News Was British Involvement in the Iraq War Driven by Blair’s Sycophancy?

[mheslep]

If you're referring to the Taliban's knowledge of the 9/11 attack specifically, then yes you're right.

Yes I am, to tie the point back to the thread topic - the Iraq war - and to draw scrutiny to what constitutes a "threat". In particular I'd like to apply whatever standards are used for labeling Bin Laden and AQ a threat are also applied to the Hussein and Iraq.

However, the Taliban should have been knowledgeable of bin Laden's and al-Qaeda's terrorist activities in general, since UN sanctions had been in place for sheltering bin Laden since 10/15/1999 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/300/44/PDF/N9930044.pdf?OpenElement ). The sanctions consisted of freezing all Taliban assets (bank accounts in foreign countries, etc) and in not allowing any of the planes from a Taliban owned airline to land or take off in neighboring countries. (Note that the UN had deep concerns about discrimination against women and girls and about opium production, but only the terrorist training camps and bin Laden were addressed in the Chapter VII portion of the resolution. Irrelevant, but there is a specific way to read the resolutions.)

I agree, they were generally knowledgeable but somewhat schizophrenic about Bin Laden. When Bin Laden arrived from the Sudan, Omar told him no terrorist actions, partly under pressure from the Saudis (according to Wright's Looming Towers). Yet they visibly didn't kick him out after the pre 911 attacks (USS Cole, others) and apparently close ranks with Bin Laden rather than moving away. Bin Laden's ordering of the assassination of the famous Afghan northern alliance leader Massoud, a Taliban opponent, probably helped with that.

On the other hand, Hussein was sponsored third party terror attacks by paying bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers, fired almost daily on No Fly patrols, and he certainly had a better chance of eventually obtaining WMD than did Bin Laden in his mountain camp.

 

[Nebula815]

Hence the disclaimer about the traditional definitions of the role of the active duty component and the Reserve and National Guard components. We've never used the Reserves and National Guard so heavily, for such a long time before.

We aren't maintaining a Cold War-sized Active Duty force.

At the end of the cold war, the active duty military had 1.8 million members. By 2001, that was down to 1.38 million (a 23% decrease). Seven years after 9/11 active duty military strength has been increased by about 35,000. This has been a war fought on the cheap, relying on the "temps" in spite of the fact that Reserves and National Guard don't have either the member support or the family support that exists at active duty military bases. They're cheaper to use than active duty, so we're willing to burn through them hoping the war ends before retention and recruiting plummet.

I don't think National Guard and Reserves are not sent to fight the war themselves, they are integrated in with the Active-Duty.

2009 was the first year the military met recruiting goals in years. It turns out a high unemployment rate does carry a silver lining.

Yes, historically, bad economic times are good for military recruitment.

Retention is more important, anyway (and high unemployment improves retention, as well). In a modern military, you want training and experience. Increasing recruitment to cover decreased retention is a losing proposition.

I agree.

 

[mheslep]

Sorry for being offensive...

Appreciated, moving on...

 

[Nebula815]

And something that rarely if ever gets mentioned is that these non-active-duty personnel often end up losing their jobs because of the repeated deployments, and many of them own (or used to own) their own businesses and have no way to keep them afloat and retain clients while they are gone overseas.

These people and their families are paying heavy prices for their patriotism and willingness to serve.

Although this isn't a good thing, they should not join then. No one forces anyone to join the military. When you join, you know that you may be sent to fight a war. And when you join the Active-Duty military, you are in for at least eight years technically. Whatever is not spent in Active-Duty is spent in either National Guard, Reserves, or the Inactive Ready Reserve (which means you basically are a civilian, but the military can still recall you to duty if necessary).

 

[DrClapeyron]

The only people to be convinced going to war is appropriate are the people going to war. That's why no one (American) cared what the UN thought.

Legitimacy is a noble truth for historians to debate. Winning hearts and minds is a necessity for leaders to act.

 

[kyleb]

It seems to me that the only legitimate reason to enter into a war is to end it, while starting a war is always done for immoral reasons disguised with claims of noble ones.

 

[drizzle]

It seems to me that the only legitimate reason to enter into a war is to end it, while starting a war is always done for immoral reasons disguised with claims of noble ones.

Still not obvious enough though :(

 

[Sorry!]

They both have to face war crime for their this act.

No they don't. In my opinion even if they knew that Iraq had no WMDs they should not be lablelled as war criminals. Of course some of the actions that soldiers and officers have taken might be questoinable as war crimes but I'm certain they will be punished by their respective countries.

 

[Integral]

This discussion is going nowhere. Let's call it good.