Home » 9/11: Fifteen years

Comments

9/11: Fifteen years — 39 Comments

  1. Neo,

    This has appeared several times at Instapundit and is repeated there today. For those who have not read it, I offer it as a meaningful accompaniment to your sentiments today:

    Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe.

    They forget that in time of danger, in the face of the Enemy, they must trust and confide in each other, or perish.

    They forget, in short, that there has ever been a category of human experience called the Enemy. And that, before 9/11, was what had happened to us. The very concept of the Enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary. An enemy was just a friend we hadn’t done enough for – yet. Or perhaps there had been a misunderstanding, or an oversight on our part – something that we could correct. And this means that that our first task is that we must try to grasp what the concept of the Enemy really means.

    The Enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the Enemy always hates us for a reason – it is his reason, and not ours.**

    And as you point out, we, again, slowly become inured to civilization, even if it is that very same Western civilization that progressives love to despise.

    **The quote is from Lee Harris’s Civilization And Its Enemies.

  2. Like most people I suspect, I remember a number of things about that day. The utter horror is first of course.

    One thing that particularly struck me later that day were the commentators on TV. As time went by, they were forced to wing it without a script. The utter banality, lack of even basic insights into any aspect of the event and simple stupidity exhibited were especially striking.

    These were not David Brinkleys (a liberal but highly intelligent man who’d thought deeply on the issues) on their way up but ‘pretenders’ utterly lost when they had no teleprompters telling them what to say. That opened my eyes to just how scripted is ‘the news’. How unqualified are the news anchors pontificating every day & night.

  3. GB,

    You echo Ben Rhodes observation about the current correspondents knowing absolutely nothing.

    I read a comment some time ago (sorry, the source is now down the ol’ memory hole) where someone in authority noted that one can read a story on the front page about a subject that the reader actually knows and which the reader notes is absolutely incorrect in both matters of interpretation and also fact. Then turning to page two, one reads a story that one knows nothing about and accepts the story as truthful and at face value.

  4. Neo:
    bound and determined to sell our country out to a regime that is worse than Saddam Hussein’s …..!?

    This was my only thought that resonating for years abou Axis of Evil G w Bush statment.

    With 9/11 iraq was nothing to do with it, none of the criminals was Iraqis.

    While Iran had a regime threaten all its neighbors, US embbassy saga, a regiem detrem to export his revelution accross the world, while other Axies S Korea have closer thret to US than Iraq.

    The second point it takes 15 years to US administration ad congress to lift a ban on the victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudis for the crime why 15 years, not let the rule of law been let it go?

    The fact now Iran in Iraq with Sulimani controll most Bader Nd other forces whic Iran Quds forces in Iraq killing people while in Syria the fight agest US & othe westren power with the regim

  5. T: That’s the so-called “Gell-Mann Effect”, identified by Michael Crichton. If you search for it, you can probably find the article where Crichton described it.

  6. “Sensing an American vacuum, both Mr. Maliki and his Iranian patrons sought to consolidate their gains by conomically, politically and physically crushing their Sunni and Kurdish rivals,” Khedery noted.“Consequently, today’s ‘Iraqi security forces’ are almost exclusively Shiite, reinforced by militias financed, trained, armed and directed by Iran. Given Mr. Maliki’s blatant ectarianism and his complicity in Bashar al-Assad’s campaign of genocide against Syria’s Sunnis, Sunni radicalization and the spread of ISIS across the region were predictable.”

    Longest-Serving U.S. Diplomat In Iraq: Obama Gave Us ISIS

  7. If you consider Iran’s government worse than Saddam Hussein’s why did you support Bush’s war which key military
    and other strategists warned him would result in Iran’s domination of Iraq?
    Obama DID pressure the Iraqi government for a SOFA, which was rejected. The Iraqi government realized if they allowed Bush’s agreement to leave to be cancelled, it would be viewed as a puppet of the US and the insurgencies would have grown exponentially.
    The US public was sick of the quagmire anyway.

  8. Ken Hoop,

    Operation Desert Storm involved a multi-national coalition to kick Saddam’s ass out of Kuwait and ended with a cease fire. You can research the terms of the cease fire on your own dime. Saddam’s regime repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire; hence after 911 GWB, with the approval of the Senate and with the participation of various allies, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. Look it up if you are not up to speed on this topic.

    We can all have our opinions on OIF, I certainly have an opinion, one that finds fault with how the GWB administration handled the aftermath of the success of the surge. Obviously your opinion differs, but it would behoove you to do some research.

    BTW, bho ‘pressures’ those on his domestic enemies list and coddles our real off shore adversaries. A great example is his (without the consent of the Senate) deal with Iranian terrorist regime.

  9. parker Says:
    Saddam’s regime repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire; hence after 911 GWB,……

    To answer your point also you can research on your own time to find more about it, please let read:

    The unofficial reasons why the US led the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 are equally important. The main unofficial consideration was that removing Saddam Hussein would be a demonstration of US military might against a visible enemy, a demonstration which hawkish elements within the Bush administration and the military establishment considered necessary to deter others and to dispel any appearance of weakness following 9/11 (Karon, 2011). This consideration is motivated by Realism, and, according to Daniel Lieberfeld’s explanatory perspectives on the Iraq Invasion, was meant to “maintain unipolarity, maintain hegemony and avoid post-9/11 decline by demonstrating U.S. willingness to use force” (Lieberfeld, 2005).

    The Bush administration hoped that removing Saddam Hussein would result in a domino effect, where all regimes in the greater Middle East hostile to the US and its interests in the region would be intimidated into cooperation, or toppled by their populations following the example the US had set freeing the Iraqi people (Gauss III, 2009).

    Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was considered the perfect country to be made an example of as animosity between the US and Saddam Hussein went back many decades, and removing him was considered unfinished business by many senior Neo-conservatives in the Bush administration such as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney (Manne, 2004). Thus, this essay aims to examine both the immediate and official reasons why the US led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the unofficial goals of this campaign, as well as other contributing considerations which had been present long before 9/11

    One War, Many Reasons: The US Invasion of Iraq
    by: Markus Nikolas Heinrich, Mar 9 2015

  10. Parker,
    Saddam was also using the international press, which I followed closely, to blame the US for starving Iraqis. When oil for food was started, Saddam used that money, as we later learned, to buy off UN, French, and Russian people to play on his side. He was a monster, and he would never have left us alone. The strong-man mentality pervades the middle east. We have to be stronger.

  11. He was a monster, and he would never have left us alone. The strong-man mentality pervades the middle east. We have to be stronger.

    In today time, did US succeeded to got them all?

  12. Ken Hoop:

    “Obama DID pressure the Iraqi government for a SOFA, which was rejected.”

    Others view the rejection of the SOFA as a half-assed Obama failure (Biden was in charge), funny how that perspective thing works. But objectively, no SOFA resulted, so it could be posited that Obama’s “pressure” didn’t work. Failure by BHO.

  13. Fred:

    “In today time, did US succeeded to got them all?”

    Not sure what you point is since GWB hasn’t been setting policy since Jan of 2009, and BHO has been anything but strong regarding foreign policy, except to undermine US interests. You appear to be the anti-Eric.

  14. Fred,

    Everywhere, everything was open for insepction per the cease fire; that would include Saddam’s underwear drawer, etc. If we are a super power, leader of the free world, yadda yadda; we don’t let a dangerous punk like Saddam defy the terms of a cease fire. WJC should have burned down his house in 1994.

    Going Jimmy Carter for 444 days ain’t gonna earn any respect.

    expat,

    I comcur. Burn down all resistance. No mercy, no quarter, collateral damage be damned. We avoid this simple truth to our demise.

  15. Fred:

    About Markus Heinrich

    “Markus N. Heinrich recently graduated with an MA in International Relations from the University of Leicester with Distinction, writing his Dissertation on the European defence industry. His research interests focus on defence policy and procurement, defence economics, democratic control of defence as well as Western foreign policy and international law.”

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/author/markus-heinrich

    An academic w/o a doctorate, is he credible? It seems he has specialized in EUROPE, not the MIDDLE EAST. I’m dubious, or at least skeptical. Time will tell.

  16. Fred,

    I stated above that I had serious problems with GWB’s Iraq policy. But, I do not expect presidents or generals to perform to 100% of my arm chair expectations. I will settle for 50%.

  17. 9/11/2016. 15 years of combatting “global terrorism.” And where are we?

    For a short period of a few months the country seemed united. We were united in outrage and grief. But when our President decided to go on offense, the peaceniks quickly fell away from the unity and began the accusations of “warmonger.”

    We won the war and, eventually, the peace in Iraq. A nation that was invaded because their leader, a vicious dictator, was in violation of his agreements signed after Desert Storm. When things went bad in Iraq with insurgencies and terror, the peaceniks turned even more staunchly against the war. When the surge finally brought a tenuous peace to the country, the peaceniks didn’t accept that we had succeeded. They still wanted us OUT. And our peacenik President got us OUT.

    Our peacenik President turned his attentions to the “just war” in Afghanistan. Where he “surged’ but announced a date certain for getting OUT. Now we are in extremis in Afghanistan. We won a temporary peace, but the Taliban is moving back in. And we don’t have enough soldiers there to stop them. The Afghani National Army seems unable to stop them either.

    In places like Iraq and Afghanistan you are either IN for the long haul or you must get out. Staying semi-engaged, as we are now, will lead to more death, more losses, and eventual failure..

    Trillion$ spent, over 5000 dead, many thousands grievously wounded, a weak military used for social justice experiments, allies who don’t trust us, and enemies who don’t fear us is where we’re at today. In addition, the populace is “war weary” and deeply divided. Divided between those who cannot name our enemies and those who insist we must. Divided between those who want more centralized government power and those who don’t. Divided between those who want open borders and those who don’t. Divided between those who believe nations can borrow and print money endlessly and those who say government must manage its finances in a conservative manner. Divided……well I could cite more divisions, but we all know what they are.

    Today we are in more danger than we were on 9/10/2001. Radical Islamic jihadism is more entrenched, more widely spread, and more aggressive than ever. We have been flailing about in the manner of people who are no longer serious about the principles of defending our nation. We have our internet, our electronic toys, sports of every flavor as entertainment, reality TV, and much more that keep us engaged in the frivolous and inane. All things that detract us from the realities of what our enemies are doing. Watch man on the street interviews about current affairs. Could 50% of our citizens pass a basic civics test? Do they know where Aleppo is? Nope!

    I have not given up hope. I still believe there is a lot of common sense, courage, and talent in our citizenry. What we don’t have is a leader or leaders who can lift people’s eyes up from their cell phones or TVs to the task that we must perform to defend ourselves from a murderous tyranny that poses as a religion – radical Islamic jihadism.

    If we are to defend ourselves we have to name our enemy, confront the ideology, gather together allies who share our values, conduct financial interdiction, become more adept at intelligence/counterintelligence, and harden our military to conduct whatever kinetic operations are needed to defeat radical Islamic jihadism. We need to accept that this will be like the Cold War – a multi-decadal task. I will not live to see the conclusion of operations. I will, however, do whatever I can to support what I call “Operation Defend Western Civilization” as long as I’m still able. It’s the least we can do to honor the memory of all those killed by Islamic jihadists on 9/11 and since. Remember this on 9/11/2016: (With apologies to Robert Frost) We might be war weary, but we have promises to keep and miles to go before we sleep.

  18. J.J. Says
    I will, however, do whatever I can to support what I call “Operation Defend Western Civilization” as long as I’m still able. It’s the least we can do to honor the memory of all those killed by Islamic jihadists on 9/11………

    Well you get my support and my voice to kill any terrorists who kill innocent for no reason whasoever.

    Keep in minde ME nation suffered more than any nations in the world from the terrorists killing.

  19. Fred:

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for your support or your voice. The terrorist have all sorts of reasons they have given to kill and they don’t seem to care about innocence or guilt. In case you may not have noticed, the terrorists from the Middle East have been exporting and outsourcing their terrorism out of the Middle East a bit more in the last 15 years.

    Some in the West and far East would be happy if the Middle East terrorists would revert to their old ways of killing each other on their home turf. Something about letting Moslems; shia and sunni fight among themselves. In practice that doesn’t work, terrorists “always” want a bigger sand box to play in, a bigger litter box to crap in.

    And by the way Israel is not one of the terrorist ME nations. Just to be clear about that.

  20. Ken Hoop Says:
    September 11th, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    “The US public was sick of the quagmire anyway.”

    Except that by the time Bush left office, we had won the war, quagmire and all. Obama and Biden were eager to trumpet the homecoming of military personnel as their victory in Iraq in order to exploit it for political capital. And their half-assed efforts to negotiate an extension (as had been pushed by the Pentagon) betrays their intentions.

  21. OM Says:
    And by the way Israel is not one of the terrorist ME nations. Just to be clear about that.

    ohh yah?

  22. Ken Hoop:
    “If you consider Iran’s government worse than Saddam Hussein’s why did you support Bush’s war which key military and other strategists warned him would result in Iran’s domination of Iraq?”

    I can’t answer for Neo, but President Clinton answered your question when he made Iraqi regime change explicit law and policy in the mid-1990s as it became clear that Saddam would not comply as required to satisfy “the need to be assured of Iraq’s peaceful intentions [and] … to secure peace and security in the area” (UNSCR 687). (Note that Clinton carried forward Bush41’s implicit and covert Iraqi regime change policy.)

    For my take on your question, see the answers “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?” & “Why not free a noncompliant Saddam?”;
    and the answers to “Did Iraq failing its compliance test justify the regime change?” & “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom about WMD or democracy?”.

    Ken Hoop:
    “Obama DID pressure the Iraqi government for a SOFA, which was rejected. The Iraqi government realized if they allowed Bush’s agreement to leave to be cancelled, it would be viewed as a puppet of the US and the insurgencies would have grown exponentially.”

    While the circumstances of Obama’s premature disengagement of the vital OIF peace operations are murkier than the straightforward grounds for Bush’s decision for OIF, your view is inconsistent with the various accounts of OIF, US officials and, most relevantly, the conditions-based SFA that overarched SOFA.

    See these sources and commentary on Obama’s “irresponsible exit from Iraq”.

  23. Oops. The link for the “answers “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?” & “Why not free a noncompliant Saddam?”” skips the 1st FAQ and goes to the 2nd FAQ.

    Fixed:

    Answers to “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?” & “Why not free a noncompliant Saddam?”.

  24. Boy, New Mexico may be the Land of Enchantment but it is not the Land of Reliable Wifi. My hotel wifi went out over a week ago and the closest wifi at McDonald’s censors neo and most other conservative blogs from what I can tell. I’ve gotten settled in a new town and found a good library for work.

    For years I found each anniversary of 9-11 to be a chilling milestone, but it’s become harder and harder to access those sharp, painful emotions. I guess time dulls all blades.

    It doesn’t help to live in a country which in two terms of Obama has resolutely worked to return to a 9-10 consciousness with respect to Islamic terrorism.

    Does anyone doubt for a single moment that the killers would wreak a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand 9/11s on us if they could?

    I certainly don’t and likewise most reading this blog, but it seems half the country doubts it, will argue against it, and will vote for Islamic apologist policies. Obama has said we can absorb another 9-11 if we must, and besides bathroom falls kill more Americans than Islamic terrorism.

    I remember a New Yorker in 2002 assuring me New Yorkers would never forget, which impressed me at the time, but it sure seems New Yorkers have — Gerard Van der Leun notwithstanding.

  25. Fred:
    “This was my only thought that resonating for years abou Axis of Evil G w Bush statment.”

    Knowing what we know now, which is consistent with what we knew then, the grounds for Bush’s “axis of evil” characterization of the Saddam regime, Iran, and north Korea are sound.

    In particular, the Bush case versus Saddam is in fact substantiated.

    Fred:
    “With 9/11 iraq was nothing to do with it, none of the criminals was Iraqis.”

    See my clarification on the relationship between the 9/11 attacks and the grounds for OIF.

    In fact, the Iraqi Perspectives Project confirmed Saddam’s “regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations” included “considerable operational overlap” with the al Qaeda network – all of which breached the UNSCR 687 mandate to “not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its [Iraq’s] territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism”.

    Saddam’s “regional and global terrorism” (IPP) was a lead element of the OIF casus belli per PL 107-243.

    That being said, the 9-11 Commission clarified that while there were compelling reasons to suspect Saddam’s involvement, Bush didn’t blame Saddam for the 9/11 attacks.

    If Bush had blamed Saddam for the 9/11 attacks, then we would have attacked Iraq forthwith under PL 107-40 (2001) rather than enforce Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) with the Gulf War ceasefire – including and especially the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, and humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688 – under PL 107-243 (2002).

    OM:
    “[quoting Fred, “In today time, did US succeeded to got them all?”]
    You appear to be the anti-Eric.”

    The misleading conflation of Bush and Obama’s foreign affairs, despite Obama’s distinctive course deviation, is characteristic of Russian propaganda.

    Because the controlling law, policy, precedent, and determinative facts of the OIF decision make for a straightforward fact pattern, displacing them in the discourse with conjecture on the “unofficial reasons why the US led the Invasion of Iraq in 2003” is also characteristic of Russian propaganda.

    In any case, if Obama had but stayed the course from Clinton and Bush like Eisenhower stayed the course from FDR and Truman, the OIF peace operations building upon the Surge+Awakening should have been the ‘end of the beginning’ of the War on Terror.

    To explain Obama’s course deviation, here’s Neo’s post on Mike Doran’s keen Feb 2015 analysis of “Obama’s secret Iran strategy”, which events have reinforced since his article.

    To clarify OIF’s gains in terms of resolving the Saddam problem and establishing the US-Iraq “strategic partnership” and the subsequent harm of Obama’s course deviation, see my answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.

    The links in the FAQ section and the links in the next, “further reading” section are worthwhile, if you have some time – they’re tantamount to a course reader.

  26. Ken Hoop:
    “If you consider Iran’s government worse than Saddam Hussein’s why did you support Bush’s war which key military and other strategists warned him would result in Iran’s domination of Iraq?”

    First of all, it was of course Saddam’s war. War was his decision to make.

    To switch off the UNSCR 660-series enforcement in the first place, Saddam should have complied with the UNSCR 660 series and prevented the Gulf War. Then, Saddam could and should have switched off enforcement in 1991-1992 by complying with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) for the Gulf War ceasefire, instead of triggering OIF in 2002-2003 with the confirmation of Iraq’s material breach in Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).

    Second, peace operations are not a new thing for America.

    To add to my FAQ answers linked above, the basic requirement to thwart “Iran’s domination of Iraq” after Saddam was strong-horse American leadership of the free world of the same kind that thwarted the technically similar Communist campaign in the post-WW2 contest for Europe and Asia.

    This analogy is in my OIF FAQ. Citing Iran as the reason to appease Saddam is akin to citing the USSR as a reason to appease Hitler, which in fact, many folks did back then on similar grounds.

    The solution to Saddam and Iran, like it was for Hitler and the Soviets, is not conceding two dangers that are separately toxic and amplify their threat together (including coordination), but rather steadfast strong-horse American leadership of the free world that thwarts both threats, one and then the next.

    Bush positioned America to lead again in the strong-horse tradition of American leadership of the free world. Obama broke from that essential American leadership tradition with disastrous effect.

  27. OM:
    “Thanks for update and response to Fred’s, what shall I say, disinformation?”

    You’re welcome.

    It matters. OIF stigma is the keystone premise for opponents, foreign and domestic (including the current President of the United States, and the Democratic and Republican candidates for President), of strong-horse American leadership of the free world.

    The stigmatization of OIF has discredited American leadership of the free world. On its face, it shouldn’t be difficult to counter since the OIF stigma is based on a readily demonstrably false narrative. Yet most ostensible expert commentators – including ostensible Bush and OIF supporters – get the why of OIF wrong.

    The critical failure by the ostensible experts is why I was compelled to write my OIF FAQ explanation using a format purpose-designed to respond to the main points of the prevailing false narrative of OIF.

    The information necessary to counter the disinformation by Fred et al and set the record straight is set out in the OIF FAQ explanation along with the sources flagged and linked therein.

    Hewing to the bedrock law, policy, precedent, and facts of the OIF decision is the effective way to cut through the misleading ‘expert’ conjecture and disinformation and clarify the truth of the matter.

  28. Ken Hoop:
    “The US public was sick of the quagmire anyway.”

    Well, the propaganda that painted post-Surge (pre-Obama disengagement) Iraq as a quagmire, contra the ready facts on the ground, was sickening.

    For the reality of Iraq’s precious progress that was inhumanely thrown away by Obama, see the UN official assessment of Iraq from December 2010:
    http://www.un.org/press/en/2010/sc10118.doc.htm

  29. Fred [to JJ]:
    “Well you get my support and my voice to kill any terrorists who kill innocent for no reason whasoever.”

    That means ipso facto you’ve supported the Iraq intervention, because the Saddam regime ruled Iraq with “widespread terror” (UNCHR) and was a leading practitioner and multiplier of “regional and global terrorism” (IPP), including Islamic terrorism with “considerable operational overlap” (IPP) with the al Qaeda network.

    Once again, Saddam’s terrorism breached the Gulf War ceasefire and was a lead element of the OIF casus belli per the 2002 AUMF.

  30. Here we go:

    Woolsey, by contrast, was a key member of the Project for the New American Century – a neoconservative think tank largely founded to encourage a second war with Iraq. Woolsey signed a letter in 1998 calling on Clinton to depose Saddam Hussein and only hours after the 9/11 attacks appeared on CNN and blamed the attacks on Iraq. Woolsey has continued to insist on such a connection despite the complete lack of evidence to support his argument. He also blames Iran.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/12/donald-trump-after-blasting-iraq-war-picks-top-iraq-hawk-as-security-adviser/

    You all knew Iraq was targeted before 9/11, you may rejected it’s there man.
    Respecting other view should be part of wise minds…….

  31. “Flushed” OM Says:

    Did you bother yourself to look to source/endnote that “Markus N. Heinrich” used in his report for each statement he made?
    his well-presented work or book/report.

    So are you suggesting all good thinker hold doctorate are very smart?
    I doubt it.

  32. Fred:

    You have no credibility with me, bud if you can’t discern what constitutes a terrorist state or state-sponsored terrorism. Peddle Putin’s lies to someone else.

  33. Fred:

    To “flush out” means to be disclosed, or revealed. Your position on terrorism and killing of innocent civilians and Israel revealed your motives IMO.

  34. Fred:
    “You all knew Iraq was targeted before 9/11”

    Well, d’uh, obviously. That’s what I explained to you. The US-led enforcement of Iraq’s mandated compliance with the UNSCR 660 series, including the Gulf War ceasefire, was headline news for over a decade before the 9/11 attacks.

    I suggest my sketch of OIF’s historical context.

    EXCERPT (sans links) from my clarification of the relationship between the 9/11 attacks and the grounds for OIF:

    The Saddam problem, which included Saddam’s ongoing “regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations” (Iraqi Perspectives Project) in violation of the terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, and the operative enforcement procedure to resolve the Saddam problem were both mature by the close of the Clinton administration – before the 9/11 attacks.

    Before the 9/11 attacks, in an address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff on February 17, 1998, President Clinton had warned of “the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed”. The uncovering of a WMD “international proliferation network” added to the heightened threat consideration of Saddam’s distinctive combined WMD-and-terrorism threat in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

    UNMOVIC confirmed the Saddam regime did not disarm as mandated, which triggered OIF. The Iraq Survey Group corroborated UNMOVIC and found that the IIS, which also managed Saddam’s terrorism, was running a clandestine chemical and biological laboratory network and Iraq was evidently capable of producing CW and BW.

    The casus belli for OIF was neither blame for the 9/11 attacks nor preemptive defense, but rather the confirmation of Iraq’s “continued violations of its obligations” (UNSCR 1441), including the disarmament and terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, in “material breach” (UNSCR 1441) of the Gulf War ceasefire when Saddam declined his “final opportunity to comply” with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441).

    The US-led enforcement of the UNSCR 660 series, including the Gulf War ceasefire, began with the adoption of UNSCR 660 on 2 August 1990 – which obviously meant “Iraq was targeted before 9/11”.

    Sequentially, Saddam triggered the Gulf War on 16JAN91 by not complying with the UNSCR 660 series. The Gulf War was suspended on 27FEB91 contingent on Iraq’s mandated compliance with the Gulf War ceasefire that was established with UNSCR 687, adopted on 3 April 1991, and UNSCR 688, adopted on 5 April 1991 – which again, obviously meant “Iraq was targeted before 9/11”.

    The US conducted multiple military actions responding to Iraq’s “continued violations of its obligations” (UNSCR 1441) between 1991 and 2003, including the continual no-fly zones since 1991 pursuant to the UNSCR 688 humanitarian mandates – which obviously meant “Iraq was targeted before 9/11”. The penultimate military enforcement step that preceded Op Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 was Op Desert Fox in December 1998.

    Finally, the OIF regime change was triggered by the UNMOVIC confirmation of Iraq’s “material breach” (UNSCR 1441) of the Gulf War ceasefire in Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) to close out 12 years of Iraq’s noncompliance.

    The “threat” (UNSCR 1441) of Saddam’s categorical noncompliance – including Saddam’s UNSCR 687-proscribed “regional and global terrorism” (IPP) which was older and bigger than and overlapped bin Laden’s terrorism – preceded the 9/11 attacks.

  35. Fred,

    FYI, James Woolsey was not a Bush official.

    However, as 1993-1995 CIA director under President Clinton, Woolsey did pick up from the Bush41 administration with the US-led enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire pursuant to UNSCR 687 and the US dealings with Iraqis per the UNSCR 688 humanitarian mandates.

    For an idea of what Woolsey inherited with the Saddam problem, see Bush41’s last update to Congress on the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement from 19JAN93.

    As such, Woolsey’s view on Iraqi regime change was based on his experience dealing with the “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights” (UNCHR) and manifold threat posed by Saddam’s breach of the Gulf War ceasefire, which remained unresolved past Woolsey’s term as CIA director.

    FYI-2, Iran’s relationship with the al Qaeda network does not appear to be as extensive as Saddam’s “considerable operational overlap” (IPP) with al Qaeda; nonetheless, Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda is established.

    Kyle Orton unpacks what’s known of Iran’s relationship with the al Qaeda network on his blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>