BCT Editorial – 9/23/04

This page was last updated on September 25, 2004.

Post-war plans; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 23, 2004.

This editorial is the latest attempt to convince us that because our Iraq operations are not going like an episode from “Mission: Impossible,” there was no plan. In other words, the editorial wants us to believe a plan would have guaranteed everything would have proceeded as a Hollywood script. Sorry, but there’s a reason the following quote is popular: “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”

As much as the editorial tells us there was no plan, the editorial provides no proof. The editorial wants us to equate proceeding despite warnings with having no plan. The problem is, every plan has its own set of warnings. No plan, even doing nothing, has its warnings. The undeniable progress in Iraq is evidence of planning, unless you want to believe that everything good that has happened was by accident.

A second goal of the editorial is to convince us John Kerry is not a “flip-flopper” on the Iraq War.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“It turns out that President Bush wasn’t the only national leader who ignored warnings of the chaos that could ensue in Iraq following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

“Reuters news service reports British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and other senior officials warned Prime Minister Tony Blair of the danger, which Blair ignored.”

[RWC] Let’s see, being warned of potential chaos and proceeding anyway is “ignoring” the warnings? All military operations are preceded by warnings. After all, there are no guarantees. If our leaders had not proceeded because of warnings, we would not have had the American Revolution, the Civil War, D-Day, et cetera.

Instead of being surprised about warnings, we should have been surprised had there been no warnings. People in the U.K. government would not have been doing their jobs had they not presented Tony Blair with “best care,” “worst case,” and everything in between scenarios. The same is true for the U.S. government and President Bush.

“In March 2002, Straw wrote a letter marked ‘secret and personal’ to Blair warning that there were no preparations for what might happen in Iraq after an invasion. ‘No one has satisfactorily answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better,’ Straw wrote.

[RWC] The editorial claims Jack Straw warned Tony Blair “that there were no preparations for what might happen in Iraq after an invasion.” The quote used by the editorial to support that claim does no such thing. Straw wrote that there were no guarantees “that the replacement regime will be any better.” When we engaged World War II, were there any guarantees the replacement regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan would be better?

“He wasn’t alone in raising questions. Reuters reports that senior ministerial advisers were concerned about the length of time U.S. and British forces would need to be in post-war Iraq. They warned that success would only be achieved if the United States and others committed to ‘nation building for many years.’

“‘The greater investment of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq’s future, but the greater the cost and the longer we would need to stay,’ the paper reportedly stated.

[RWC] This is a “duh” moment. Everyone who cared about the issue raised questions. Every person who thought about Iraq for more than a second thought about how much the effort would cost in terms of lives and money. All of that goes into making the decision to go to war. It is our leaders’ job to take in all of the information, warnings, et cetera and make a decision.

“And for those who criticize Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry of flip-flopping in regard to his vote to authorize war with Iraq while taking a different position now, it turns out the Conservative Party, Britain’s main opposition party, has done the same thing.”

[RWC] Not exactly. John Kerry has bounced back and forth several times depending on his political opponent and the polls. In early August 2004, Kerry said he would still have voted for the Iraq War Resolution knowing what he knew now. Now in late September, Kerry says we would not be in Iraq if he had been president.

That is not the case for the U.K. Conservative Party. The Reuters article said the opposition Conservatives “backed Blair over the war but later said their support was based on bogus intelligence information from his security services.” Remember, Kerry said in August he would make the same decision even knowing about the incorrect intelligence. The Conservative Party did not.

I believe this paragraph is another attempt by Kerry supporters to deny the “flip-flopper” label by showing other parties changed their position on an issue. As I wrote in another critique, “It’s important to note that ‘flip-flopping’ is not simply changing your mind occasionally. Any reasonable person changes his mind from time to time. A flip-flopper is a person who can rarely make up his mind on any issue and stick with it.”

“Conservatives now believe they were duped by Blair. Their support of the war effort was crucial because many Labor Party members in and out of Parliament did not support their prime minister on this issue.

“Without the support of the Conservative Party, Parliament would not have backed Blair.

“Conservatives said the Straw document revealed a lack of a comprehensive reconstruction plan for Iraq, Reuters reported.

“‘The assurances given to us by both the prime minister and Jack Straw that such a plan was in hand were clearly misleading,’ the party’s foreign affairs spokesman said.

“This comes on top of their belief that their support for the war had been based on bogus intelligence information.”

[RWC] Hmm, the opposition party wouldn’t make purely political statements, would it? Remember, though Conservatives supported Tony Blair’s Iraq decision, overall they oppose Blair and making him look good is not in the best interest of the Conservative Party.

“What’s happening in the United States is happening in Britain. The parallels can’t be ignored.”

[RWC] Of course there are parallels. What would you expect unless you believed everyone on both sides of the Atlantic held exactly the same beliefs? Of course, if everyone held the same beliefs we wouldn’t be having this exchange.