What if military defied Bush orders to invade Iraq?

burmafrd

Banned
ASB. Saddam had continuosly violated the cease fire agreement. Authorization for future action was still in effect by UN. Legally we could have gone after Saddam anytime from about 93 on.
The BS about Kellog and the UN Charter are from those with no real knowledge of what those documents actually have in them.
 
Uhhh.... wasn't just about everyone in the US convinced at the time that Saddam had WMDs??? I mean... we WERE kinda told that (almost constantly) all throughout most of the 90's. People believed that he had some sorta weapon or weapons... that and this was like... almost right after 9/11... So I don't see this happening outside the world of ASB.
 
True, most people believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. Yes, we were told that for years by the government and the media...
HOWEVER, Iraqi defector Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) told at least the UN and CNN that Iraq had NO WMDs- in 1995. (He may have told the US and UK as well.) CNN broadcast it, even if most people didn't notice. His UN statement was leaked in 2002, but it didn't stop the war. In addition, weapons inspector Scott Ritter told the world in 2000 that Iraq was effectively disarmed. Nobody listened to him. (This was before he was smeared as a sex offender. (It should be noted that A. the case against him was dismissed by the proscecution and B. If he were a sex offender, he couldn't keep his job as a firefighter.))
Further, even in the runup to war, the UN inspectors were going to the sites the US and UK told them about...and finding nothing whatsoever.
 
To the topic: Well that would have sucked. That would have really really sucked if they hadn't followed orders. I ponder such in the 2008 in terms of Iran attack and I honestly couldn't decide. On the one hand, an attack on Iran in 2008 would be insane. On the other hand, military refusing civilian orders is a very very bad and frightening sign. The damage would probably be greater if they refused orders.
 

stalkere

Banned
Straight up; I was working in an intel section at 21AF from 2000-2003. I was looking at intel reports 12 hours a day for months prior to the invasion.

There was a LOT of stuff that sure seemed to indicate the WMDs in Iraq...all I personally had was a vague disquiet that "something was wrong", that something didn't quite add up, that it was a tactical deception, but nothing concrete to prove the WMD evidence was a fake.

I'm not making this up to clear myself, I really did feel like something was wrong, but I was told by people above me to "shut up and soldier", that I didn't understand what I was looking at, that this was a genuine threat and not a deception.

I was told by my boss, privately, that he shared some of my concerns, but the people above him thought the evidence was pretty clear-cut. So we assumed that the folks in DC had access to further intel that we weren't privy to, and marched on.

Since then, there has been a lot of revisionist history, and CYA, and a lot of people pointing the finger at Bush and denouncing him as an idiot.

But I remember a flood tide of folks convincing him that the threat was there, and a lot of people backing him up, until the WMD were not found, and now he's a dumbass and a lone wolf. Didn't look that way in 2002, though.

But the military ALWAYS obeys the orders of duly constituted civilian authority, even when we think the civilian authority is a bunch of dumbasses, because that's the way things run in the US.

The last time any large numbers of the US military defied the orders of the President was in 1861, when they told Lincoln to take a hike.

That did not turn out well, especially for the officers that defied the President.

To postulate the US military behaving any differently than they did in 2003, involves a POD near 1861, or ASBs.

period.
 
Is this before or after Roddy Piper blows up the transmitter that allows the president to disguise his appearance as a skull faced alien? Before is ASB, but after is somewhat more plausible.
 
Top