Operation Iraqi Freedom FAQ: Critical responses to leaders and pundits

PREFACE: The basic premise of the OIF FAQ is that hewing to the bedrock law, policy, precedent, and facts that define the Iraq issue is the closest we can reach the truth of the matter and the best way to cut through the prevalent conjecture, distorted context, and misinformation that have obfuscated the Iraq issue. However, truthful knowledge is not the same thing as public expert authority. Both attributes are needed to effectually clarify the Iraq issue for the public in the narrative contest for the zeitgeist, where the truth is just a narrative that must be competed for like any other in the political arena. Therefore, leaders and pundits are needed to set the record straight.

Competing narratives of the why of OIF are simple to sort on the merits. Since the Iraq issue comprises the defining post-Cold War American-led international law enforcement, the actual why of OIF is readily understood simply by referring to the readily accessible, plainly stated law, policy, precedent, fact record of the UNSCR 660-series compliance enforcement. The law and policy, fact basis of the Iraq intervention is extraordinarily well developed due to the long, iterative focus on the Saddam regime's noncompliance that preceded Iraq's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441). When the body of discourse and data is filtered through the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) and its operative enforcement procedure, the clarified Iraq issue that emerges is eminently straightforward.

In that light, I'll just say this about the leaders and pundits who misrepresent the Iraq issue to the public: Wherever a public expert authority contradicts the bedrock law, policy, precedent, and facts that define the Iraq issue, it's the public expert authority — not the primary source authorities — that's discredited. The OIF FAQ is designed as a cheat sheet as well as a study guide to help readers learn the primary source authorities for themselves, so they can determine where a leader or pundit credibly accords with the operative law and facts and where he or she has misinformed the public contra the operative law and facts.

Enjoy these selected critical responses to leaders and pundits:

Clarification of the Iraq issue in Congressional Research Service report "Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications" (Jennifer Elsea, Matthew Weed)

Correction of Richard Haass's "Revisiting America’s War of Choice in Iraq"

Review of the American Enterprise Institute's "The Iraq War Series 20 Years Later"

Review of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver's "Lessons from the Iraq War"

Explaining the grounds for Operation Iraqi Freedom to a law professor (Chibli Mallat)

Correcting Mario Loyola: UNSCR 1441 did place the burden of proof on Iraq

Augmenting William Inboden's critique of J.E. Smith's Bush biography regarding Iraq

Critical responses to James Fallows, Allan Lichtman, Philip Bobbitt, and Steven A. Cook

Critique of the Iraq-related portions of Miller Center's revised "George W. Bush: Foreign Affairs" (Sheila Blackford)

Responses to substantive criticisms from The Strategy Bridge editors (Rebuke of Jordan Chandler Hirsch's "Freedom from Iraq: How the GOP Can End the War over the War")

Critical response to John Rentoul's "Chilcot Report: Politicians"

For more, see the Expanded list of responses to leaders, pundits, and other media.