On the subject of bad choice and underestimation with regards to Iraq Amos, the only person who had any choice in the matter was Saddam Hussein and you are right he did choose badly. He listened to whispers of encouragement from his "influential" friends and erstwhile trading partners and believed what they were telling him. In doing so he seriously underestimated the metal of the man who was charged with protecting the security and interests of the United States of America and her allies, who, let's face it, clearly stated his intentions and determination on the issue of Iraq's verifiable disarmament from the outset.

Now with regard as to what is, is:

1.        "You and T. seem to have a shared attitude that violence against people is perfectly jusifiable even when it is avoidable."

I would dearly like to hear your grounds for making that assumption. If you look back over my posts in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, particularly those in the very early days, you will discover that I was one of the people stating an opinion that the invasion would not happen – Based on the premise that I could not believe that Saddam Hussein and the entire Ba'athist regime in Iraq would be as stupid as they indeed proved to be.

Looking at it entirely from the perspective of the United States of America, as George W. Bush HAD TO DO, that being his job, what were the response options to the threat situation facing the United States of America in the wake of 9/11?

•        Ignore the advice of all 19 US Intelligence and Security Agencies and that of the Joint Congressional Security Committee with regard to their warnings about the threat that Iraq posed and blithely hope for the best?

•        Heed those warnings and take the matter before the United Nations?

•        Immediately launch attacks upon Iraq as his predecessor had done in 1998?

Tell us all what the President of the United States did Amos? On the other hand don't bother, the question's rhetorical – He went to the United Nations.

2.        "I think resorting to violence when it is not necessary is stupid. And defending it post-facto is similarly a bit twisted, IMHO."

Who resorted to violence went it wasn't necessary Amos? I can remember some quite clear markers that were put down at the time, each one gave ample opportunity to specifically avoid violence – All were studiously ignored.

In the case of Iraq your premise that intervention on the part of the United States of America was not necessary is questionable at best. As to defending the decision of the President of the United States to take military action being a bit twisted, that only holds good provided you subscribe to the opinion that military intervention was not necessary. Given what had occurred in the USA and the track records of both the United Nations and Saddam's Iraq, I can easily see why the President of the United States of America acted as he did. Exactly the same thing would have happened irrespective of who was in the "hot seat" because all the factors would have been the same.


3.        "An unimaginable amount of suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential is contained in that cold expression of "Saddam was taken out" expression."

And you would rather have seen what Amos? Because Saddam left in place was a guarantee of continued unimaginable suffering, pain, loss, disability, and destruction, mangled bodies, broken minds, lost lives and ruined potential – for Iraqis; Iranians; Israelis & Americans. As I said in two of my earlier posts – Think about it.


4.        "I would be ashamed to think I had not been able to find a better solution to a problem, and would not consider a person worthy of leadership who could not, under the circumstances."

Now that sentence of yours Amos shows that you are in complete denial of what the President of the United States of America did, doesn't it? I believe that GWB did find the perfect solution to the problem his country was facing. He took the matter to the United Nations Security Council didn't he? We also know that the UN had taken the line of least resistance on this particular "situation" for the best part of 12 years and had completely ignored it for the last four years in the hope no doubt that it was just going to go away.

So faced with what everyone advising his administration said was a real and serious threat your President went to the UN knowing full well its weakness, lack of resolution and general ineffectiveness. He went and put the USA's concerns before the Security Council accompanied by a clear statement of intent – You resolve this in such a way that our justified concerns are addressed or we will act to accomplish that end independently if need be.

While Russia, China, France and Germany (All Security Council members at that time) were telling Saddam not to worry, the USA doesn't mean it, the President went back to Congress to get approval for action against Iraq if need be. He went to the Pentagon and requested that they update the existing "Contingency" Plans for armed intervention in Iraq, and to start getting units into position, making no mistake to ensure that the world and its dog knew about it.

The result of all this work was that after a break of over four years, all of a sudden Iraq invited UN weapons inspection teams back to Iraq.

5.        "It is just piss-poor management to waste your people, your finances, your repute and credibility, causing huge swaths of destruction, because of a severe shortfall of imagination and understanding. It is plain stupid, is what it is. Justify it away if you like, it is still stupid, brutal and callously unthoughtful, inhumane, short-sighted and piss-poor management of the nation's trust; in fact, it qualifies as an extreme betrayal of that trust.

So let's detail the accusations that you are flinging out here Amos:

•        A shortfall of imagination and understanding

I would have said that the Intelligence and Security Agencies of the USA and the Joint House Security Committee did a thoroughly conscientious and professional job when they were tasked with identifying what posed the greatest potential threat to their country. I believe that they did likewise in their evaluation of who in the world presented that threat. Their work can hardly be dismissed as being deficient in terms of imagination or understanding, particularly when it came to imagining and understanding what the result of inaction on the part of the United States of America would be.

•        Stupid

Since when has it been stupid to act in your own defence Amos? Since when has it been stupid to act to prevent a tragedy of massive proportions? Since when has it been stupid to act for the benefit of others?

•        Brutal

In what way "Brutal" Amos? Once you decide to fight, the only way to proceed is to make sure you win with as few casualties to your own side as possible. On balance I would have said that the force used was constrained compared to what force could have been applied to guarantee the same outcome.

•        Callously unthoughtful (No such word)

On the contrary I believe that a great deal of thought went into what actions had to be taken. Having said that however, I believe that the CPA period that followed the invasion was an unmitigated disaster.

•        Inhumane

It would have been inhumane to have stood back and done nothing.

•        Short-sighted

Far from it, all things considered.

•        Poor management

Only on the part of Saddam Hussein and his advisors, who actually were guilty of all the short-comings that you have listed

•        Betrayal of the nation's trust

Now this one I found amazing. George W. Bush betrayed the nation's trust, in what way Amos?   By acting to ensure the security of the country and its citizens and to protect the nation's best interests and those of her allies?

Questions for you Amos:

•        "Had the USA not acted as it did on March 20th 2003 in dealing with Iraq, when and how would you have liked to have found out about Libya's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

•        "Do you think that chances of secret development of nuclear weapons on the basis of sale to the "highest bidder" have been enhanced or reduced by the exposure of the activities of Dr.A.Q.Khan? Has what has happened been of any significant benefit to mankind?"

•        "When and how would you have liked to have found out about Iran's totally secret nuclear weapons?"

•        "Who do you think would have won the second Iran/Iraq War Amos, and in what way would that outcome be beneficial for the region and the world"

•        "The first Iran/Iraq War resulted in 1.5 million dead, how stupid, brutal, thoughtlessly callous, inhumane and short-sighted a betrayal of mankind do you think it would have been to allow such a conflict to occur?"

•        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe chances of finding a lasting solution are increased or reduced by the removal of a state sponsor of terrorism?"

•        "With regard to peace in the middle-east do you believe that Lebanon stands a better chance of achieving peace and stability as an independent sovereign state without the presence of Syrian Forces of occupation, or was the Lebanon better off as a Syrian colony?"