The Washington Post‘s Scott Wilson has a piece (12/13/11) looking back on the Iraq War, where he writes of the “arc of the American experience in Iraq” being “from hope to barbarity, from swaggering invasion to quiet departure.”
When it comes to the rationale for the entire war, things get a bit fuzzy. Like we pointed out recently about CBS Evening News, the main driver of the invasion–the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction–is reduced to something like a footnote:
The premise was contested from the start, a new doctrine of preemptive war tailored to an era in which stateless militants could batter the once-distant United States with the everyday tools of modern society–commercial jets as missiles, cellphones as triggers, trucks as bombs.
The neoconservatives at the Pentagon and in the West Wing argued that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Hussein, the longtime U.S. nemesis who once tried to kill then-President Bush’s father, was openly encouraging Palestinian militancy at a time when Hamas was blowing up cafes and pizzerias in Jerusalem. A model of democracy in the Middle East–imposed by the U.S. military–would inspire change in its neighbors or frighten them into reform.
Besides, Hussein had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, and in the aftermath of the 1991 Persian Gulf War to put down a Shiite rebellion that the United States failed to support after pledging to do so–a broken promise that helped fill the mass graves of Hilla, south of Baghdad. And he supposedly had an arsenal of some of the world’s nastiest weapons that had to be found and destroyed before they ended up with Al-Qaeda.
In this bizarre re-telling, Saddam Hussein’s support for Hamas and a plot to kill George H. W. Bush seem to matter more than the bogus stories about Iraq’s WMDs. Perhaps all you can say about this is that it makes a certain kind of sense for the U.S. government and elite media to want people to forget the falsehoods that launched the war.
Some people want to forget the TRUTHS that launched the war.WMD were only one small part(though the biggest part used in the PR campaign to sell the war)
Of course, “Hussein had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people” in the 80s and in 1991 with U.S. support. As for the alleged plot to kill President Bush I it was a ludicrous hoax with no supporting evidence put out by the Kuwaiti government and based on confessions,later retracted, obtained by torture.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1993/11/01/1993_11_01_082_TNY_CARDS_000367232
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm
Threatening to attack other nations that never attacked us is unprecedented. Yet Bush not only threatened and then attacked Iraq but threatened to attack Iran and North Korea as well. When did they ever threaten us with the most destructive weapons in the world?
When Russia built atomic bombs, Truman never went to war with them. LBJ didn’t go to war with China when it tested a nuclear weapon. But Bush went to war with a country (Iraq) that never presented a threat to us, never wanted war with us, and could never hope to win a war against us.
We used to embrace containment and deterrence and now we embrace preemptive wars. How’s that working out for us?
Sounds like CBS is trying to make the Middle East in to a fire fight by demeaning the Palestinians and, once again, bringing up suicide bombings. Doesn’t anyone in the news media realize that there have been no suicide bombings since 2002, a year before we dumped half our arsenal on Iraq? And, if you’re going to mention disagreeable acts by Hamas, how about telling the truth about Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead?” Oh yes. I guess if you bomb the Hell out of Palestinians who are imprisoned in a narrow Bantustan it’s OK because, as we all know, all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are terrorists.
Come on America. Would you want everyone in the world to believe we are all conservative Christians who only love Jews who are willing to convert so they can be saved? Who hate “the other” with a zeal we haven’t seen since the Spanish Inquisition and Hitler’s Germany?
Is this really the America we want to live in?
Without the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, it was just an act of premeditated war. How do you excuse that?
You’re right, Tom. It’s premeditated war and it isn’t excusable. Who are these ideologues who have captured this government? Not even St. Reagan himself ever asserted that the U.S. can launch preemptive strikes on nations that hadn’t attacked us and don’t present any grave and imminent threat to us. Preemptive strikes, generally speaking, are the actions of an aggressor nation and will lead us to a state of perpetual war for perpetual peace. In short, we can only have peace if we are forever at war.
This is an abnormal way for a country to live and this is the thinking of the ideologues who have captured our foreign policy.
Elaine – sadly, I feel you’re mistaken in your statement that “Not even St. Reagan himself ever asserted that the U.S. can launch preemptive strikes on nations that hadn’t attacked us and don’t present any grave and imminent threat to us.” Reagan alone attacked Nicaragua and Grenada under the most meager of pretenses, with many critics suggesting that Reagan attacked Grenada merely to draw attention away from the recent deaths of 200+ soldiers in Lebanon. Much as I despise conservative Republicans and their incessant war-mongering (I was one of the protestors in the streets back in 2003 during the buildup to the Iraq invasion), unfortunately this US militarism transcends their pernicious outlook. I would strongly recommend reading William Blum’s book “Killing Hope” where he lists 168 instances of the use of US armed forces abroad between 1798-1945, and then (in more detail) discusses 55 more US military & CIA ‘interventions’ abroad between 1945 and 1994.
I see your point, Big Em, but I don’t believe Reagan ever asserted that the U.S. had a right to launch preemptive strikes on nations that had not attacked the U.S. As I recall, Bush actually stated that America had the right to prevent other nations from ever challenging the military supremacy of the U.S. I would have to look up his exact framing of the message.
Okay, Big Em, I refer you to the Bush Doctrine.
Elaine – yes, if you limit the word ‘asserted’ to speaking/writing as in a semi-formalized policy (Wikipedia indicates that there is no official ‘Bush Doctrine’ but that it’s basic ideas are stated in the 9/17/02 ‘National Security Strategy of the US’ ), then you’re correct. I was interpreting ‘asserted’ in the broader definition of “behave or speak in a confident and forceful manner”, much as in ‘the US asserted its power abroad’. We’ve been doing that since the era of the Monroe Doctrine, and virtually all our subsequent presidents have been on-board with that. And of course it’s always couched in either humanistic terms (we’re protecting 3rd-parties, or we’re spreading democracy) or self-protection (communists/Islamists will take over Cuba/Nicaragua/a 100 other places and overrun us), but in the end it just happily coincides with some immediate imperial objectives, and often a lot of ‘collateral damage’ (like death) to some/many of the inhabitants of those countries.
Why did the Bush administration invade Iraq?
After it became apparent that the Bush administration was preparing to attack Iraq,
We decided to research the hawks promoting the invasion of Iraq. At this point we were
interested in uncovering the motivation since it was obvious that any threat that
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed to the United States was clearly exaggerated
to the point of deception. In 1981 Israeli destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant
at Osiraq and the Americans again obliterated the site in 1991. In 1998, the IAEA
concluded: “There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability
for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.”
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html#weapon
In researching the hawks promoting the invasion of Iraq, we found a policy paper written
by Richard Perle et al for the state of Israel in 1996: (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm): http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
“This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq â┚¬”Â
an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right â┚¬”Â
as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”
And in 1998 Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and notably Donald Rumsfeld (and
others) wrote a letter to then President Bill Clinton calling on him to remove
“…. Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
What is especially significant is the fact that the people who signed this letter back in 1998
entered the Bush administration after the presidential election of 2000.
After the terror and confusion of 9/11 in 2001 (which had nothing to do with Iraq),
they were able to implement their planned invasion of Iraq using the deception of
WMD’s and non-existent links between Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
And in the last past 5 years since 9/11, the evidence, the facts, all support the conclusion
that Jane’s Intelligence Digest hints at in the following report:
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml
“All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush’s war is part of a
master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel’s interests.”
Iran is next!
You are right on target, Daniel. The Bush Doctrine, part of which, I believe, was codified as U.S. strategy, was absolultely breathtaking in its bellocosity. It called for a world democratic revolution that would overthrow the “despots” of the Middle East and replace them with democracies. This revolution’s goal (or one of them) was to make the world democratic because we (the U.S.) are good and our enemies are evil.
This is democratic imperialism (so from that perspective I agree with you Big Em) but its past policies on steroids. It will simply bankrupt this country. It will result in horrific death and destruction.
How other people choose to govern themselves is their own business. To say it is a vital interest of the U.S. to tell everybody else how they should run their affairs will result in endless meddling and endless war and misery for U.S. citizens as well as the victims of such an insane policy. Yes, Iran is next and the neocons will find some reason for striking out at that country and selling the U.S. people on another war.
These neoconservatives are on mission to bring us another Crusade.
Dan you ask why we invaded Iraq.I would say you give at least some latitude to what the leaders at that time now say in books and articles and discussions.Then look at what Saddam said in his deathbed proclamations.Look to the reality of those days after 911 and our presidents responsibilities.Look at the breaking of all 17 articles of the first gulf war surrender document that demanded an immediate resumption of the war.Look at Saddams own words. I notice today the last person anyone would listen to on the left is BUSH himself.Or Rice.Or the CIA director.Or Rumsfeld.Or Blair.Or anyone else who made the calls.As if you have been so brainwashed that all Bush says is a lie , that you will actually fall to listening to a 24 year old reporters in the onion to tell you what really happened.Lets do a history of WW2 disregarding the words of all the leaders and participants at the time.Those who made the calls disregarded.New history written by a newly minted writer just out of school.It really is an amazingly stupid perspective.Yet I see it as the perspective most liberals believe.
All true, (not the troll’s ignorant ravings, of course), but unfortunately our current President has made it abundantly clear that his administration has no intention of righting the monstrous wrong by prosecuting the liars and war criminals of the previous administration. Indeed, the odious Leon Panetta, our latest War Department head, recently said that the Iraq war was “worth it.” Easy for that jackass to say . . . .
Tim little scenario here.Iran gets the bomb and threatens the oil supply of this country by hitting the straits of H.Obama has done nothing to allow us to become self sufficient.We are instantly fighting for our very existence.Point is there are other balances flowing under your feet and over your head.Iraq was a part of that.I have listened to Libs working and praying for our removal from that country irregardless of strategic truths.One week after we have pulled out…things are going to hell in a hand basket.A LOT of liberal ideals are simple minded. Emphasis on simple.President Obama may not be a brilliant man….But he was smart enough to reason out that libs did not have a clue on these matters.