9 ms·

The NYTimes itself is also a considerable part of the reason, considering Judith Miller, Friedman, Krauthammer and many others propagandized hard for invading I

The NYTimes itself is also a considerable part of the reason, considering Judith Miller, Friedman, Krauthammer and many others propagandized hard for invading Iraq.

pmyjavec 10y ago
Oh, the irony of this being published in the New York Times, it burns!
nl 10y ago
The invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea, and the NYTimes should be ashamed for that. But the real problems occurred in the disastrous power vacuum and complete lack of a plan that occurred after the war was won. That's what tore Iraq and the Middle East apart. I don't think the NYTimes has any responsibility for that.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Indeed. I can't recommend this Frontline piece highly enough - "Losing Iraq". Its practically a case book study on the missteps that took place under the leadership of Paul Bremmer a Kissinger associate and who was chosen to lead the CPA - Coalition Provisional Authority(the transition government) after the US took Baghdad. Bremmer knew nothing of Iraqi politics and was only briefed on them on the flight to Baghdad. The largest mistake was his decision to dissolve the Iraqi Army, followed closely by the de-Baathification of the government in country that only has a single political party - the Baath Party. Bremmer had near autonomy in his decision making. This is perhaps one of the best pieces I have seen on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq/
  - brassic 10y ago
    "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Baghdad's Green Zone" is an excellent book on the same topic. What is most staggering (to a foreigner like me anyway) is how the appointment of American administrators in Iraq was entirely driven by American politics. Experience and competence were of no importance. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Baghdads/dp/0747592896 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Baghdads...
    - sevenless 10y ago
      This is an understatement. I recall one episode in that book where a competent manager in Baghdad was fired because he didn't hate abortion.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  > I don't think the NYTimes has any responsibility for that. Except for never mentioning the fact or investigating what the consequences of the war they were propagandizing were likely to be.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Agreed on this point. The NY Times is the newspaper of record in the United States. And as such they hold responsibility both for their editorial policy that allowed Judith Miller's stories about WMDs. What's more remarkable is how unapologetic she is about her own involvement. This is worth a listen(the second half) http://www.wnyc.org/story/bobs-grill-1-judith-miller/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/bobs-grill-1-judith-miller/
    - marcusgarvey 10y ago
      Iraq, the surprising arrival of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Brexit shock, rise of Trump...the commentator classes of New York, DC, London and other "tastemaker" cities need to reckon with their failures and understand why they were so utterly wrong. Instead, in most cases, we see doubling down and demonization of the other side. It's quite extraordinary. The black swans are coming fast and thick.
      - bogomipz 10y ago
        What are the "commentator classes"? People who take an active interest in their society? People who try to stay informed? Is that a "class"? What is a "taste maker" city? Please explain what they are and how you pin all the worlds ills on them. New York, DC and London are responsible for the worlds problems? I honestly have no idea what you are are talking about.
        marcusgarvey 10y ago
        I'm not talking about all the world's ills but rather 4 recent events with global, often disastrous consequences. Perhaps it is news to you, but there is a certain kind of person who makes their daily bread on the strength of their supposed expertise in politics, economics and finance. Think tankers, Davos panelists, former political appointees, the experts commonly cited in papers like the FT, NYTimes, WaPo, and the journalists and editorialists who give them ink and air time. They didn't see these events coming, despite the fact that the dynamics leading up to each one had been building for some time. They never seem to admit that they were wrong, and seemingly no one expects them to as they continue to carry on on the lecture and cited expert circuits. Worst of all, they do not seem to recognize that they are just as vulnerable to groupthink as anyone and they never seem to improve their methods of investigation which for me would mean consciously traveling out of the media capitals of New York, DC and London to visit and talk to people in other parts to get a better handle on popular sentiment; being hyper aware of when they might be trading integrity for access and status; and not being too prideful to take a look at alternative points of view from bloggers and commentators who do not trod the same carpeted halls.
- finid 10y ago
  > But the real problems occurred in the disastrous power vacuum and complete lack of a plan that occurred after the war was won. No, the real problem was invading a country that posed no threat to us. That was the real crime. The power vacuum could not have happened without that illegal invasion.
  - nl 10y ago
    Yes, I agree entirely. Is there a way I can say both that the invasion was stupid AND that it could (not should!) have worked out ok afterwards if the US had a plan? I think that it is worth noting all the things that went wrong, not just the stupidity of the invasion itself.
jcbeard 10y ago
The invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was likely illegal, based on false pretenses, and well....shouldn't have happened. The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days). The US Military performed splendidly. The follow through (driven by political leaders) was idiotic. Stupid decisions like not listening to his generals (Bush), disbanding the Iraqi security forces (Paul Bremer), and the odd focus on turning on the oil taps as soon as possible after the invasion doomed any hope of short term success (yeah, sure, lets pay for the invasion with oil...that'll work, right). Many generals argued for an occupation force in the millions to keep the peace. If the occupation were modeled after the plan for Germany in WW2 where the allies planned for a prolonged insurgency (that never really appeared, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf), we should have had more troops than were available in the entire US Military combined. Likely given a real, concerted effort (Marshall Plan-like) to re-build Iraq after we'd destroyed it, we might have had a chance. Oil never lasts, it's not sustainable, and in every country where natural resource mining is dominant, we see a rise of more despotism. We never understood the cultures of Iraq, nor will most people. To defeat an enemy you have to understand them (see Sun Tzu). NYT isn't the only problem. Our pride was the problem. We thought we could fix everything, do it better. The US was led by a person (Bush) who spouted all kinds of wonderful nationalistic straight talk (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year). Bush had no real plans and he unfortunately didn't listen to his experienced military leaders. He, as the commander in chief, is where the buck should stop for Iraq...and the long slow disaster that followed. Sure, we're all to blame for going along, but short of impeachment from our congress there is nothing the American people could have done to stop it.
- tdkl 10y ago
  > (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year) Someone else running for president this year has pledged that the first act of her address would be removing Assad. Which brings us back at the beginning of stupid actions.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    She has to pay for the campaign/Clinton foundation donations somehow. Mark my words a vote for Hillary is a vote for war.[0] [0]https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-contractor-employees-give-most-money-hillary-clinton https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-con...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
musha68k 10y ago
I just click for the comments whenever I see a shared NYTimes story on HN, something I deliberately try not to do usually.

The NYTimes itself is also a considerable part of the reason, considering Judith Miller, Friedman, Krauthammer and many others propagandized hard for invading Iraq.

pmyjavec 10y ago

Oh, the irony of this being published in the New York Times, it burns!

nl 10y ago

The invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea, and the NYTimes should be ashamed for that. But the real problems occurred in the disastrous power vacuum and complete lack of a plan that occurred after the war was won. That's what tore Iraq and the Middle East apart. I don't think the NYTimes has any responsibility for that.

bogomipz 10y ago
Indeed. I can't recommend this Frontline piece highly enough - "Losing Iraq". Its practically a case book study on the missteps that took place under the leadership of Paul Bremmer a Kissinger associate and who was chosen to lead the CPA - Coalition Provisional Authority(the transition government) after the US took Baghdad. Bremmer knew nothing of Iraqi politics and was only briefed on them on the flight to Baghdad. The largest mistake was his decision to dissolve the Iraqi Army, followed closely by the de-Baathification of the government in country that only has a single political party - the Baath Party. Bremmer had near autonomy in his decision making. This is perhaps one of the best pieces I have seen on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq/
- brassic 10y ago
  "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Baghdad's Green Zone" is an excellent book on the same topic. What is most staggering (to a foreigner like me anyway) is how the appointment of American administrators in Iraq was entirely driven by American politics. Experience and competence were of no importance. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Baghdads/dp/0747592896 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Baghdads...
  - sevenless 10y ago
    This is an understatement. I recall one episode in that book where a competent manager in Baghdad was fired because he didn't hate abortion.
SixSigma 10y ago
> I don't think the NYTimes has any responsibility for that. Except for never mentioning the fact or investigating what the consequences of the war they were propagandizing were likely to be.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Agreed on this point. The NY Times is the newspaper of record in the United States. And as such they hold responsibility both for their editorial policy that allowed Judith Miller's stories about WMDs. What's more remarkable is how unapologetic she is about her own involvement. This is worth a listen(the second half) http://www.wnyc.org/story/bobs-grill-1-judith-miller/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/bobs-grill-1-judith-miller/
  - marcusgarvey 10y ago
    Iraq, the surprising arrival of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Brexit shock, rise of Trump...the commentator classes of New York, DC, London and other "tastemaker" cities need to reckon with their failures and understand why they were so utterly wrong. Instead, in most cases, we see doubling down and demonization of the other side. It's quite extraordinary. The black swans are coming fast and thick.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      What are the "commentator classes"? People who take an active interest in their society? People who try to stay informed? Is that a "class"? What is a "taste maker" city? Please explain what they are and how you pin all the worlds ills on them. New York, DC and London are responsible for the worlds problems? I honestly have no idea what you are are talking about.
      - marcusgarvey 10y ago
        I'm not talking about all the world's ills but rather 4 recent events with global, often disastrous consequences. Perhaps it is news to you, but there is a certain kind of person who makes their daily bread on the strength of their supposed expertise in politics, economics and finance. Think tankers, Davos panelists, former political appointees, the experts commonly cited in papers like the FT, NYTimes, WaPo, and the journalists and editorialists who give them ink and air time. They didn't see these events coming, despite the fact that the dynamics leading up to each one had been building for some time. They never seem to admit that they were wrong, and seemingly no one expects them to as they continue to carry on on the lecture and cited expert circuits. Worst of all, they do not seem to recognize that they are just as vulnerable to groupthink as anyone and they never seem to improve their methods of investigation which for me would mean consciously traveling out of the media capitals of New York, DC and London to visit and talk to people in other parts to get a better handle on popular sentiment; being hyper aware of when they might be trading integrity for access and status; and not being too prideful to take a look at alternative points of view from bloggers and commentators who do not trod the same carpeted halls.
finid 10y ago
> But the real problems occurred in the disastrous power vacuum and complete lack of a plan that occurred after the war was won. No, the real problem was invading a country that posed no threat to us. That was the real crime. The power vacuum could not have happened without that illegal invasion.
- nl 10y ago
  Yes, I agree entirely. Is there a way I can say both that the invasion was stupid AND that it could (not should!) have worked out ok afterwards if the US had a plan? I think that it is worth noting all the things that went wrong, not just the stupidity of the invasion itself.

jcbeard 10y ago

The invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was likely illegal, based on false pretenses, and well....shouldn't have happened. The invasions initial execution was beautiful (first few days). The US Military performed splendidly. The follow through (driven by political leaders) was idiotic. Stupid decisions like not listening to his generals (Bush), disbanding the Iraqi security forces (Paul Bremer), and the odd focus on turning on the oil taps as soon as possible after the invasion doomed any hope of short term success (yeah, sure, lets pay for the invasion with oil...that'll work, right). Many generals argued for an occupation force in the millions to keep the peace. If the occupation were modeled after the plan for Germany in WW2 where the allies planned for a prolonged insurgency (that never really appeared, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf), we should have had more troops than were available in the entire US Military combined. Likely given a real, concerted effort (Marshall Plan-like) to re-build Iraq after we'd destroyed it, we might have had a chance. Oil never lasts, it's not sustainable, and in every country where natural resource mining is dominant, we see a rise of more despotism. We never understood the cultures of Iraq, nor will most people. To defeat an enemy you have to understand them (see Sun Tzu). NYT isn't the only problem. Our pride was the problem. We thought we could fix everything, do it better. The US was led by a person (Bush) who spouted all kinds of wonderful nationalistic straight talk (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year). Bush had no real plans and he unfortunately didn't listen to his experienced military leaders. He, as the commander in chief, is where the buck should stop for Iraq...and the long slow disaster that followed. Sure, we're all to blame for going along, but short of impeachment from our congress there is nothing the American people could have done to stop it.

tdkl 10y ago
> (sounds like somebody that's running for president this year) Someone else running for president this year has pledged that the first act of her address would be removing Assad. Which brings us back at the beginning of stupid actions.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  She has to pay for the campaign/Clinton foundation donations somehow. Mark my words a vote for Hillary is a vote for war.[0] [0]https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-contractor-employees-give-most-money-hillary-clinton https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-con...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

musha68k 10y ago

I just click for the comments whenever I see a shared NYTimes story on HN, something I deliberately try not to do usually.