As I have followed the war over the years I noticed a few things. Bush Senior, said Iraq had WMD, so did the CIA and other intelligence services. Clinton his admin and the various intelligence agencies said Iraq had WMD and so did Bush Jr. Not to mention various political figures. See below

For example

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

Alexander Cockburn (on the Left side of the political spectrum) makes an interesting case that the Clinton admin sabatoged the UN inspections in Iraq (that would have found Iraq to be WMD free) for political purposes. See: http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew09292007.html

If that is true, then we have a then sitting US President, who in essence created an environment for a future war(s) and death of US soldiers, for domestic political purposes.

It is clear that many people on both sides of the isle, and the intelligence services of the US and different countries "believed" that Iraq had WMD. It turned out that they were all wrong. This is not the first time the intelligence services have been wrong. For example predicting the Soviet A-bomb, the start of the Korean war, the bomber and missile gaps of the late 50s and early 60s. On the other hand of things the intelligence community have been right about alot of things over the years as well.

Cheers,
Robert
(not the SecDef)

Gen. Mattis' MEU was the closest US force to Tora Bora, based S. of Kandahar, or so I read. Was interservice rivalry (the Army still PO'd over Belleau Wood) part of the general failure to march to the guns?

I think you may be fast forwarding on your comment to my response concerning Shelton dragging his feet on putting boots on the ground to go after al-Qaeda, long before the events around Spin Ghar played-out.

President Clinton asked about direct action raids on known al-Qaeda camps, but settled for cruise missile strikes, which fascinatingly, Shelton criticized with some quip about hitting a jungle jim playgrounds with something or other (I can't remember and ain't looking it up).

But it was Shelton himself that took any option for going after bin-Laden and his playmates off the table, by giving the ultimate no go, due not finding actionable enough intelligence - which apparently he never did (when do we ever?).

Again, I'd like to hear the retired General's spin on that, because I think this may have been worth the risk.

Incidentally, what really pissed the Army off toward the Corps was Gen. Holland Smith relieving MajGen Raymond Smith (gasp - a lot of Smiths to keep track of), from which rancor was still in evidence into the late 60's.

Yes, I plead anachronistically guilty of time-line slippage, but reserve the right to question the former MEU commander on/at a later time;)

Gen. Shelton's tour was mainly on the 2nd term Clinton geopolitical watch, paralleling the AQSL 1997-2001 offensive. I guess I'll have his 'staff doings' book to read on that subject, along with Gen. Zinni's command experience. Clinton-Gore were faced with 'escalating' to unrestricted (indiscriminate bombing on family baracks?) air warfare, and/or small war blows against a foe embedded in the Pashtun/ISI tar-baby.

By comparison, judging decisions against the moments they occurred in, keeping in ming that Gore was the foreign policy lead and Candidate, I have to remind myself that Team Bush's discombobulation in 2001 was typical for an incoming admin. The previos sentence stands as proof of something, I'm not sure what.

Re the whole 'beat Navy, ignore and censor the Corp at all costs' thing, it perpetuates over and over. The Army took a hit over the 1942 relief of their Pacific Commander, and then embarrased King by pointing out that the Navy was losing more transport in the Battle of the Atlantic than it was building. But the more recent insult is probably the one best remembered.

I recall Norman Schwarzkopf's description of pulling rank and command ropes (afloat and under way no less) to order a Marine Air Wing commander to lift unengaged Army troops across Grenada. The pain of it all.

...with an declaration of war? If it was so pressing why wait 4 plus years? These guys were going for murder just because they had a soft target with a treasury to loot. It was the trifecta for the neocons, chicken hawks, aging frat boys and profiteers with annuity rights. They just needed the blood lust to be turned up a bit then let the shock and awl guys provide the lynch mob entertainment.

The first 'battle Kandahar' was too small to distract from 9/11, and the bad guys got away. A 2002 push for executive accountability on failure to double up on lookouts in the Summer of '01 would have been hard to resist, without imminent threat from a well-branded baddy. As the man said, 'you can't touch me, I'm a War President'.

In another time and place, the general's said 'It's a shitty war, but it's the war we got.'

...it has been outsourced to the fundraisers for the athletic departments. Profiteers can be extorted to place some of the blood money behind winning the commander's trophy. Good press.

It prefer to consider it ethics...is it ethical that I say "aye..aye, sir" when told to engage in crowd manipulation, throw out two hundred years of history to place a jack of the snake on the bow as directed by an annuity beneficiary of the bloodletting I am about to commit? It is interesting to see the statue commemorating Stockdale at the academy. It is not the post Hanoi Hilton stoic, the aged wise Philosopher on literature, courage and ethics, Medal of Honor recipient. It is the younger pilot with the revolver on the thigh walking the flight line to the F-8 for another mission...the pilot who maybe by now had witnessed the vacuum behind the justification on which the Tonkin Resolution was based but still going on the strike ahead of 50,000 deceived souls to follow with names now scratched on a lifeless slab in Washington.

What is the Academy's message?

Maybe it is easier to understand the toadies' silence..the ease at which they went into creating havoc and Gitmo. How pliable to executing orders against forgotten codes and oaths. How good at serving up coffee or heads.

This discussion has nothing to do with the service academies. But having said that they spend an extraordinray amount of time on education of honor, moral and ethical theory and practice. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say hundreds of hours of instruction. USMAs motto has it right there...Duty, Honor, Country. Can't speak for Canoe U but I would guess the academies are all quite similar, though I have heard that USMA is far more rigid and in depth in execution. Certainly the academies do far more in 4 years than their counterparts at ROTC or OCS.

Maybe these guys need a refresh after 30 years of service. (War College?) But don't go blaming a commissioning source for something a GO is or isn't doing.

....how many years out is the ethical schooling still efficacious? Wolfie, Rummey, Cheney, et al didn't appear to think is lasted very long.

This morning K Parker did an editorial on the movie "Inside Job" and a quote caught me..

"Thus, the only remaining question is why some of these people aren't being prosecuted for fraud or at least shirking fiduciary duty." Maybe there is a common virus and fungus across the out put of the best schools no matter what profession to shirk duty...money always has an upside regardless when applied against credit derivatives or war plans....

Service academies, B-schools etc are for social access and career network development, all else is palaver. This war was an insider winner job.

"Why did our military elite go along with it? is the question."

An excellent question at that. Could career considerations may have something to do with it?

No one here is asking, why did General Shelton not resign and speak out at the time? Shouldn't he have taken a stance then instead of writing the obvious now from the safe confines of privileged retirement? While, on the one hand he needs to be applauded for his (belated bluntness), on the other he needs to be viewed with the same disdain that should be reserved for all high and mighty in the military for whom career calculations trump everything else.

Whether or not I am a liberal is irrelevant. I am willing to bet that Hugh Shelton isn't.

By spraying the word "liberal," St. Simon hopes to neutralize Shelton's charges. It is the verbal equivalent of putting his hands over his ears and shouting "I am not listening."

Best,
Tom

It was and is a dumb fucking war.

Sorry, Tom, that's wrong - I think I make it clear that in certain ways I don't disagree with much of what Shelton is saying, although the context in which I view the events of the war is certainly different from his - my point is that the way that the entrails of this 'old story' are regurgitated and picked through for telling signs of evil has a political motive - I mean you're the one who put political motivations on the table by insisting on making your ideological preferences known and so to see in this post a political agenda that has little to do with understanding the war according to objective criteria is not to be acting irrationally - in fact I suspect what we're seeing is the beginning of the campaign to rationalize Obama's looming failure in Afghanistan by blaming it all on Bush - not that Bush does not deserve much blame - but when the left can stand up and admit that Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq and embrace of the war in Afghanistan were all part of a cynical political calculation [in other words, in their own way lies] then I will start taking their interpretations of history more seriously.

Tom, a couple of notes
1. St Simon's explaination of the purposes behind the invasion are correct and were known and supported by "experts". See articles by Tom Friedman, Fuad Ajami and others at the time on the benefits that were to accrue. They were wrong as it turns out (and there were folks pointing this out at the time) but this was not some fringe/hidden rationale.
2. Everybody thought there were WMDs in Iraq. One of the major reasons for the emphasis on speed was to prevent them being used. The planners actually had lines drawn on the map on when their use would be triggered. To lie is to say something you know is not true - not the case here. Being wrong is not the same as lying.
3. The sanctions were seen as unsupportable over the long run. France, Russia and China were against them and the humanitarian cost was getting too high.
4. Saddam was not supporting AQ but most certainly was supporting other terrorists Remember the $25,000 paid to each "martyr's" family? I don't think the Bush admin ever directly linked Saddam with 9/11.

Now on to some lying
When Rumsfeld says there was no pressure on troop numbers from him - that is baldfaced

Bottom line
1. Assumptions going in were mostly wrong. The "what ifs" were not well thought out.
2. We adjusted poorly and slowly when the assumptions were proven wrong.
3. The campaign did not go according to plan (how about that for a novelty!)
4. Wars are (almost) always harder than expected. See Japan vs the US and Germany vs the USSR.

On Liberals. You are one (I guess). I'm a conservative. So what. Point is not to twist history for political purposes for either side.

What a bundle of mumbo jumbo....perhaps a reflection of the author's muddled mind, or a vain attempt to muddy the waters of a pointed discussion on America's ill-conceived invasion of Iraq.

None of what he writes makes sense. What is this guy really saying? Here we have a senior general coming clean about this mess.....and we still have people talking about 'liberals' and 'your boy Obama...", etc.?

The real issue here is: Are we as a nation willing to finally come to terms with the fact that our invasions (of Iraq and Afghanistan) have done us more harm than good....and what can be done to prevent a handful of partisans to railroad the nation into such adventures in the future. What has that got to do with Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, et al?

This whole post is so idiotic that engaging the author in a serious discussion would be akin to throwing a pebble in dung. It would do nothing to the dung....but it could splatter you.

Many things. Ill founded perhaps, ill resourced certainly, necessary questionable. But illegal...perhaps by international law (since we didn't attain UN authorization) but certainly not illegal under US law. Indeed a preponderance of our Congress functionally allowed the President to pursue that misadventure...and by funding it they gave up any right to protest. Thus my previous comment about Americas war...it is allour problem.

Please explain to me how President Bush complied with this:
Joint Resolution: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Resolution of 2002 (October 10, 2002):
Section 3, para (b)
PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Or, is it all "legal" because our "Slam Dunk intelligence" said it was?

Putting aside the intellectual dishonesty upon which OIF was marketed and spun, it was technically (if barely) legal under international law. Here's why:

BLUF: OIF was a U.N. enforcement action under Chapter VII, Art. 42 of the U.N. Charter ("Security Council may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security"). The U.S. and Iraq are both parties to the Charter and therefore obligated to adhere to its mandates and Security Council's resolutions.

Our story starts way back in August 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. In November 1990, the UN Security Council, through UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 678, imposed a January 15, 1991 deadline for Iraq to withdraw as required by UNSCR 660 - or else!

Interestingly (and importantly), UNSCR 678 authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and TO RESTORE INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE AREA[.]" (Caps added for emphasis.)

Obviously, Iraq failed to comply and Operation Desert Storm began with air strikes on January 17, 1990, followed by the ground assault on February 24, 1991. On February 28, 1991, the cessation of hostilities was declared.

Then, in April 1991, the Security Council issued UNSCR 687 (not to be confused with the aforementioned UNSCR 678). UNSCR 687 suspended the use of force by Coalition forces, imposed a cease fire on all parties, and forced certain WMD obligations (e.g., disarmament and inspections) on Iraq.

From 1991 through 2002, the Security Council repeatedly found Iraq in "material breach" of the disarmament requests pursuant to UNSCR 687.

Finally, in November 2002, at the behest of the Bush Administration, the Security Council issued UNSCR 1441, giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply with UNSCR 687 or face “serious consequences” (i.e., shock and awe).

As we know, Saddam refused to comply. As such, the Security Council declared a "material breach" of UNSCR 687, thereby removing the basis for the Desert Storm ceasefire under the same resolution. Notably, this also had the effect of reviving use of force authority "to restore international peace and security in the area," pursuant to UNSCR 678. Using that one line from UNSCR 678 for its legal basis under international law, OIF began on March 22, 2003...

Admittedly, a thin - if slick - veneer of legitimacy.

Thanks for doing that, so I didn't have to. I for one actually believe there were WMDs in Iraq - indeed some small stocks were found but quickly forgot (mostly chemical, sarin etc.) Likely not enough to really pursue this misadventure but certainly enough to violate the terms of the UN agreements. I am also of the opinion that most of that material was likely shuttled off to Syria or another willing neighbor.

Having said all that, it is thin gruel and it was a pretty dumb move, and the lack of Phase IV planning and poor resourcing of the whole effort (cough, cough 4ID still on the boat) tells me that it was a massive rush to failure. I wish it hadn't happened but I think it foolish, stupid and retroactive to call it illegal, or Bush's war. Given the congressional involvement for all intents and purposes it's America's Pottery Barn breakage and we are stuck with the mess. (It would call into question the implementation of the War Powers Act - maybe that whole thing needs revisiting, you know checks and balances and declarations of war, which have been pretty scant for the last 6 decades).

There's plenty of people with formerly blood filled eyes and raging anger who have forgotten what they were really thinking back then in favor of the new conventional wisdom and 20/20 hindsight.

Hunter, please don't attempt to pet my head. Yes, you are damn right I was pissed back then and I'm still pissed. I had skin in the game and going downtown Baghdad with boots on the ground was and is the most idiotic plan.
Neither you or Legal Eagle has made the case for international law compliance. Please prove to me that 687 was NOT compiled with by the Iraqi government. There were inspectors in there--they didn't find shit. Bush refused to send them back, contrary to the US Congress Joint Resolution. The Iraqis produced mounds of documents pre-invasion that the Bush administration just ridiculed.
The original question was, however, domestic law. One of you two guys needs to produce some unequivical evidence that the Chief Executive had the right, legally, for the United Staes of America to invade another country--I don't give a shit if we didn't like the place or its leader--without being attacked first or viable provocation of direct threat upon the "homeland". Calling the farces of aluminum tubes and ICBMs maybe in the works is not going to work. Stating that Hussein used gas already and he "could do it again" is bogus.
You guys are doing the 20/20 bit. Can you remember back to 2002/03 when this stupid shit went down? Can you, without revisionism, remember the absolute crap that was feed to us at that time? Cheney and Condi saying "mushroom clouds"? Doesn't matter if you "think" Saddam had stuff. Was he the threat that was pushed down out throats? Are you still falling victim to all this? I think you are both smarter. Show me the contemporary evidence that Hussein wasn't complying and therefore USA had the "right" to invade.

It was wrong of me to mention the "skin in the game" angle. We ALL had skin in the game. My emotions tend to guide me at times. I'm concerned about the nation, our land, our society, our heritage, and the Armed Services that we care about. I lost my son in Iraq, but many of you reading this lost troops under and with you. I know that and I'm sorry to highlight my story.

Thanks for the retraction but no need really. We all get testy and snotty in here sometimes, but you have more reason than most of us to be upset. We all understand that you lost your son and are rightfully angry. And yes many of us have skin in the game, or we are STILL the skin in the game.

I don't recall with any clarity what my thinking was back then. The two things that stand out in my mind now are: "Shouldn't we finish this war we're in before starting another one?", and "Wait a minute, let me get this right, we haven't diplomatically cleared this northern front thing with Turkey yet, and now we are going to leave our most technologically advanced Division (4th ID where I commanded a tank company previously) on the boats while we assault?" That was my first real inclination that we were gonna screw the Iraq thing up.

Those things struck me as...well...really dumb. Honestly, call me gullible but I think I, like many people, was sucked in when old Colin Powell went to bat with all that (now we know) flaky evidence at the UN. We all had faith in him, and I don't think he ever knowlingly lied...but he was certainly duped (as the rest of the world was) into the entire WMD argument.

Again, I tend to believe sufficient supplies of Chem Bio weapons really were in Iraq, and now are in Syria. They used it frequently in the Iran War, so why not think that it was a possible threat? I don't think they had a nuke capability but they were likely working on it.

In the heady days after 9-11 and the anthrax scare just the idea that a terrorist group receiving a few choice handouts from Saddam Hussein - who was a state-sponsor of terrorists - might make another bold attack in the subways of NYC or D.C. had lots of people in the U.S. shaking in their boots.

It easy now to forget all that stuff. We are more consumed with Chilean miners and the Situations bad dancing. The world crumbles around us and we fiddle away.

Just to be clear, I was only explaining the legal hook under international law (i.e., the UN Charter) for the invasion. Whether the UNSC was correct in its findings of a material breach is another matter and not the point of my comment.

Link to this data table pls.

That website has a lot of headlines, none of which link to your list.

I'm not a skeptic about contractor abuses, but I'm wondering where you got all those numbers.