On the invasion of Iraq

Remove all ads!

I thought this was interesting:

"GEORGE Bush’s former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein."

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” O’Neill said. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

The full article, here:

http://www.sundayherald.com/39221

 

That's from the Army War College, hardly a partisan Democrat stronghold. The whole piece can be found here.

In brief, they suggest a more modest approach to the war on terror, pointing out the imminent threat ... by overstretch of US forces. To put it in someone elses words: Eradicate evil? That's God's job

 

Since I read the initial report on O'Neill's statement, I've been watching to see how this develops. Oddly, other than the coverage this weekend, this seemingly caustic topic is quiet.

I'm waiting to see what the conservative counterpoint is, other than the obvious (but perhaps relevant) "sour grapes" argument.

I'm very curious to see how this plays out.

 

If nothing else, it may encourage others to step forward. I for one believe him, if for no other reason than Bush's cabinet's attempts to discredit him already. This was totally expected of course, but it's what they're saying that strikes me as odd.

Paul O'Neill is no stranger to politics. He served under Nixon, for God's sake. He's been involved with the White House for decades. This man's history is wide open, and they knew who they were getting when they hired him. Considering the calculation with which Bush's cabinet and administration was put together, I find it extremely difficult to believe they would recruit someone known for his "wacky" ideas. If this was his MO, they wouldn't have let him anywhere near the White House.

In his case, they miscalculated. They thought he would play ball and not argue, but he did. They thought his loyalty to the office and to the party would override his judgement, and they were wrong. I for one believe him, and not just because I want to. If I thought for a minute this was a "sour grapes" thing, I wouldn't buy it. But it should also be noted that the book that's coming out is not his book, and he isn't getting a dime for it. He's just the key source, though the author has hundreds of sources.

 

I predict this won't play out in the American Press at all.

 

Are we still talking about Iraq?!?!?!? That's so...2003!

 

Actually it is playing, espcially since his interview with 60 minutes. Maybe someone needs to tell the soldeirs and Iraqis still dying in Iraq that the war is so "2003."

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3925358/

 

Well...yeah...but this had been standard American policy from '91. There was a coherent case to be made, Dean-style, for merely containing Hussein, or ignoring him entirely, or acknowleding his threat but also acknowledging that money, mien, and men invested in beating him weren't worth it. But that wasn't the case the US government made - under Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II - when the government passed resolutions, signed executive orders, invested in Iraqi insurgents, defied UN peacekeeping to lob cruise missiles into Baghdad, etc.

I really don't see what the problem is with the idea that - imagine! - Bush actually had a foreign policy beyond mere reaction to the disaster-du-jour.

Oh, per "sour grapes", ArtEChoke - I don't have a problem with O'Neill contributing to a kick-and-tell book. That's the dubious privilege of being one of the very, very few people fired from the Bush administration. If anything, the conservative complaint has been that Bush hasn't fired ENOUGH people!

 

@ GM

Thomas Scully - Medicare and Medicaid Administrator
Charlotte Bears - White House PR
John H. Brown - US Diplomat
Richard Clarke - Cyberspace Security
Victoria Clarke - Defense Department
J. D. Crouch - Asst. Secretary of Defense for Intl. Security Policy
Mitch Daniels - White House Budget Director
Mike Dombeck - Forest Service Chief

Oh yeah...and like half of the EPA.

The list goes on and on. Care to revise your statement, sir?

 

Grey - with all respect, the issue about going to war has been stated on this thread many times, and by some members here who have done a better job than the admistration. The problem is that Shrub lied and deceived the American people about the reasons for the war. O'Neil is a eyewitness to the deceit. If Clinton can be impeached for lying about his sex life, then where is the impeachment for Bush's lies? Oh, that's right - Shrub's not a Democrat. Too bad for the truth.

 

Chandos - apologies, I wasn't trying to go off-topic or dredge up old issues.

I guess what I should've written was...that the reason that O'Neill's book is exciting isn't that it reveals some deep, dark secret about the Bush administration - like you said, Chandos, we (and the world!) have been over that a hundred times - but that it's one of the few embittered-insider looks. And that's partly because there've been so few high-level embiterees.

Death Rabbit - great list! Your memory is better than mine. But actually, I was thinking of higher-ups who were outright fired, not laid-off bureaucrats or bosses that resigned voluntarily (at least, not under extreme duress). Right after the 2002 election, three heads rolled - O'Neill, Lindsey, and what's-his-name (that guy at the SEC or something). They were technically "resignations" but all three of them admitted publicly that they were tossed.

I can't vouch for everyone on your list, but I know that a bunch of 'em like Victoria Clarke and Mitch Daniels left to go on to bigger-and-better things (isn't that the standard excuse?). Maybe they were pressured to leave (like, pushing Daniels out the door so he could run for governor), but that's not quite the same level as what happened to O'Neill.

Incidentally, I really liked O'Neill. I didn't agree with some of his policy prescriptions, but at least he had the courage of his convictions, and the willingness to be honest. If only he'd learned a little discretion...and Bush had listened to his advice on those blasted steel tariffs!

OK...this was completely off-topic...sorry.

 

Here's another one from Time Magazine and the article can be summed up like:

But in any way, it seems, as if, at least for 2004, Rove has replaced Cheney in the driver seat. No additional wars in 2004! But in case Bush should be re-elected that could change again. And most certainly, leadership style won't change too.

In a second term the neocons, led by Cheney, could quickly be in full swing again ... "Say hi to Syria and Lebanon boys!" - I put that in here because Perle, as an influential ideologue just outside the administration speaks out the sort of arguments that are likely heared in the administration - they could be the program for Bush's next presidency, and if the hardcore wing gets its will, they will - because a neocon never runs out of imminent threats.
Perle's new book, modestly titled "An End to Evil", where he suggests to attack at least some 6 more countries, underlines that ... a nice comment on it gave the Economist who describes the ideological element of the hard right wing of the Bush crew that way:

As Uri Avnery put it:

• Catch 24: If the Arabs say they want war, you have to believe them. But if the Arabs say they want peace, they are clearly lying. And how can you make peace with liars?

And of course, they lie, always, when they tell they have no WMD. Amusingly, that's also what some do, like Ghaddafis Libya, when they say they have some. What a weird world.

 

How funny will it be when free elections are held in Iraq, and everyone votes for Saddam?

 

Sir Belisarius,
you bring up the only point left for the apologist fraction: Saddam indeed is gone.

But what else? The phony case for war has now crumbled away. And that cannot help Bush over the inconvenient fact that he based his war on these crumbled away points: No WMD & No Al-Quaeda link - each, according to Bush, posing an imminent threat. Remember the 'Mushroom Cloud' that worked so well to scare a nation sh*t- and spineless? That was the notion that Saddam could give his non-existent nukes away to terrorists he wasn't linked with.

Based on this Bush sent the US to war, put soldiers lifes at risk, got a few hundred GIs killed, thousands wounded and maimed, billions of dollars virtually blown up - for whatever reason - the invasion certainly wasn't to prevent an Iraqi attack, much less an act of self defense.

Read Perle's book, or the reviews. For middle easterners democracy is secondary, according to him they don't get it anyway. He therefor recommends pro-US autocrats. That much about democracy for Iraq, and free elections. They weren't meant to vote, but to cheer for a Generalissimus Chalabi in first place anyway. But, oops, it didn't turn out that way.
So for the architects and planners the war seemingly wasn't that much about Democracy after all.

Democracy is great for the neocons, but as a tool to exercise control, not as a goal in itself. If a third world gvt get's cocky - simply bribe and fund the opposition and say (perhaps rightfully) that the next election was rigged (a la Georgia where the opposition was funded by the US; foreign countries funding parties in other countries ... aren't really aiding democratic development but distorting the process - if you stick to the old heresy that parliaments represent the peoples will, and are a question of internal decision - the US wouldn't like France to fund the Democrats I presume) - autocrats are more constant but more difficult to handle, they are clearly second choice.
Saddam was not so much a problem because he was a crook, it was that he was so completely villified that it was impossible to deal with him again without losing face in the US public (unlike Ghaddafi - the US public's collective memory fortunately has already forgotten that he was the 1980s pocket-Hitler and Reagan's enemy Nr.1). That's why Saddam had to go - to re-open Iraq, now, as long as the US still were in their post 911 war fever.

Regime change in Iraq was about control.

And today ... the US will not tolerate an election in which the Shiites might get the majority and end up installing a fully sovereign (god forbid!) islamic republic (mon dieu!) beyond US control ( ) - no way, not after all the money invested.
Additionally the Kurds also want autonomy and get cocky, but they won't get their autonomy because that would substantially piss off Turkey, still an important US ally and NATO member.
Add that the US are now bound in Iraq, and according to the Army War College the US Army is personally overstretched and at the breaking point.

But hey, what do these stupid uniformed softies in the pentagon know about war civilians don`t? Wolfowitz, explained that now retired Gen. Shinseki's numbers on troops needed for Iraq were "wildly off the mark," adding, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of Saddam's security force and his army." ... and Richard Perle said Shinseki should shut up because troop strengths are a ‘political decision that the Pentagon was not competent to make’ ... you sure get my point ... With all this added neocon expertise in planning it is a miracle to me how Iraq ... uhm ... err .. became a failing state?

After all, face it: the occupation of Iraq created more problems than it solved.

But of course, if you ask Perle and his ilk, they have a simple explanation: It is not that they were wrong, it's because the administration didn't fully hear on them and let the realists (weird to use it as a sort of swearword, considering their contempt for them) spoil their plan ... probably by not attacking Syria too ... ... yeah, that would have turned Iraq into a garden eden again and spread democracy all over the place ...

In the end there are just a few hardball politics advantages left, just a few facts the war changed in favor of the US:

• The US got control in Iraq - as simple as that (besides, the projected new US 'embassy' in Baghdad [shadow gvt is really a little harsh] is designed to house some 3.000 people ...). That avoided a possible all-Iraqi solution after Saddams dead in a putsch, or by natural cause. By invading Iraq the US got a foot in the door and a say in the future of Iraq, wether the rest of the world or the Iraqis want or not.
• The US got those handy 4 to 5 big bases, strategically placed to control Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Considering the much quoted "domino theory" part and the "transformation of the middle east" the word "jumppad" comes to my mind. That is only underlined by Perle's book that cries out loud "No! Don't stop yet! More war please! First Lebanon, then Syria and Iran! Saudi Arabia! And North-Korea too!"
• The invasion re-opened the Iraqi market long closed by the embargo, access for invited guests only.
• It also provided (on long term, given they manage to control Iraq quick enough) a competitor on the oil market for Saudi Arabia.
• And, the war related contracts and subcontracts created a brief economic stimulus to the US economy (more on that here).

That is a simple listing of the major benefits the US gained by invading Iraq.

So, yes, and that is my reply to you Sir Belisarius, Saddam is gone. But that doesn't guarantee Iraq something like free elections, sovereignty and independence. Proconsul Bremer's CPA will take care of that.

And O'Neill's book is significant insofar as it suggests what I quoted above from Time Magazine:

[ January 13, 2004, 18:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I just saw this:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=41892004

"THE United States president, George Bush, yesterday appeared to support claims made by one of his former advisers that he was intent on invading Iraq long before the 11 September attacks triggered a more aggressive focus to US foreign policy, saying his administration was "for regime change".

Speaking during a visit to Mexico, Mr Bush said that, while US policy altered after the terror attacks on New York and Washington, his government had inherited plans to remove Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq from the previous Clinton administration."

"Yesterday, Mr Bush’s spokesman, Scott McClellan, rejected Mr O’Neill’s criticism. "The president exhausted all possible means to resolve the situation in Iraq peacefully," he said. "Saddam Hussein has been a dangerous man for a long time."

But speaking after a meeting with the Mexican president, Vicente Fox, Mr Bush said: "Like the previous administration we were for regime change... We were fleshing out policy along those lines and then September 11 happened and, as president of the United States, my most solemn obligation was to protect the security of the American people.

"I took that duty very seriously and not only did we deal with the Taleban, we got working through the United Nations and the international community and made it clear that Saddam should disarm."

Mr Bush said the US had acted to remove Saddam after he had ignored the warnings to disarm. "Now he is not in power and the world is better for it," he added."

Uh... disarm? Of what? Iraq had no WMD´s. In fact, the last I heard was that the US government had changed the tune of the war´s justification. The whole thing, as I seem to recall, was no longer about disarming Saddam. Last I heard, they were saying that deposing Saddam was the goal of the war in and of itself. The teams searching for WMDs have been mostly disbanded, even, after months of fruitless searching.

One would think that, if Iraq did indeed have all those "massive stockpiles" of WMDs, and manned and unmanned aircraft to launch them from, or even programs to make them, something, anything, would have turned out by now..

I´ve never been quite sure about the claims of "having exhausted all peaceful means", either.

So... disarm?

And then, you know, there´s the fact that Bush has seemingly admitted to the charge. That it was his intention to invade Iraq all along. It would seem that the 9/11 tragedy and the panic that followed it gave him the excuse to do just that, even if Saddam himself didn´t actually have anything to do with it.

Edit:

I thought this was interesting, too:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.htm

"The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power."

[ January 14, 2004, 00:39: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

 

Another high ranking US official, insisting not to be named (why? see below), and who was like O'Neill present at the National Security Council meetings, has corrobated O'Neill's story ...

... and in the meanwhile the Whitehouse retaliates, smearing O'Neill, accusing him ... to have stolen treasury documents ... what O'Neill vehemently denies.

O'Neill was prepared for that inevitable consequence, in the Time Magazine article he was quoted saying:

That's what it means. So now he's accused of criminal acts. Of course, the criminal allegations against O'Neil came to their mind right after O'Neill published that book and gave these nasty, nasty interviews ...

 

Yep, and the Press is concentrating on that, instead of on the real story, just as they did before. Told you it wouldn't play.

 

yep, more evidence of that damn left wing media. Which runs more negative stories on democrats than republicans.Its amazing how Clinton lying about sex is more of a story than about Bush lying aobut reasons that sent us to war and killed over 500 of our soldiers. Talk about ****ing misplaced priorities.

 

So true Jschild, I feel your sentiments exactly. Yet we must admit, it would not be done if it didn't work.