Pre-Emption

[BostonBarrister]

See, pre-emption, which was one of the stated rationales for Iraq, involves neutralizing a threat BEFORE it becomes a huge problem.

Also, as an aside, I do believe this provides at least one answer to the question someone posed on another thread: What has Bush done to make us safer? That’s the thing about pre-emption: when it is successful, most people do not appreciate the cost to which they were not subjected.

---

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

Putin said he couldn’t comment on how critical the Russians’ information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn’t have any information that Saddam’s regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.

“After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests,” Putin said.

He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials.

“It’s one thing to have information that Saddam’s regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn’t have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks,” Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits.

Putin said the intelligence didn’t cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.

“Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam’s regime, Russia’s position on Iraq remains unchanged,” Putin said.

Putin didn’t elaborate on any details of the terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al-Qaida terror network.

A commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States reported this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, they did not appear to have produced “a collaborative relationship.”

President Bush, however, insisted Thursday that Saddam had “numerous contacts” with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network’s leader, Osama bin Laden, in Sudan.

Saddam “was a threat because he had terrorist connections - not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations,” Bush said.

[wlhcrow]

Putin’s comments are interesting, but only in their timing – why now, when Bush is struggling to defend the war, and not when the war began, or prior to the war when Bush was trying to build a case? Could this be an economic decision (say something to help Bush, get some US funding to support a weak nation)? Could Putin be tossing Bush a bone to mend a broken relationship following Russia’s opposition to the war?

As far as Bush’s pre-emptive stratgey in Iraq making us safer, how do you measure that? In the increase in terrorist attacks since 9-11? In the greater incidence of fatalities in terrorist attacks since 9-11? In the fact that the Middle East is less secure and more prone to hating America?

The logic here seems faulty.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]wlhcrow wrote:
Putin’s comments are interesting, but only in their timing – why now, when Bush is struggling to defend the war, and not when the war began, or prior to the war when Bush was trying to build a case? Could this be an economic decision (say something to help Bush, get some US funding to support a weak nation)? Could Putin be tossing Bush a bone to mend a broken relationship following Russia’s opposition to the war?

As far as Bush’s pre-emptive stratgey in Iraq making us safer, how do you measure that? In the increase in terrorist attacks since 9-11? In the greater incidence of fatalities in terrorist attacks since 9-11? In the fact that the Middle East is less secure and more prone to hating America?

The logic here seems faulty.[/quote]

As far as Putin goes, I don’t know how far to trust him. I would figure that if he actually wanted to “throw Bush a bone”, though, he wouldn’t have pointedly included a comment about being against the Iraq incursion. As to why he did say what he did: Who knows? He is ex-KGB, and has his own situation in Chechnya to deal with.

However, I find it interesting that when the only Russian opinion was criticism of Iraq, it was very important, aside from the fact of all the Russian contracts with Hussein, but now it’s very important to question Putin’s motivation. This is obviously a comment on general media coverage, and not to wlhcrow in particular.

As far as the measure of making us safer, I would first point out that measuring the effect of something that did not happen is impossible. To the extent the U.S. was not subject to the planned Hussein terrorist attacks, that is safer. If you want that quantified, go come up with the plans, and I will try to estimate the damage so that you can have a quantity to bandy about. However, to the extent there were attacks planned, and they did not occur, we are safer.

Also, look at the resources that have been given to domestic security and anti-terrorism. These make us safer as well, at least in the same way a wall made a city safer in the middle ages. The presence of the wall is a deterrent, and in some cases it will help prevent an actual attack. More needs to be done, but we are safer now than when Bush took office – even if you don’t “feel” safer because now you know more of what you have to fear.

We are hunting terrorists instead of deciding not to go get them when they are offered up. The war on Iraq has already produced dividend from other intransigent Middle Eastern countries: Libya came out with info on their nuclear weapons program, and Iran has been much more cooperative with investigations into its nuclear program (although this may be an area of large problems still, judging by recent events). And we have taken out two regimes, Afghanistan and Iraq, that were terrorist sponsors.

That is how we are safer.

As far as Middle East terrorism, I would love to see the numbers from someone that there were actually more terrorist attacks there; this is the kind of thing that actually is measurable – I know I hear it, and to the extent there are attacks in Iraq against us, I’m sure it’s correct – after all, it would be hard for there to be a lot of attacks against us in Iraq when we weren’t there – but I would like to see some numbers to back this claim up. As to how terrorism in the Middle East affect how safe we are here, I’m not certain of your logic?

As for people hating us more over there now: 1) When did they love us? There were people in the Middle East dancing in the street after September 11, which, in case you forgot, was before we went into Iraq; 2) Once again, irrespective of whether they like us over there now, I have yet to see a comparison showing that we are hated more now than before.

[wlhcrow]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

As far as Putin goes, I don’t know how far to trust him. I would figure that if he actually wanted to “throw Bush a bone”, though, he wouldn’t have pointedly included a comment about being against the Iraq incursion.
[/quote]

He has to protect his standing at home as well. I don’t trust the timing of the “revelation,” which I might actually believe if there were more proof than his word. Why didn’t Bush use this to justify his war? Seems exactly the kind of thing he has needed for months.

However, I find it interesting that when the only Russian opinion was criticism of Iraq, it was very important, aside from the fact of all the Russian contracts with Hussein, but now it’s very important to question Putin’s motivation. This is obviously a comment on general media coverage, and not to wlhcrow in particular.

Anyone with a little sense would have discovered that Russia and France both had deep economic interest in Iraqi oil. Both had big $$ contracts with Iraq that went into effect the moment the sanctions were lifted. The media just ignored this fact (60 Minutes did do a piece on it long before the Iraq War).

To the extent the U.S. was not subject to the planned Hussein terrorist attacks, that is safer.

I’m not convinced there were any planned attacks, which is the point of my original reply. We only have Putin’s word for it, and considering Bush’s problems with this war (here and abroad), either the info was not credible and that is why Bush never mentioned it, or it never happened and that is why Bush never mentioned it.

Also, look at the resources that have been given to domestic security and anti-terrorism. These make us safer as well, at least in the same way a wall made a city safer in the middle ages.

This is how we should be fighting the war on terror, as much as that is even possible. Homeland security (minus the Patriot Act) and covert operations to eliminate terrorists and their training camps. We will never be able to rid the world of terrorism with Bush’s approach – we’d have to be at war in Lybia, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, the Phillipenes, and on and on.

Libya came out with info on their nuclear weapons program, and Iran has been much more cooperative with investigations into its nuclear program (although this may be an area of large problems still, judging by recent events). And we have taken out two regimes, Afghanistan and Iraq, that were terrorist sponsors.

Lybia isn’t so good an example for your argument. They knew they would not be able to develop a nuclear program. It was a bait and switch while they tried to assassinate the Saudi royal family. Almost worked too. Iran? Not so good either, as you point out.

As to how terrorism in the Middle East affect how safe we are here, I’m not certain of your logic?

The government report actually shows an increase in world-wide terrorist attacks, not just the middle east. They tried to doctor the numbers (a mistake according to Powell, after they got caught), but the numbers are up world-wide, not just in Iraq or Israel.

As for people hating us more over there now: 1) When did they love us? There were people in the Middle East dancing in the street after September 11, which, in case you forgot, was before we went into Iraq; 2) Once again, irrespective of whether they like us over there now, I have yet to see a comparison showing that we are hated more now than before.

They have indeed hated us for a long time. Yet, Iraqis were mostly happy with their liberation, until we became an “Imperialist” force occupying their country. Sure, we plan to give them “full” control later this month, unless we want to do something else, then that control means nothing. We still hold all the power and they hate us for taking away their pride. This is true in the whole region.

Most of those who once saw the US as working to bring peace to the middle east now see us as the enemy. That’s the difference.

[Jay_Floyd]

It will never be enough for some people.

[Rainmaker]

Pre-Emption: Shooting the bad guy (burglar, rapist, murderer, arsonist) on the porch before he gets into the house.

[rainjack]

[quote]wlhcrow wrote:

Most of those who once saw the US as working to bring peace to the middle east now see us as the enemy. That’s the difference.
[/quote]

I don’t think the war on terror has a thing in the world to do with brining peace to the middle east. It’s about keeping the terrorists from pulling off an encore of 9/11 on our shores. Pre-emption.

I’d like to know who these people are that have changed their minds. It is my contention that no one has changed their minds on such a polarizing issue.

Those against the US’s actions are just yelling a lot louder now than they did a year ago - and they are able to do so with a complicit liberal media.

[Lumpy]

What is the point of the original article? That our friends the Russians also provided us with bogus WMD information that was used to chump our intelligence agencies?

I am sure that the Russians are having a good chuckle over our misadventures in Iraq. After all, the Russians had their own recent quagmire in Afghanistan, which was such a financial drain that it helped lead to the breakup of the Soviet Union. I’m not surprised if the Russians are encouraging us to keep spending over a billion dollars a week in Iraq, in a foolish wild goose chase attempt to install an American style democracy in the middle east. Our Iraq misadventure will most likely NOT result in a democracy in Iraq, and will squander hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and seriously deplete our military resources.

[BlackDog]

Since we are talking pre-emptive strikes here why then hasn’t the U.S. gone after Saudi Arabia? After all the majority of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and it also known that most of the Saudi people support Osama-BinLaden.

[rainjack]

[quote]BlackDog wrote:
Since we are talking pre-emptive strikes here why then hasn’t the U.S. gone after Saudi Arabia? After all the majority of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and it also known that most of the Saudi people support Osama-BinLaden. [/quote]

I agree with you 100%. The last straw for me was when they “caught” the last batch of beheading murderers just hours after the assasination.

You can’t trust them. They are self serving, and way too rich on the US’s dime.

[Lumpy]

Why don’t we go after the Saudis?

See Michael Moore’s new movie, apparently he goes into the deep ties between the Saudi royal family and the Bush family.

[rainjack]

Well if Moore says it - then you might as well book it. What with him being the beacon of truth shining in the darkness that is the Bush Administration, and all.