Well, thanks to @besttrousers for dropping the Iraq WMD grenade in my lap - you shall pay, Matt - but one thing to remember is that Saddam could have screwed over Bush and Blair by complying with UN demands at the last minute. In fact, U.S. was worried he'd do that. /1
@besttrousers Saddam's own generals later were debriefed and said stuff like "Well, my unit didn't have them, but the units near me did." When you're so good at this your own generals think they exist, you can imagine that foreign intel agencies aren't betting on the under. /2
@besttrousers No major intel agency anywhere dissented from the basic view that Iraq was hiding WMD. Weapons inspectors wanted more time to prove a negative, that Iraq *didn't* have them. Duelfer later found none, but intent to preserve the WMD programs for quick restart. /3
You can argue that invading Iraq was a bad idea, badly executed, or badly premised on WMD as the major reason. But "experts were stupid and everyone knew there was no WMD" is just 20-years-later retconning for a war that went bad for a lot of reasons.
/4x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I am being a bear about the WMD historical record is not to rehab Bush and especially not Rumsfeld (who anyone who knew me in 2002-2006 could tell you I despised). I am doing so in part because a lot of good people you've never heard of were doing their best to figure it out. /1
One of the things I learned writing a book about preventive war is that a lot of people in the U.S. and Europe who worked these issues were genuinely worried and weren't sure what they were seeing. They were terrified of getting it wrong. /2
The political pressure on them to find a way to rationalize taking out Saddam was intense, but the idea of "taking out Saddam" was not as reviled as it is now, no matter what revisionism you're being fed. The idea that everyone was lying is shitting on decent people. /3
"I think that our policy to change regimes is a good one. We should support a new regime in Iraq. And I think we should try the arms inspection one more time, because I think we also have big long-term benefits in cooperation with our allies through the United Nations." /1
"I don't think it will be a great military problem if we do it. You know, our guys did great there the last time, in the Gulf War. We're stronger, and he's weaker than he was then." /2
"The security challenge will be, you can't surprise him. You've got to move a lot of people in. And if he has chemical and biological agents, AND I BELIEVE HE DOES, he would have no incentive not to use them then, if he knew he was going to be killed anyway and deposed."
/3
I think where @fmkaplan and @NarangVipin I are getting our wires crossed on nuclear strategy is that Fred is thinking of the SIOP Kennedy was briefed on where we hit China just to be sure, to which USMC commandant Shoup viscerally objected. Fred is right, we had that plan. /1
@fmkaplan@NarangVipin But "counterforce," the idea that we could strike military targets *first* and hope for some sort of cease-fire and "intra-war deterrence" was built in to our strategy. This was not a Reagan innovation. It was aspirational but limited by bomber slowness and missile accuracy. /2
What looks like a "counterforce revolution" later is just better technology that lets us decrease the megatonnage we're throwing at the same targets, but the idea was still to hit military targets first, limit the damage, and then melt everything else if there's no letup. /3x
Okay, so, I'm back and I'm going to tell you guys why you're probably wrong about the end of the Cold War, and putting "/1" on this tweet means I'm not done so hold your water until you see an "/x" in a tweet.
/1
For one thing, it is bad reasoning to be mono-maniacal about "it was Reagan" or "it was Gorby!" History is more complex than that.
Also, you're all starting way too late. You have to back to about 1975, the U.S. low point in the Cold War. Vietnam, stagflation, NATO crumbling. /2
This is the time the Soviets think that the world is turning in their favor. They make some mistakes: They refuse to think about economic reform, and they begin a process of imperial over-extension and binging on arms buildups that even they later admit was crazy. /3
I always liked "Have You Ever Seen The Rain," so now you all have to endure a story. I was a kid staying with my relatives and my grandma in Greece with my two U.S. cousins in 1971.
/1
We were all 10 and we were stuck in what was then a small town in Greece (now a bigger city, Patras) and pretty much nothing to do but get yelled at for playing outside and chasing chickens around while Greeks were having their siesta, and we were so homesick and bored. /2
And we pulled up the AM radio one day, and somehow we caught a lucky bounce off the ionosphere and picked up US Armed Forces radio in Crete, and it was "Have You Ever Seen the Rain." And we were the happiest kids for three minutes. /3
Some of you have noted my willingness now to use "traitorous" to describe FOX hosts plumping for Russia. I use this word to be distinct from "treason" which has a specific meaning in the Constitution. /1
I think - and as always, I speak for no one but myself - when you root for an avowed enemy of the United States and prefer their leaders to your own, you are a traitor to your country. You are supporting those who seek the destruction of your country's system of government. /2
I see no reason to pussyfoot around with "un-American." Lots of things are "un-American" but we can disagree about what they are. But when you are gleefully contemplating Putin kicking Biden's ass in a public debate, you've gone past un-American. /3