer
Ben Rothke
ISBN
978-1498706896
summary
Definitive text on the Iraq War written by one of the few Americans who truly understand the issue
Nance is a career intelligence officer, combat veteran, author, scholar and media commentator on international terrorism, intelligence, insurgency and torture. In 2014 he became the executive director of the counter-ideology think tank the Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics and Radical Ideologies (TAPSTRI).
While it's debatable if most members of Congress could elucidate the difference between the Sunnis and Shiites; Nance knows all of the players in depth. He understands and describes who there are, what they are and how their methods work. His unique analysis provides an in-depth understanding of who these groups are and what they are fighting about.
The book details how the many terror groups formed to create the Iraqi insurgency that led to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Nance places the blame on the Bush administrations 2003 invasion of Iraq that lead to the destabilization of the country. While the war was based on faulty evidence, the insurgency was created by myriad mistakes, misperceptions and miscalculations by L. Paul Bremer, who lead the occupational authority of Iraq during the war.
A common theme Nance makes throughout the book is that the US ignored history and didn't learn the lessons of the Iraqi revolt against the British in 1920 or the events of the Vietnam War. Those lessons being that insurgents and foreign terrorist operations were much more effective despite the enormous manpower and firepower that the U.S. troops brought to bear in Iraq.
Nance details how much of the coalition's strategy was based on wishful thinking. He writes that Washington never had a realistic plan for post-war Iraq. Only Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the ex-Ba'athists has a definitive strategy for what to do in post-war Iraq. Unlike the Americans, they mobilized the right resources and persons for the job, with devastating and horrifying effects.
The book writes of the utterly depravity and evil nature of Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay. Following the first Gulf War. Qusay revealed a brutality to match both his father's and brother's. The Hussein family was responsible for the death and torture of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq's and others.
The insurgency was and is made up of countless different groups. Some of these groups number under a hundred members, others in the tens of thousands. Nance details who these groups are, their makeup and leadership structure and what they hope to achieve.
Nance quotes Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks who described the insurgency as dead-enders; namely small groups dedicated to Hussein, and not large military formations or networks of attackers. Yet the reality was that Hussein started creating the insurgency in the months before the invasion. Rather than being a bunch of dead-enders, the insurgency was a group that was highly organized, heavily armed, with near unlimited funds based on looting hundreds of millions of dollars.
From a reporting perspective, the book details how the U.S. government made the same mistakes in Iraq as it did in Iran. Underreporting U.S. casualties, over reporting enemy losses, and obfuscating how terrible the situation on the ground was.
The term IED (improvised explosive device) became part of the vernacular during the Iraq War. The book details how the insurgency used the many different types of IED's (including human-based IED) at specific times and places for their political and propaganda goals.
Nance writes that the biggest gift the U.S. gave to Osama bin Laden was to invade Iraq. The invasion provided him with an opportunity for inspirational jihad. bin Laden envisioned a holy war with heroic men fights against desperate odds in the heart of historic Islam, just like the first battles of the Prophet Mohammed.
Nance spends a few chapters dealing with ISIS and how it came to be. There are multiple iterations of the group, which developed as the Iraq mess evolved.
The book closes with a disheartening overview of the current state. Nance writes that the Middle East is in far more danger from destabilizing collapse of states due to the effects of the American invasion today than it has ever been.
As ISIS is currently the dominant force in Iraq; Nance states that he fears ISIS will have no intention of going back to being a small insurgent group. It will attempt to consolidate captured terrain. It will offer the Sunni a chance to rule under it at the technocrat level, but that is when the pogroms will start.
In the end, Nance writes, the Islamic caliphate will attempt and fail at creating a popular Iraqi-Syrian nation out of stolen governorates. But unless confronted quickly and forcefully, it may become an isolated jihadistan from which no end of terror will spawn.
For those that want to truly understand the Iraq conflict, Nancy is eminently qualified and this book is uniquely superb. There is no better book than The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014 on the subject.
Reviewed by Ben Rothke.
You can purchase The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014, 2nd Edition from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. If you'd like to see what books we have available from our review library please let us know.
While it's debatable if most members of Congress could elucidate the difference between the Sunnis and Shiites; Nance knows all of the players in depth. He understands and describes who there are, what they are and how their methods work. His unique analysis provides an in-depth understanding of who these groups are and what they are fighting about.
The book details how the many terror groups formed to create the Iraqi insurgency that led to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Nance places the blame on the Bush administrations 2003 invasion of Iraq that lead to the destabilization of the country. While the war was based on faulty evidence, the insurgency was created by myriad mistakes, misperceptions and miscalculations by L. Paul Bremer, who lead the occupational authority of Iraq during the war.
A common theme Nance makes throughout the book is that the US ignored history and didn't learn the lessons of the Iraqi revolt against the British in 1920 or the events of the Vietnam War. Those lessons being that insurgents and foreign terrorist operations were much more effective despite the enormous manpower and firepower that the U.S. troops brought to bear in Iraq.
Nance details how much of the coalition's strategy was based on wishful thinking. He writes that Washington never had a realistic plan for post-war Iraq. Only Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the ex-Ba'athists has a definitive strategy for what to do in post-war Iraq. Unlike the Americans, they mobilized the right resources and persons for the job, with devastating and horrifying effects.
The book writes of the utterly depravity and evil nature of Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay. Following the first Gulf War. Qusay revealed a brutality to match both his father's and brother's. The Hussein family was responsible for the death and torture of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq's and others.
The insurgency was and is made up of countless different groups. Some of these groups number under a hundred members, others in the tens of thousands. Nance details who these groups are, their makeup and leadership structure and what they hope to achieve.
Nance quotes Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks who described the insurgency as dead-enders; namely small groups dedicated to Hussein, and not large military formations or networks of attackers. Yet the reality was that Hussein started creating the insurgency in the months before the invasion. Rather than being a bunch of dead-enders, the insurgency was a group that was highly organized, heavily armed, with near unlimited funds based on looting hundreds of millions of dollars.
From a reporting perspective, the book details how the U.S. government made the same mistakes in Iraq as it did in Iran. Underreporting U.S. casualties, over reporting enemy losses, and obfuscating how terrible the situation on the ground was.
The term IED (improvised explosive device) became part of the vernacular during the Iraq War. The book details how the insurgency used the many different types of IED's (including human-based IED) at specific times and places for their political and propaganda goals.
Nance writes that the biggest gift the U.S. gave to Osama bin Laden was to invade Iraq. The invasion provided him with an opportunity for inspirational jihad. bin Laden envisioned a holy war with heroic men fights against desperate odds in the heart of historic Islam, just like the first battles of the Prophet Mohammed.
Nance spends a few chapters dealing with ISIS and how it came to be. There are multiple iterations of the group, which developed as the Iraq mess evolved.
The book closes with a disheartening overview of the current state. Nance writes that the Middle East is in far more danger from destabilizing collapse of states due to the effects of the American invasion today than it has ever been.
As ISIS is currently the dominant force in Iraq; Nance states that he fears ISIS will have no intention of going back to being a small insurgent group. It will attempt to consolidate captured terrain. It will offer the Sunni a chance to rule under it at the technocrat level, but that is when the pogroms will start.
In the end, Nance writes, the Islamic caliphate will attempt and fail at creating a popular Iraqi-Syrian nation out of stolen governorates. But unless confronted quickly and forcefully, it may become an isolated jihadistan from which no end of terror will spawn.
For those that want to truly understand the Iraq conflict, Nancy is eminently qualified and this book is uniquely superb. There is no better book than The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014 on the subject.
Reviewed by Ben Rothke.
You can purchase The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014, 2nd Edition from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. If you'd like to see what books we have available from our review library please let us know.
career intelligence officer
Was he one of the career intelligence officers who claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Or was he one of the career intelligence officers who completely didn't see 9-11 coming at all? Or perhaps was he one of the career intelligence officers who had no idea where Osama Bin Laden was until some random tipster called them up and told them his address?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
My first thought was Dice clickbait; but on second thought, I realized that Slashdot's readership is becoming more and more hyper-political and hyper-partisan, and that's why pure science and nerd culture posts have only the title displayed on the front page, and political, religious, or other contentious posts go in the "Top of the..." list. I blame an influx of people from 4chan and Reddit.
What is meant by the U.S. government made the same mistakes in Iraq as it did in Iran.? The U.S. has not invaded Iran any time recently.
Just how the weapons became ubiquitous is also not touched on in this summary: Saddam Hussein had an armory. The U.S. forces took that armory. Then they carried on towards Baghdad, towards the major prize and *glory* (cue exciting music). One undefended armory.
One thing that totally stank is that the whole thing was then lost in U.S. party politics. The Republicans lied about having lied and all their supporters started claiming black was white and that the weapons of mass destruction had really existed. We are getting the same kind of crud now from the St Petersburg Propagandazentral with respect to the Ukraine.
Another thing that stank was the sacking of pretty much all Baath party members. Being a party member was a requirement for many kinds of job, sacking all these people created a large pool of disaffected people. This was known at the time but the idiots in charge "knew better". I found it difficult to believe that so much stupidity was not malicious.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Monkey keystrokes and infinite time does produce the works of Shakespeare.
So let's show monkeys a little more respect than comparing them members of Congress.
Come on. This is purely a political piece. Why the hell is this on Slashdot?
The role of technology is minimal. The role of science is minimal. The role of math is minimal. The role of computers is minimal. The role of software is minimal.
This is purely a political submission. It has no place here.
Just on the IED front the ingenuity, sheer amount, and the different types of IEDs that have been found should get any pyro/electronics nerd excited. How the different tribal and religious militias interacted with themselves, the government, and the coalition is interesting as well. Hell, my Master's thesis was on the efficiency of using militia in counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd call that topic pretty nerdy. And don't forget, politics(Especially international politics) affects all of us, from the price of gas to the strength of your economy.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
ok...so I am not a scholar...who is Thomas Friedman?
He is a neo-con idiot, one of many, who predicted that American troops would be greeted by Iraqis as heroic liberators, and that Iraq would soon be a beacon of democracy, and pave the way for peace and love throughout the Middle East.
My first thought was Dice flamebait; but on second thought,
Fixed it for you. :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
member of United States Congress and House of Representatives ... collected wisdom
you could fit the resulting tome on a 3x5 card and still have 15 square inches of white space...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The assertion that the infinite monkeys theorum has been disproved seems incorrect. Searches for the named scientist in conjuction with monkey also fail.
IOW, I suspect the entire article is garbage. I will admit that this is based on the fact the the only easily checkable statement appears to be factually incorrect, but if it's wrong where you can check, what should you believe about the places where you can't check?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
He is a neo-con idiot, one of many, who predicted that American troops would be greeted by Iraqis as heroic liberators
They were, at least by the Shia and Kurds. Of course, we fucked that up, through our own incompetence, and of course the Shia never going to be particularly happy when we got in the way of their pogrom against the Sunnis. The whole country is an artificial creation that is destined for the trash bin of history; everything we're seeing now would have happened eventually without our intervention. Fake countries rarely survive when their strongman dies. Our mistake was in being the one to break it, thus owning the problem.
Recent events (Libya) suggest that we still haven't fully digested this lesson. If you're gonna blow it up you should probably have a plan for what happens afterwards.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that it took only a finite number of monkeys a finite period of time to "randomly" produce the works of Shakespeare.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
That's prolly why I got down modded, even though I mentioned monkeys. ;-)
One of the Gawker sites interviewed this guy a few weeks ago. I went into it ready to criticize, but now I wish more people like him were in charge of the armed forces.
http://phasezero.gawker.com/an...
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
Every country is fake. We tend to forget that after they've been around for awhile. It's a form of bias. The whole anti-colonial "artificial states" argument has no substance. There's no dichotomy between "natural" and "unnatural" nation-states. The reasons why some stick around and others turn into hell holes is, like many things, not amenable to simple explanations.
Believing in such simple theories is precisely how we ended up thinking that Iraq was a slam dunk. Remember, we were told that Iraq, much like other dictatorships-cum-democracies around the world, was a modern nation with an educated elite and a large middle-class. The very things that we were told were responsible for bridging ethnic divides in successful countries everywhere.
Anyhow, it's only been 15 years. Countries like the UK, for example, took hundreds (if not thousands) of years to become non-violent. The U.S. seemed to be solid until the Civil War. Basically, how about we dispense with the lofty rhetoric and highfalutin political theories and focus on more concrete problems and solutions. History will play out in ways we haven't even begun to fathom.
Resisting invasion and occupation of one's country does not make one a terrorist except to the invaders.
1. From Slashdot's own Book Review Guidelines (emphasis mine): "In particular, we're interested in reviews of books on programming, computer security, the history of technology and anything else (including Science Fiction, cyberpunk, etc.) that fits under the "News for Nerds" umbrella."
The reviewed book doesn't seem to fit any of the name checked categories and even to fit in the more general "News for Nerds" umbrella seems to be very generous for most interpretations of what a "nerd" would be in this context (of computer, technology, science fiction and cyberpunk).
2. Here are the reviews from the past 12 months. Despite of the lack of reviewers the theme is almost always related to technology (even if as a pretext to discuss infosec, law enforcement and natsec). Curiously the same reviewer that submitted this review submitted most of the barely related ones.
With reviewers like this, who needs critics? I sure hope the subject of the review was better written than the review itself.
More important, why didn't I get any of it?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Protip: try to pair up your errors, and hope that one masks the other.
At the bottom of the
Of course, to be fair it likely didn't help that the current administration decided to yank nearly all US troops out of the country before the job was done, either.
No matter your feelings or opinions on how the war began or was handled during the Bush administration, you cannot deny that finishing it properly should have been a top priority no matter who started it. Consider, if the allies had withdrawn from Germany that soon after WWII, the Nazis (or a derivative group thereof) would have arisen once more, and Germany would likely still be a mess today. Instead, post-WWII the allies (for better or worse) kept occupation for years on end, slowly passing control, then autonomy, then self-defense, etc to the post-war German government ( well, governments, as we did have two of them for the longest time thanks to the USSR.)
Why this wasn't done properly in Iraq is a serious head-scratcher, especially given that Iraq was indeed an artificial country (thanks, England!), and doubly so because of the regional culture plus pre-existing secular tensions. It would have been a long, expensive road, but it was certainly at least doable.
Incidentally, it probably didn't help that Syria went straight to hell in recent years, either - or that Iran has been working like hell behind the scenes to keep things unstable. But to be honest, those only serve as stronger arguments for keeping treasure and troops committed towards reconstruction in Iraq (and maybe a bit of that towards keeping Iran's little activities clamped down as hard as possible).
Long story short: anyone who tries to place the blame for the mess on any one person or political party is an idiot. There's plenty of blame to go around on this one...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Both your position and TFA's to be perfectly clear. Members of the House, Military, and all of the various intelligence agencies are masses of people with a huge amount of collective knowledge. That "Bob" didn't know something is complete crap, because last time US Security relied on one person was... well, absolutely NEVER!
Saddam had no Nuclear weapons, and the whole story about yellow cake was fabricated by various intelligence agencies to fit an agenda. Everyone in politics and the Military knew it was bullshit, and everyone knew why it was invented by the Italian version of the CIA (which is why they attempted to hide the source). Bush was going to go to war no matter what. It was sold to the public by lots of politicians using every method imaginable (free oil, those damn terrorists, that evil dictator, etc...). The point in the propaganda game is not to convince other politicians of an action, it is to convince the public that the action is justified. That is right, the war was going to happen regardless of public opinion so it was purely justification.
Why do some people that believe politicians are stupid, do things from complete ignorance, and do things without understanding all of the possible outcomes? Well, those same people are quite frankly batshit crazy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
can we get this without the posturing? Yeah, maybe congress is 99% populated with idiots, but what does that have to do with this book? And what does this have to do with the
Since when did slashdot turn into boingboing?
the editing department needs a high colonic, me thinks. This site is losing it's relevance.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Regime change in Iraq was stated US policy, signed into law by Bill Clinton. The AUMF was approved by Congress, with a bipartisan vote. None of this is to defend GWB, simply to point out the GP is accurate when he said there's plenty of blame to go around.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You made a false claim. The current administration did not decide to yank troops out of Iraq. The Bush administration made an agreement with the Iraqi government on when US troops would be withdrawn. See Pact, Approved in Iraq, Sets Time for U.S. Pullout. It was, as nearly every bit of policy from the Bush administration related to Iraq, optimistic and a bad choice.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request. See Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay for just one of many contemporaneous articles on the attempts to keep US troops in Iraq.
Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, but, contrary to your claim, the reason troops were pulled out of Iraq was because of an agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
I agree, that's why I said, "there is plenty of blame to go around".
The primary example the GP used to illustrate the point, though, was incorrect. The reason US troops were pulled out of Iraq when they were was because the Bush administration's agreement with the Iraqi government.
Your comment about President Clinton is true, but, isn't really relevant. It wasn't about invading Iraq, it was about supporting opposition groups in Iraq.
Nerds are interested in politics. This is news for nerds, not tech news. That you confuse the two is your problem, not Slashdot's.
Learn to love Alaska
I don't think anybody seriously believes that BHO was willing to spend time, resources, or political capital on securing a status of forces agreement with Maliki's Government. He viewed himself as elected to "end" wars and conducted his foreign policy accordingly, at least until the rise of IS. I'm skeptical that it's BHO's "fault" per se, but I'm also skeptical of those that give him a complete pass on this issue.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Silly...Bush 2 started the 2nd Iraq war which destabilized it all. Had he not done that, there would be no ISIS in Iraq.
Bush 2 defeated proto-ISIS (al-Quaeda in Iraq) with US troops and Sunni tribal fighters in the An Bar Awakening. Proto-ISIS sent word to al-Quaeda leadership to stop sending fighters, that the battle was lost.
Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq. The departure of Occupational/Stabilization forces was negotiated under Bush 2 but since it would be occurring on the next President's watch it was left to that next President to negotiate any residual force that would be left. Obama had no interest in doing so. When the Iraqis said no immunity for US troops Obama used that as an excuse to bail. The fact is the Iraqis *always* open negotiations with that position and then they *always* drop it when the US adds enough money and resources to the deal. Its a negotiating tactic, but Obama didn't want a successful negotiation. If a residual force had been left behind they would not even have had to engage ISIS directly on the ground. Such a force would have access to air support and could have called in air strikes on ISIS convoys of pickup trucks with heavy weapons traveling down open desert highways. You can't really find a scenario more vulnerable to air power, see Highway of Death from the first Gulf War. So what ISIS personnel survived would have lacked heavy weapons and would have been far more easily handled by local Iraqi forces. Not to mention with US backing these same Iraqi tribal forces beat ISIS the first time around. Its only because of US abandonment and abandonment by Baghdad too did these tribal forces decide to flip and join rather than fight.
The circumstances that led to the resurrection of ISIS is entirely Obama's doing, not Bush 2's. At least for the US' share of the blame, Baghdad's treatment of the Sunnis is responsible for a share too. Of course with greater US involvement such things had been mitigated in the past, so US abandonment had a role in that too.
The facts are clear and incontrovertible:
You can believe whatever you want about how hard the Obama administration tried, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter; the claim made by the GP was false.
Silly...Bush 2 started the 2nd Iraq war which destabilized it all. Had he not done that, there would be no ISIS in Iraq.
And if you want to blame someone over the original destabilization and insurgency that helped the original proto-ISIS / al-Quaeda in Iraq get started you really need to blame Paul Bremer. The career diplomat who was in charge of the Provisional Authority that originally governed Iraq. He disbanded the Iraqi Army on his own, without White House or Pentagon approval. So he is primarily responsible for US troops patrolling Iraqi streets and searching Iraqi homes. In past US wars and US occupations the US military removed high ranking officers of the enemy military and had some of its middle and junior ranking officers repot to US officers and these former enemy military officers and their enlisted men did patrols or searches on their own or jointly with the US. But Bremer f'd up such a plan and put disgruntled ex-army on the streets and out of work.
Want an example of how the US military normally handles such things when they are given the choice? After the surrender of German forces in his zone Major Richard Winters (of Band of Brothers fame) ordered the German commander to have his men collect all weapons in town and despot them at the town hall. German troops went from building to building, home to home, collecting weapons. A couple days later Winters went to town hall to inspect the weapons. He found that the German troops had collected every weapon, not just military, but civilian too. Hunting rifles and shotguns, antiques, etc. He told the German commander that he had only wanted the military weapons collected and ordered that the civilian arms should be turned over to the major's office and that civilians could come in and collect their property.
Also some patrols in the area were joint patrols. A couple of German troops would accompany a patrol and these German's would generally handle the stopping of vehicles and interacting with drivers, etc.
Things would have probably gone very differently had the junior officers and enlisted men of the Iraqi army been retained and employed for policing Iraqi's streets, under US supervision. As was done in Germany and Japan and in some areas liberated from Japan. The US used surrendered Japanese troops reporting to US officers to maintain the peace until local authorities could put together their own government and police forces.
The primary example the GP used to illustrate the point, though, was incorrect. The reason US troops were pulled out of Iraq when they were was because the Bush administration's agreement with the Iraqi government.
Its not that simple. Since the departure of the occupational forces was occurring under the next President's watch it was left to the next President to negotiate a residual force for ongoing stabilization and support of the new Iraqi government. Unfortunately that next President was not interested in leaving such a residual force behind, he wanted all out at any cost.
Your comment about President Clinton is true, but, isn't really relevant. It wasn't about invading Iraq, it was about supporting opposition groups in Iraq.
Apparently Hillary Clinton thought invasion was a valid option for regime change when it came time for her to vote in the Senate.
Yes, it is actually that simple. If, as you stated, it was being left to the next president, the withdrawal should not have been included in the agreement.
Your understanding of what the Obama administration wanted to do is also false. They negotiated with the Iraqi government to leave troops behind. The Iraqi government said no.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true. Things like a lack of immunity for US troops were used as an excuse to leave. The Iraqis opened with such a position in past negotiations and gave in once sufficient money and resources were added to the deal. Its a negotiating tactic. The problem is the new administration did not want a deal, they wanted all out at any cost, so this initial position became a convenient impediment to a deal.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true.
Nothing you wrote backs up that assertion. The Obama administration requested US troops be allowed to stay in Iraq after the negotiated deadline. The Iraqi government said no. Yes, the two governments negotiated, and you have your belief about how that went, but that's your belief. I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Never understood the point of this old saw, as Clinton never tried to invade Iraq or actively depose Saddam.
Yes, they voted for it. They didn't talk about voting for it. And the only Dem to offer an unequivocal 'I fucked up' apology is persona non gratta because he only fucked one person he wasn't supposed to.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true.
Nothing you wrote backs up that assertion. The Obama administration requested US troops be allowed to stay in Iraq after the negotiated deadline. The Iraqi government said no. Yes, the two governments negotiated, and you have your belief about how that went, but that's your belief. I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Actually you ignore some facts. Fact 1. No immunity was a deal breaker. Fact 2. No immunity was an opening position in past deals and was negotiated away.
The fact of the situation is that BHO was sitting in office when things went to shit. I believe it was a Democrat that said, "The buck stops here." BHO doesn't get a pass here.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, it is actually that simple. If, as you stated, it was being left to the next president, the withdrawal should not have been included in the agreement.
You are absolutely mistaken. Bush 2 negotiated the withdrawal of the combat troops that he had put into Iraq, essentially an occupational force. The withdraw was on the next President's watch. What was left to that next President to negotiate was a deal for non-combat non-occupational troops. Advisors, instructors, anti-terrorist units, liaisons for Iraqi combat units (i.e. links to US air support), stabilization forces (ex Korean DMZ), etc. An important distinction being that this residual force would be functioning in a fully sovereign and fully independent state.
Your understanding of what the Obama administration wanted to do is also false. They negotiated with the Iraqi government to leave troops behind. The Iraqi government said no.
The negotiation was a farce. Obama wanted all out at any cost, he did not want a successful negotiation and acted accordingly. Taking the no immunity position as final, not something to be negotiated away as was done in the past.
There were no 'terrorists' in Iraq until the US overthrew Saddam Hussein in the second Iraqi war. Saddam Hussein being a one time hitman and CIA agent who, under US instruction, wiped out the leaders of the Ba'ath Party and installed himself dictator. Was Americans best buddy in the middle east until he went broke invading Iran and invaded Kuwait in retaliation. Anything else you read is retrospective self serving neocon revisionism.
Yup, Paul Bremmer - CPA1. His first act as Emperor of Iraq. The clumsy and sinister "de-ba'athification of Iraq".
and put disgruntled ex-army on the streets and out of work
...with all their weapons. Don't forget that part. He didn't disarm them first. No time for shit like that.
Paul Bremmer. Donald Rumsfeld. These two guys really need to put their hands up and say sorry. They fucked it up so bad. It's tragic.
I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Oops there is a 3rd fact. Fact 1. No immunity was a deal breaker. Fact 2. No immunity was an opening position in past deals and was negotiated away. Fact 3. The Iraqis granted immunity in Dec 2014.
Iraq was hardly stable to begin with. Saddam -- a supposedly devout Sunni leader who loaded the government with his insane brood of offspring, decade after decade. Desert Storm and the UN inspectors. The list goes on.
President Bush offered several opportunities to avoid the war with Iraq, mostly involving increased inspections and Saddam's resignation. None of the proposals were accepted. Some WMDs were eventually found in Iraq, but not much in the way of active programs or fresh stockpiles. It was still a violation of Saddam's UN agreements.
Circa 2005, the CIA issued a public apology on their website, admitting to the grotesque intelligence failures that mislead the President, Congress, and We the People. Most people recall DCI George Tenet's commentary to the President about Iraq's WMD programs being a "slam dunk". In all likelihood, the failures go much, much deeper.
The Al Qaeda / IS split happened because Bin Laden wanted western influences out of Muslim nations. Our presence is a direct contradiction to "perfect" Qur'anic revelation. Bin Laden did not believe that the caliphate would be restored in his lifetime, only that his grandchildren might see it. On the contrary, IS believes that Muslim nations will soon submit to a new caliphate, and that Sunnis will be in control. After 1400 years of squabbling and slaughter, it seems unlikely.
The low quality western press routinely publishes big red maps of IS control, but in reality, much of it is just connected dots between small towns in vast, empty regions. Some special forces have commented that they've entered a small IS occupied town, dropped six or so IS hoodrats, and within days a huge part of some western news map suddenly changes from red to tan. Laugh, the western press is almost pathetically incompetent.
There is a bit of humor in all of this -- democratic elections voted Shiites into control of Iraq. This does explain why IS has such a focus on Iraq though -- the Sunnis lost. Another bizarre contradiction.
Whatever the evolutionary growing pains, this is a great opportunity for Muslims to continue the path towards moderation. Most Jews and Christians accept that their texts are flawed, and many of the archaic rules can be safely disregarded. Many fundamentalist Muslims, particularly in the middle east, believe that every word of the Quran is perfect, including beheading, amputation, slavery, pedophila, global domination, and the extermination of nonbelievers.
It's really a matter of interpretation. Mohammed put in a lot of effort trying to get the Jews of Medina and Mecca to accept him as a prophet, and they rejected him. He held quite a grudge for the rest of his life. The prose of the Quran evolved about 300 years after Mohammed's death, so its a slam dunk that the Quran, like the New Testament and Torah before it, is loaded with interpretations and opinion unrelated to the opinions of its prophet.
There is a glimmer of hope, among educated Muslim women in particular, as long as they can speak in relative safety from western nations. As one can imagine, they're a bit tired of seeing their husbands and children die due to these fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran. And all the talk about getting the virgins -- women can be a bit sensitive about that kind of judgement.
For all we know, Mohammed might have promised one, 72 year old virgin. Not quite as appetizing for the fundamentalist warriors of the Quran.
Neither of those claims are pertinent. You are discussing the negotiations, not the fact that the Bush administration made the agreement that caused the withdrawal of the troops.
Also, while the first is true, the second is false.
Quoting from Immunity for troops was Iraq deal breaker
Look, I get it, blaming President Obama for an early troop withdrawal has become accepted truth for many. That doesn't mean it's true, though. You have two options - continue to cling to a falsehood, defending it with ever more unlikely claims, or move on.
The fact of the situation is that BHO was sitting in office when things went to shit. I believe it was a Democrat that said, "The buck stops here." BHO doesn't get a pass here.
Again, there's plenty of blame to go around. Blaming President Obama for the troop withdrawal, though, is blaming the wrong administration.
BTW, the Iraq situation went to shit long before President Obama took office. Anyone that doesn't acknowledge that is either ignorant or being dishonest with him/herself.
Your first two claims were dealt with above.
The immunity agreement given by Iraq for fighting against Daesh is different than the one required in 2011.
He's like Gordon Freeman, but without the crowbar.
No, I'm sorry, I'm not mistaken. The agreement made by the Bush administration held the force of law. It was an error to make that agreement; it, as so many other choices made by the Bush administration in Iraq, was overly optimistic. If the intention of the Bush administration was to leave behind a force, they had the opportunity to negotiate inclusion of the forces at that time. They did not. The Obama administration tried to renegotiate the agreement with Iraq and was denied.
Again, your understanding of the negotiations is false. Troop immunity is a standard part of any agreement when the US deploys troops to a foreign country.
There was a great deal of unfounded optimism all over the place at the time. People genuinely believed that things would work out great as long as Saddam was out of power and we set up our own puppet government. Not believed it as in thinking that it would be great for the US, they believe it would truly be great for the Iraqis too. People were out in full force for the re-creation of a state, like they were reliving post WWII Germany or Japan.
One of the first early laws they tried to get implemented as an overhaul of Intellectual Property laws. Yup, they had as a priority to impose the stupid US version of copyright and patent laws.
I was working on wireless mesh internet at the time, but we had just shut down that division. We got a call shortly after saying "please, send me all the units you have, I want to set up an ISP in Iraq!", but we had to explain that we were shut down and couldn't do that. It was really odd, because the country didn't even have reliable power service yet, the infrastructure was in shambles, and this guy from the states thinks he's just going to roll in and make a bunch of money with the internet? Modern day carpetbagger.
I think they did believe this would happen. They were wrong about it, but they believed it. They let their hopes create bias which overrode the intelligence briefings and common sense.
It was relatively stable in 2009 after a lot of hard work by the Iraqis and members of the US coalition. It went back to shit not long after the Obama admin bailed on negotiating the agreement with the Iraqis and then meddled with the Iraqi elections. It is much worse now that when he took over, largely due to his administrations actions.
But everyone in the intelligence sector did know they didn't have WMDs. This was known, hence all the anger when the "intel" was trotted about - people knew it was nonsense. There was no "accidentally correct", just people who knew their stuff and who screamed the claims were bullshit.
Bush made up some evidence
No, the CIA gave him faulty information. New York Times journalist has been researching how she got the WMD story wrong in her reporting back in the day and she writes in http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...
... told the U.N. in January 2003 that despite America’s ultimatum, Saddam was still not complying fully with his U.N. pledges. In February, he said “many proscribed weapons and items,” including 1,000 tons of chemical agent, were still “not accounted for.”"
"There was no shortage of mistakes about Iraq, and I made my share of them. The newsworthy claims of some of my prewar WMD stories were wrong. But so is the enduring, pernicious accusation that the Bush administration fabricated WMD intelligence to take the country to war."
"My sources were the same counterterrorism, arms-control and Middle East analysts on whom I had relied for my stories about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s growing threat to America—a series published eight months before 9/11 for which the Times staff, including me, won a Pulitzer."
"Another enduring misconception is that intelligence analysts were “pressured” into altering their estimates to suit the policy makers’ push to war. Although a few former officials complained about such pressure, several thorough, bipartisan inquiries found no evidence of it."
"The CIA repeatedly assured President Bush that Saddam Hussein still had WMD. Foreign intelligence agencies, even those whose nations opposed war, shared this view. And so did Congress. Over the previous 15 years, noted Stuart Cohen, the former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, none of the congressional committees routinely briefed on Iraqi WMD assessments expressed concern about bias or error."
"Hans Blix, the former chief of the international weapons inspectors,
"Years would pass before U.S. soldiers found remnants of some 5,000 inoperable chemical munitions made before the first Gulf War that Saddam claimed to have destroyed. Not until 2014 would the U.S. learn that some of Iraq’s degraded sarin nerve agent was purer than Americans had expected and was sickening Iraqi and American soldiers who had stumbled upon it."
"A two-year study by Charles Duelfer, the former deputy chief of the U.N. inspectors who led America’s hunt for WMD in Iraq, concluded that Saddam Hussein was playing a double game, trying (on the one hand) to get sanctions lifted and inspectors out of Iraq and (on the other) to persuade Iran and other foes that he had retained WMD. Not even the Iraqi dictator himself knew for sure what his stockpiles contained, Mr. Duelfer argued. Often forgotten is Mr. Duelfer’s well-documented warning that Saddam intended to restore his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted."
Also, while the first is true, the second is false ... Immunity is a standard agreement wherever U.S. forces are deployed.
No, you are misunderstanding the second. Apologies if I was unclear. When I wrote "Fact 2. No immunity was an opening position in past deals and was negotiated away." I was referring to the Iraqi position and their eventual acceptance of immunity in past deals, and which by the way they just did in Dec 2014.
Your first two claims were dealt with above.
The immunity agreement given by Iraq for fighting against Daesh is different than the one required in 2011.
Yes. The point is that the Iraqis were and still *are* flexible on the question of immunity. The 2011 failure was one of offering them an insufficient deal. The 2011 negotiations were a farce on the US side.
It was an error to make that agreement; it, as so many other choices made by the Bush administration in Iraq, was overly optimistic.
Well, yes, he was overly optimistic that the next administration would negotiate in good faith rather than engage in political theatre.
If the intention of the Bush administration was to leave behind a force, they had the opportunity to negotiate inclusion of the forces at that time.
Again, the Bush administration felt that since those forces would go into the field under then next President's watch that the next President should negotiate the terms.
The Obama administration tried to renegotiate the agreement with Iraq and was denied. Troop immunity is a standard part of any agreement when the US deploys troops to a foreign country.
You misinterpreted my previous statement, apologies if I was not clear. My reference to negotiating away the immunity issue was in reference to the Iraqis do so. Of having the Iraqis eventually agree to immunity as they had always done in the past and have done as recently as Dec 2014.
As for Obama's negotiation. They were a farce, political theatre. He wanted out entirely, the Iraqi initial position suited this goal. Therefore the Iraqis were not offered a sufficiently sweetened deal as was done in the past.
But everyone in the intelligence sector did know they didn't have WMDs. This was known, hence all the anger when the "intel" was trotted about - people knew it was nonsense. There was no "accidentally correct", just people who knew their stuff and who screamed the claims were bullshit.
Nope. You are mistaken. A New York Times journalist has been researching how she got the WMD story wrong in her reporting back in the day and she writes in http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...
... told the U.N. in January 2003 that despite America’s ultimatum, Saddam was still not complying fully with his U.N. pledges. In February, he said “many proscribed weapons and items,” including 1,000 tons of chemical agent, were still “not accounted for.”"
"There was no shortage of mistakes about Iraq, and I made my share of them. The newsworthy claims of some of my prewar WMD stories were wrong. But so is the enduring, pernicious accusation that the Bush administration fabricated WMD intelligence to take the country to war."
"My sources were the same counterterrorism, arms-control and Middle East analysts on whom I had relied for my stories about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s growing threat to America—a series published eight months before 9/11 for which the Times staff, including me, won a Pulitzer."
"Another enduring misconception is that intelligence analysts were “pressured” into altering their estimates to suit the policy makers’ push to war. Although a few former officials complained about such pressure, several thorough, bipartisan inquiries found no evidence of it."
"The CIA repeatedly assured President Bush that Saddam Hussein still had WMD. Foreign intelligence agencies, even those whose nations opposed war, shared this view. And so did Congress. Over the previous 15 years, noted Stuart Cohen, the former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, none of the congressional committees routinely briefed on Iraqi WMD assessments expressed concern about bias or error."
"Hans Blix, the former chief of the international weapons inspectors,
"Years would pass before U.S. soldiers found remnants of some 5,000 inoperable chemical munitions made before the first Gulf War that Saddam claimed to have destroyed. Not until 2014 would the U.S. learn that some of Iraq’s degraded sarin nerve agent was purer than Americans had expected and was sickening Iraqi and American soldiers who had stumbled upon it."
"A two-year study by Charles Duelfer, the former deputy chief of the U.N. inspectors who led America’s hunt for WMD in Iraq, concluded that Saddam Hussein was playing a double game, trying (on the one hand) to get sanctions lifted and inspectors out of Iraq and (on the other) to persuade Iran and other foes that he had retained WMD. Not even the Iraqi dictator himself knew for sure what his stockpiles contained, Mr. Duelfer argued. Often forgotten is Mr. Duelfer’s well-documented warning that Saddam intended to restore his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted."
Step 1. Give weapons to "freedom fighters" Step 2. Freedom fighters win "freedom" Step 3. Freedom fighters become ISIS with weapons given. Step 4. profit
By Judy Miller. Really. She's full-o-shit.
What all of the intelligence community understood was that whatever the WMD capacity was of Iraq, it was insignificant. That they were uncertain of Saddam's efforts or intents , that I can see. It's hard to prove a negative. But part of the effect of the propaganda effort was to change the question. "Saddam would like to have chemical weapons". "Saddam is trying to make them". "Saddam would make them if we normalize relations".
I think politicians on the other hand were often eager to be fooled. They were deliberately gullible because they often thought taking over Iraq was not such a bad idea. Because of a simple logic that removing something bad would make things better. Because they thought it a good idea to redesign the neighborhood. Because they didn't see any other way to end the blockade. Because being perceived as being fooled was preferable to being perceived as afraid to row against the current. Because they thought it was going to succeed and didn't want to be on the wrong side afterwards.
In practice what happens with propaganda is there is no real center anymore of people who really know what's going on. Everyone is just believing someone elses lies. The same is still going on about Iran.
Why this wasn't done properly in Iraq is a serious head-scratcher, especially given that Iraq was indeed an artificial country (thanks, England!), and doubly so because of the regional culture plus pre-existing secular tensions. It would have been a long, expensive road, but it was certainly at least doable.
If the Germans had been putting IEDs under their AutoBahns for a decade after 1945, and continued to kill each other by the thousands, it's hard to imagine how we could have forced it to be the industrious, Bier drinking, techno loving paradise it is today.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
I was actually referring to the entire geopolitical situation, not just Iraq. Russia is slicing off parts of neighboring countries, we decapitated Libya (after the guy gave up his WMDs, incidentally, great message to send there....), threw Mubarak under the bus, did nothing while the Iranians crushed a reform movement, the list goes on and on.
The only good thing BHO did with foreign policy was to begin to normalize relations with Cuba. That was long overdue and he deserves some credit for that. The rest has been an unmitigated disaster. The World now looks a lot like it did before WW1, except instead of mustard gas we'll now get to contend with nuclear weapons when the shit hits the fan.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I call bullshit. Sure, they were a nasty bunch but there's a lot of those around . Saddam himself was cruel but he also thought it was necessary to be so. As dictators go, he was relatively competent. That was maybe the main reason the US turned on him: too competent. Iraq had been developing itself very well and was becoming a bit too independent and too powerful.
The sadism of his eldest son was another matter.
Thanks for clarifying, but the clarification doesn't help your position, which, it's become clear, is simply this: even though the Bush administration negotiated the troop pullout, it's the Obama's administration's fault that the agreement was followed.
It appears to me that the way you came to this position is because you believe that the Bush administration always intended for the agreement to be renegotiated and if the Obama administration had really wanted to leave US troops in Iraq, they could have.
Those beliefs are unsupportable.
When the Bush administration made the agreement, the US was in a position of power. If the Bush administration had wanted to keep open the open to leave US troops in Iraq, they could have made that part of the agreement. When the Obama administration tried to renegotiate the agreement, it was not in a position of power. The Iraqi government already had what they wanted.
Could the US have found something to concede to Iraq that would have kept US troops in Iraq? Probably. You cannot know what that would have taken, though, and so your blithe assertions that things could have simply been "negotiated away" illustrate nothing but your naïve understanding of the political situation.
You're trying to blame the Obama administration for not correcting an error made by the Bush administration. That position isn't logically supportable.
Sorry, the offer by the Iraqi PM of a immunity agreement in the fight against Daesh says nothing about the willingness of the Iraqi parliament to give US troops immunity in 2011. In 2011, the Iraqi PM made the same offer, but, as even he acknowledged, it was meaningless, since the parliament had to agree. They were unwilling to agree.
Look, it doesn't matter how far afield you go trying to support your claim, you will fail. The facts really are simple and incontrovertible. Your can either choose to accept them or live in your own imaginary world where the mistakes of the Bush administration are really the fault of the Obama administration.
My first thought was Dice clickbait; but on second thought, I realized that Slashdot's readership is becoming more and more hyper-political and hyper-partisan, and that's why pure science and nerd culture posts have only the title displayed on the front page, and political, religious, or other contentious posts go in the "Top of the..." list. I blame an influx of people from 4chan and Reddit.
When people say things like this it always makes me wonder whether they think there is some requirement to read every story and every post on slashdot.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The bottom line is that Saddam possessed and had use chemical weapons. He had a nuclear program, Israel bombed it. He lost a war to the US and the cease fire required him to destroy any WMD. He did not comply, he worked to keep it a mystery as to what he still possessed, an attempt to keep Iran at bay. If he had complied with the cease fire terms and allowed UN inspectors to witness destruction, burial, etc; allowed UN inspectors complete unfettered access there would have been no doubt and no invasion. However given the paranoia of an immediately post 9/11 environment such a failure to comply could not be tolerated nor the risk that he may possess something be allowed to continue. That is why so many democrats were initially on board.
Eventually the invasion became a political wedge issue and the above truth got lost in all the noise.
Thanks for clarifying, but the clarification doesn't help your position, which, it's become clear, is simply this: even though the Bush administration negotiated the troop pullout, it's the Obama's administration's fault that the agreement was followed.
A gross misrepresentation. Its not following the old agreement that was the problem. Its failing to negotiate the follow on agree that is the problem.
It appears to me that the way you came to this position is because you believe that the Bush administration always intended for the agreement to be renegotiated
Absolutely not. There was an intention that a new President who would have to deal with Iraqi security would negotiate his own agreement, not inherit his predecessors.
When the Obama administration tried to renegotiate the agreement, it was not in a position of power. The Iraqi government already had what they wanted. >Could the US have found something to concede to Iraq that would have kept US troops in Iraq? Probably. You cannot know what that would have taken, though, and so your blithe assertions that things could have simply been "negotiated away" illustrate nothing but your naïve understanding of the political situation.
Untrue. The Obama administration scaled back the offer of troops to 3,000 to 5,000 and the Iraqis thought that too few to make any difference so they had little motivation to take the public heat or granting immunity. The politicians in Washington had determined that Iraq was unlikely to slip back into chaos so the Pentagon's suggestion or 15,000 to 20,000 was rejected by the administration. Even with a sufficient sized force the Iraqis needed more time to work out the internal politics of granting immunity. The administration's pressing of the Iraqis for their public position on immunity before they had worked out the internal politics forced a public statement of no immunity which game the administration cover to walk away.
Giving the Iraqi's a larger anti-terror and training force, more equipment, a box or two of money and more importantly more time to work on their internal politics would have most likely yielded very different results. As it had always done in the past.
Sorry, the offer by the Iraqi PM of a immunity agreement in the fight against Daesh says nothing about the willingness of the Iraqi parliament to give US troops immunity in 2011. In 2011, the Iraqi PM made the same offer, but, as even he acknowledged, it was meaningless, since the parliament had to agree. They were unwilling to agree.
No. The Iraqis needed more time to work out the internal politics but the US administration forced them to take a public stand before this had been done, so that stand was naturally no immunity. The US administration got the political cover to completely leave as they wanted all along.
Stop making things up in a poor attempt to prove your belief is valid. We'd already had that agreement with Iraq for years. There was no surprise in requesting that it continue.
No, I didn't misrepresent your position at all. You fail to accept that the reason US troops were taken out of Iraq in 2011 was because of an agreement that was negotiated by the Bush administration; instead you focus on the failure of negotiations to change that agreement. If the Bush administration had not made a bad agreement, no renegotiation would have been required. The fault, if there is any, is in the original agreement. That's plain and quite obvious.
You keep talking about this supposed "intention" for changing the agreement. It simply makes no sense. If that intention existed, why didn't the Bush administration make it part of the agreement?
Your last paragraph slips off into wishful thinking again. No, the Iraqi government wouldn't have changed their minds if we committed to leaving more troops behind.
No, the request for immunity wasn't a surprise. The Iraqi government knew the existing agreement and knew that immunity would be part of any future agreement.
Stop making things up in a poor attempt to prove your belief is valid. We'd already had that agreement with Iraq for years. There was no surprise in requesting that it continue.
You fail to understand the events. There was no surprise in the US requirement. However in the post sovereignty post occupation arab spring environment there was great political reluctance for Iraq to grant immunity. al Maliki had said that he needed time to negotiate with parliament and time for the government to frame things in an acceptable way to the public. The Obama admin sabotaged these efforts by demanding a public statement by Iraq on immunity before such internal negotiations and planning had taken place, forcing the Iraqi government to state no immunity for the moment.
You are fundamentally misinformed. Both the US and Iraq expected the next US President to negotiate a *new* agreement for the status of US involvement for 2011 and beyond. The old agreement was a formal diplomatic end to invasion and occupation. For political and diplomatic reasons the new agreement had to be separate from the old.
The US requirement for immunity was not a surprise. al Maliki has stated that he needed time to negotiate with Parliament and time to formulate a framing for the Iraqi public. The US failed to give him this time, forced him to take a pubic position prematurely. al Maliki had also stated that US offer was insufficient and many of those in the Iraqi government were not willing to take the political heat of immunity for such an ineffectual token force. That a much better deal would be required to go down that path.
I think the relation between your narrative and reality is very weak. WMD were not a driving force for the US invasion. They were merely the alibi. You've got the reasoning behind the alibi wrong, but even if you had it right it would already be missing the point. The 'doubt' there was left was only about a theoretical question. WMD or no WMD: then one shell of mustard gas proves the WMD thesis. But if the question had been 'significant WMD, enough to be militarily relevant' then there was no doubt. The bottom line is the US took Iraq because they could, and people went along with the alibi to save face.
No. The WMD possibility was a real concern. Things that you seem not to be considering: Post Gulf War Saddam was actively hostile to the US. He fired on US aircraft enforcing a no fly zone occasionally, this zone being another thing he agreed to in the cease fire. Saddam actively supported terrorists, they may not have been al-Qaeda but they were groups that had attacked and killed Americans. Beyond support he also provided sanctuary to foreign terrorists who had killed Americans and allowed them to live in Iraq. All this and more led President Clinton to state that it is the policy of the United States to remove Saddam from power.
Also as the cited New York Times journalist (cited a couple of posts up) found in her investigation into how everyone got Iraq wrong in the days leading to the invasion, some of the things that turned out to be true included: the UN reported 1,000 tons of chemical agents were unaccounted for and WMD was eventually found (years after the invasion and initial searches) and the sarin nerve agent was more potent than the US thought Iraq had the capability to produce and former UN inspectors have stated that Saddam planned to reconstitute WMD programs once the UN signed off on Iraq and left.
Things are far more complicated than you suggest. Yes, actual motivations for war and how war is sold to the public often differ. WMD was oversold. However as even Clinton had stated Saddam had to go, he was an ongoing threat, and in a post 9/11 environment his antics would just no longer be tolerated. 9/11 changed the US' level of tolerance.
Sure, things are more complicated than I'm claiming. But I was well aware of what was happening while it was going on. You're using as reference the most egregious cheerleader of the WMD campaign.
Do you think people currently care about Iranian WMD? Not only did they never exist, nobody even would care if they did.It's just an alibi. Of course you need to make a lot of noise about it to make the alibi work.