HerbEly

WaPo Almost Throws Curveball into Our Vacation

One quick note on the WMD "fabricator" code named Curveball before we leave for the Kiwanis International Convention in Montreal. The story in today's WaPo contains a number of interesting details on how the Bush Administration was fooled into thinking that the Iraq's had mobile bioweapons labs. Some intelligence professionals recognized that the crucial information was based on a single, unreliable source. The administration could not - or would not - hear their warnings. Secretary of State Colin Powell based his UN speech in part upon the Curveball information. CIA analyst Tyler Drumheller was convinced that the Curveball information was omitted from Powell's UN speech.

This is not a new story. For this blog's previous reports on Curveball, start here, go here, and then here.

I could go on about this. It was irresponsible, at best, for the administration to be fooled by this story. Maybe it is best for us to head for Montreal and me to take a break from blogging.

WMD: Three Half-Rights Add Up to a Useless Fight

    This morning Walter Pincus reports Democration objections to Rep Peter Hoekstra and Sen. Rick Santorum  trying to prove that Bush was right about the presence of WMD in Iraq. The Democrats are trying to discount any evidence that might contradict their “Bush Lied, People Died” sound bite. Intelligence officials are downplaying the significance of Santorum and Hoekstra’s press releases showing that 500 chemical rounds have been found in Iraq. These rounds, they correctly point out, were manufactured in 1991. They were buried and had deteriorated. They might not have worked even if the Iraqi’s had had a chance to use them in 2002.

    The Bush administration was convinced, for good reason that Saddam had weapons stockpiles and programs to develop more weapons. Their mindset was that of a President and Vice President sworn to defend the country subject to another vital attack. If you want a sense of the gut feelings dominating the administration response after 9/11, watch the first ~20 minutes of the PBS documentary The Dark Side.

    The main purpose of the documentary is to demonstrate that Cheney and Rumsfeld forced the intelligence community to overestimate the threat. To give it credit, it does portray both men as skilled and experience government officials determined to prevent another attack.

    The Bush administration was, as I have been contending for some time, half right. The Iraqi’s did have a few WMD’s and some immature programs to develop more. They did not have a military trained and ready to use them. Now we have Santorum and Hoekstra attempting to prove that Bush was totally right. The Democrats want to prove that he was totally wrong.

    The 500 chemical munitions found since the invasion of Iraq prove only that Saddam had some munitions buried in the sand. And further finds will be dangerous for the soldiers or civilians who handle them. Both sides will use them to prove that their position on WMD’s is correct. If both sides could stop and look at the evidence in what it showed about Iraqi readiness to use WMD’s the argument might be settled.

NOTE: this post linked to Beltway Traffic Jam of 06/23/2006.

Those 500 Chemical Munitions: the Unasked Question

When U.S. troops discovered a Mig-25 fighter aircraft buried in the Iraqi sand, no one argued that it proved that Iraq’s forces were trained and ready to fight in 2002. (Go here for photo and story.) An Air Force can only be ready if its aircraft are maintained and its pilots have extensive flying time.

In 2002 the Bush administration, charged with the duty to protect the country against another 9/11 attack, was determined to prove that Iraq had an active WMD program. Administration defenders are still trying to prove the existence of WMD’s in Iraq. They failed to ask the right question.

Now we learn that the Iraq survey group has discovered hundreds of degraded munitions.  We will now see long arguments that this proves Bush was right and did not lie. What it proves is that he was half right. Iraq had weapons and programs in 2002. No one seems to have asked if Iraqi troops were equipped organized and trained to use WMD. Had they done so, the war might have been fought differently. The administration would not have had to defend itself against the “Bush lied, people died.” meme. Support for the war might be much higher now.

An Iraq with obsolete, degraded chemical shells and incomplete biological and nuclear programs was still a threat - but a very diffrent threat from the one the administration portrayed. The potential of undiscovered chemical munitions raises the specter of a terrorist attack, even if those munitions are so degraded as to be marginally effective. Clearly a continuing response is required.

NOTE: This is not a new argument for me. I wrote both my Senators and my Representative in September, 2002. I published a letter in the WaPo in February, 2004.

NOTE: This post linked to Beltway Traffic Jam for 06/22/2006

The One Percent Doctrine

Ron Suskind bases his book The One Percent Doctrine The One Percent Doctrine on a quote from
Vice President Cheney. In this case context is everything and we can only guess at the context. Here is an extract from Barton Gellman’s review

Cheney, by Suskind's account, had been grappling with how to think about "a low-probability, high-impact event." By the time the briefing was over, he had his answer: "If there's a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response."

Cheney’s position is, in itself, sensible. High impact threats demand a response. Some context giving what Cheney might have meant by a response would have helped – or might undercut Suskind’s unfavorable depiction of Cheney. While a response is required, some responses are unjustified. Careful analysis must precede a response and it must be proportionate to the threat.

In the case of Iraq, our political leaders, both in the Administration and the Senate, failed to use even the inadequate analysis that they had. As Alan Reynolds has shown, a careful reading of the October 2002 NIE should have convinced the leadership that the case for WMD’s in Iraq was not sound. In re-reading the October 2002 NIE I have an intuition that analysts put in carefully couched language. Maybe they were covering their ____. Maybe they were trying to communicate their doubts to the leadership. If so, they were wrong.

It seems to be an ideal opportunity for some just war ethicists to stand up and talk about decision making under uncertainty.

Maybe I had better read Suskind.

A Willful Intelligence Failure?

Since February 2004 , I’ve been developing this story line: There were mid-level intelligence professionals who recognized that the case for WMD in Iraq was flimsy. They expressed doubts. Their warnings reached the Senior Executive Service / General Officer level. These warnings were over-ruled by political appointees. No one knows if the President was aware that intelligence professionals were skeptical about the case.
    Today’s Washington Post has three stories that fit into this picture.

A Father's Day Tribute

Jack Smith, in this morning's WaPo, offers Flashlight-Holding 101: A Father's Teaching Tools has a nice tribute to his dad:

My father's method of imparting advice wasn't direct or even obvious, but in his own way Dad made sure he passed on the guidance that would help me through life. He was a tinkerer and I was his young apprentice.

One of my earliest memories was helping him fix our blue '51 Dodge Coronet. I was 5 or 6 years old and it was very cold and very dark. Dad was bent over the engine trying to change a particularly stubborn spark plug. My job was to keep the flashlight aimed exactly where he was struggling.

I was mostly thinking about anything but the work at hand. As my mind wandered, so did the beam of light. Every few minutes Dad would remind me, "Jack . . . the problem is here," as he tapped the wrench on the engine. "Shine the light where I'm looking, not where you're looking! Your job is to make my job easier."

Read and give thanks.

Book Review: Just War, Lasting Peace

    Thanks to Steve, I’ve just finished reading Just War, Lasting Peace: What Christian Traditions Can Teach Us. This book is the result of a one-day invitational forum on the applicability of the Just War tradition to the modern world. As readers of this blog know, I’ve been arguing for some time  that the church is failing to adapt its teaching to the ever changing nature of warfare and armed violence. I’m glad to find out that I’m at least partially wrong about this.

    The book, edited by John Kleiderer, Paula Mineart, and Mark Mossa presents a comprehensive overview of the just war tradition, how it has evolved, and what if might offer to policy makers today. First, while all of the sections are valuable, I will mention some particularly meaningful points. Second, the authors failed to take into account the recent rapid decline in warfare Third, they should have, in my opinion, have expanded on the meaning of Von Clausewitz’s famous dictum on war and politics. Fourth, the book might have added some on the context for the gospel injunction to turn the other cheek.(Mt. 5:38-48.) Fifth, there are other sources that an interested reader might also want to investigate.

Alan M. Dershowitz on Preemption

Michael W. Doyle's review lan M. Dershowitz's PREEMPTION: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways makes me want to read the book. I may - probably will - disagree with parts of it.Those who a following the question of adapting just war doctrine to the changing nature of war should read the review and the book.

Flag Desecration: Part II

Former Nebraska Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey's op ed piece, Our Flag and Freedom ,prompted me to repost this item from June 4, 2004.

Webster’s defines “desecrate” as “to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office”. If congress passes a law banning “desecration” it will be declaring that the flag is now sacred. Some lawyer will then challenge the law. The argument will be: “Congress has violated the first amendment by passing a law establishing the flag as sacred. My client is willing to honor the flag as a symbol. Establishing the flag as sacred requires my client to worship, rather than honor, the flag. By worshipping the flag my client would violate the first commandment. My client is being denied protection under the free exercise of religion clause of the first amendment.”

By insisting on the word “desecration” the Senate will create an opportunity for lawyers to earn large fees. If the Senators want to engage in patriotic rhetoric over this bill, they should change the word “desecrate” to “dishonor”. They can still make their speeches - but no one will charge them with making the flag into a religious idol.

I'm proud to honor the flag. However, it looks to me as if the Senate is engaged in political posturing withouth regard to the damage to the constitution and religous freedom.

NOTE: this post linked to Flag Burning Amendment Unnecessary and Unpatriotic at Outside the Beltway

Catholic Carnival #83 is up

Mark at CoPi Journal did a great job on this week's Catholic Carnival. Check out the apt quotes he found to introduce each entry.