Fareed Zakaria cheers the Libya War in Time magazine this week for not following the Iraq model:
It has been prosecuted with the memory of the Iraq war firmly in mind. Only this time the approach has been to view the last war as a negative example. The international coalition—and even the Libyan opposition—is doing pretty much the opposite of what was done in Iraq.
Zakaria explains that Obama “was clearly trying to avoid the mistakes of Iraq.” Among the mistakes the Bush administration made:
Had UN weapons inspectors been given more time in the spring of 2003, the UN Security Council might well have endorsed the plan. Countries like India were seriously considering sending tens of thousands of peacekeeping troops, but only if there was a UN-blessed operation with a U.S. commander who also wore a UN hat (as was the case in Bosnia). But these were seen as petty, legalistic annoyances, and the operation felt like an American one from start to finish.
Zakaria can write these things because his message during the run-up to the Iraq War was, “Let the inspections do their work!”
Not exactly.
In the December 2, 2002 Newsweek, Zakaria warned that the inspectors weren’t likely to find weapons because Iraq had gotten so good at hiding their WMDs:
Having gotten the inspectors back into Iraq with unfettered access, the Bush administration had better brace itself for the most likely outcome—they will find nothing. Don’t get me wrong. Iraq is surely producing weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations and the United States have accumulated powerful evidence of this over the past decade, including testimony from Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, about Iraq’s biological weapons. But Iraq has become increasingly expert at dispersing and hiding these facilities, which are often small enough to fit into a bathroom or a van.
Zakaria explained that “the administration must force a crisis”—using the inspections as a way to force the war to begin:
Washington’s hope is that in one of these many tests, Iraq will reveal that it is not cooperating and thus pave the way for military action. The inspectors will not find weapons but they might well find noncompliance.
Time is short. If events do not come to a head soon after December 8, the pressure for action will dissipate and the weather will make conflict impossible until next fall. And you cannot replay this movie.
A few weeks later (2/17/03), Zakaria was worried that the United States might lose face. He asked Newsweek readers to imagine what kind of world it would be if inspections were allowed to drag on just because some other countries demanded solid evidence:
But right now with Iraq, the need to maintain resolve seems obvious. Whatever one’s initial views about taking on Iraq—and I have been for it—I cannot see how America can back down without damaging its, well, credibility.
Imagine the situation. A week from now, pressured by France, Germany and Russia, the United States decides to give the inspectors more time. It announces that, come to think of it, Saddam isn’t that much of a threat. Though the president of the United States has said repeatedly that he would have “zero tolerance” for Iraqi deception, he didn’t really mean it. When Colin Powell persuaded the United Nations to pass a resolution telling Saddam that he had a “final” opportunity to disarm or face “serious consequences,” it was a bluff. (The “serious consequences” turn out to be that the United Nations sends in a few dozen more inspectors.) What would happen the next time the United States makes threats?
Luckily for people like Zakaria, damaged credibility isn’t a concern for them. He’ll still be considered an A-list foreign affairs pundit, no matter how wrong he’s been about things that really matter.
The bottom line for warmongers like Zakaria is to promote US strategy, in whatever form it takes.
In that context, he’s been perfectly consistent, hasn’t he?
And I don’t know how “right” and “wrong” enter into this, other than in reference to the immorality of a war of aggression.
AND Operation ‘Independent’ Libya (OIL) remains another BushCObamanible UNConstitutional, Internationally ILLEGAL War of Aggression for Resources and violation of sovereignty, escalating and widening World WAR Si, Se Puede!
For the time-being, the U.S. has avoided becoming mired in another war. Reducing frequency and duration of military deployments would help reduce the deficit.
Fareed Zakaria, like many of the pundits who hold jobs in the corporate media, is severely limited in imagination. Most pundits take what the politicians in power tell them as the basis for their professional opinion. Their job is to attach strings to the propaganda bones they are given in order to make the body they are selling seem more real. It takes too much energy and time to imagine the closet that the bones of truth are kept in, and to build a body with the imagination that is convincing enough to warrant an actual search for the closet. The last thing Fareed would want to do is to talk to someone who knows a few facts. In almost all cases, the issue is moot long before the true body emerges, if it ever does. The people at FAIR, ConsortiumNews, Alternet, Truthout, and Truthdig, among others, are doing that thankless work of building up a body of truth for the sake of authentic history.
Fareed is just a friendly Arab face that the corporate media use to market a brutal American foreign policy. He has it wrong. Completely. Kamal told us for years tht Saddam had detroyed his WMD. Bush and Cheney ignored him. Kamal was Saddam’s son-in-law, a scientist with intimate knowledge of Saddam’s nuclear programs. He defected to the US and basically endorsed US weapons inspector Scott Ritter’s version of Iraqi disarmament. Newsweek finally articled this five days before the war. Too late.
Fareed should know that the inspections were called off because the inspectors were finding nothing, thus verifying Kamal’s account. With this unwelcome truth dissipating the US pretext for war by the hour, Bush enlarged a few Iraqi technical violations beyond their true importance, so as to justify the ineveitable attack on Iraq. He ordered the inspectors out and then bombed away, starting the first war in history before which an attacking enemy had almost unlimited access to inspect, critique, and destroy the other side’s weapons facilities. Enablers like Fareed pave the way for the international crimes of a Bush or Cheny.
Thanks for this. I believe John Wolfe has it right, and I will never be able to accept the Obama administration’s justification for not prosecuting those responsible: it was always about not setting a precedent that might constrain his own illegal activities.
Often when reading these blogs I realize that the real message you offer is that the United states is the worst criminal of all.It would be funny if it weren’t so ridiculous.You rewrite the history of the (poor old ,innocent,jolly old Saddam)raqi war.The afghan war.And anything else you are willing to spin bushes way.Then you get angry when “those unenlightened people”don”t buy your swill.All to prove that it was all lemons and gumdrops till we blundered in.Funny
Look ,Obama simply led from the rear in this.He pulled a Clinton by using our amazing weapons to kill from afar.Now that he and nato accomplished something….(we don’t know what)everyone is standing around waiting to see what will come of it.For the life of me i have no idea what he is doing.I don’t think he does.
Mo, michael e, Peter Hart hasn’t rewritten the history of the Iraqi war; you’ve simply forgotten it. You’ve also misrepresented his position (for example, he never claimed that it was all “lemons and gumdrops till we blundered in”; he just noted that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction). It’s creepy that you get so orgasmic over “our amazing weapons that kill from afar.” Get help fast.
Thanks Ross…um what are you talking about?
Ps I know the version the Left spins about the wars, and their aftermaths.I just don’t buy into that Bush derangement syndrome.It is politically motivated and simply does not follow the “history” of the developmental fazes of our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan in any way approaching objectivity.Remember when everyone thought Obama would indict Bush on war crimes?They are like children.They still can’t understand why Obama did not do it.Funny
michael e: The UN didn’t authorize an invasion because everyone outside the US (like myself in Japan) knew that all of Colin Powell’s charges had been disproven months before he made them. Saddam seeking yellowcake in Africa? The very papers on which the charge was based were acknowledged as frauds when they were turned over to the US by Italy. No need to send Joe Wilson to Africa–just read the European papers once this became an issue. Mobile biological weapons labs? No, hydrogen generators for weather balloons, exactly as stated–not only by Iraqis, but by the British company that made them and sold them to Iraq. Not an obscure factoid at all. Tubes for centrifuges? Had a coating that made them useless for the purpose and the same tubes had been purchased several times before as casings for Scud missiles, which you don’t have to like, but were a short-range, legal part of the Iraqi arsenal. Curveball’s “factory” was visited by the inspectors, and it was concluded not only that it wasn’t a weapons factory, but that it never had been and that many of his descriptions of it and what took place there were simply physically impossible. Hussein and bin Laden hated each other, and the only member of al Qaida who’d been in Iraq was in the Kurdish no-fly zone, under US control, not Hussein’s–that much was reported in the US media; I saw it there before I left for Japan. As John Wolfe notes, Kamal’s testimony was that weapons capacity had been eliminated, but it was harder to find this mentioned in the US, ginning up for war no matter what, than outside of it. Millions of people around the world marched and protested, trying to prevent an unjustifiable war–I watched thousands marching in Ginza, Tokyo. Bush may have declared that he didn’t need the media because his personal spin team of Cheney, Hadley, and Rice gave him all the information he wanted or needed, but in the age of the Internet, it’s unfortunate that so many Americans were too lazy to seek information from outside the US media. It’s really sad that there are still persons like yourself, who still rebel against acknowledging history as it happened. The historical record–newspapers, filed TV footage, etc., still remains, if you don’t want to trust any backward-looking biographies or commentaries. Check out the record if you want objectivity; just don’t limit yourself to info. from the country with the greatest reason to invest in spin. I don’t see lots of evidence that you do want objectivity, though. Instead, I see accusations of political motivation that don’t even attempt to touch on relevant events. If you can’t conceive of Bush or his advisors having had any political motivations themselves that might have affected decisions, your ability to identify objectivity is probably beyond repair.
Thanedoss….I will jump over all that bad intel that exists on any day, upon any battle field, yet does not change the world as it was and go to the source.Saddam himself.On his literal deathbed he stated he was the lion of Judea.It was his right to reconstitute his weapons and use them(against israel)as he saw fit.He disavowed any right by the united nations or any power including his surrender terms to hobble him.He admitted to hiding the true nature of his WMDs due to his fear of Iran.He in effect played a shell game.He never thought Bush would have the balls to call his bluff.He broke every caveat of his surrender terms.Any one of which should of caused an immediate resumption of the war(Clinton stated as much ).He flaunted the demands put on him by Bush and the world body.And you forget the climate Bush was acting in at that time after 911.He spit in the face of his executioner ,and yet you trust his motives and words more than President Bush who you give little to no sway.Your hatred blinds you.
The things you stated were all things that were PR reasons for the resumption of war of Iraq.And the intel turned out to be bad.It was never the” reason” for war .The reason was simple really.Bush demanded an end to all games from Saddam.We had just been attacked and saddams shell games were not going to play anymore..He demanded that Saddam open his country immediately to inspections and that he adhere immediately to all caveat of his surrender accord.On his deathbed he freely admitted to scoffing at the very notion of even listening to such demands.So save your proof that he did in effect allow inspectors to do their job.And that he was truthful to world bodies.HE admits he was not.
Did you know that English estimations of German military formations at the time of the Chamberlains accord were mostly incorrect ?It does not effect the reasons for preparations for the coming war as envisioned by Churchill.Yet to Dems today ,like Chamberlaind then…….Saddam flaunting his surrender terms as Hitler was at that time- is reason only for inaction.Wait for the lion to bite.Bush chose not to wait.He took histories lessons and lay his demands upon Saddam.Saddam told him to pound sand.Bad move.In spite of the Dems retreat,defeat and surrender bleating- he persevered.And now Iraq has a chance at a better life of freedom.To bring up every bad intelligence report at that historical time is to ignore the strategic powers that were at play.
“George W. Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” – The “Downing Street Memo”
Ross, thanedoss, and A Reader: Nice tries, all, but the troll is obviously oblivious to facts (and to English punctuation a well) in his or her frequent comments here. Best focus your considerable powers of observation on what this site is about, the excesses of the news media (including, by the way, unincorporated publications and websites). As they say, DFTT (don’t feed the trolls).
RB and A Reader
Read the interrogation of Saddam.It will not fit into the “Downing Street memo”.Have you been watching Bush on the National G special?Oh thats right his words don’t help the historical perspective.I mean who was he?
By the way……..Do you remember how I was attacked over wickileaks?I TOLD you they would sooner or later it would come out unredacted .Without any over sight.You castigated me up and down .TRUST YOU SAID TRUST as you tried to lull people asleep.And now……..they are all over the web thanks to the British guardian.So what can I say but in all humility you stupid pugs were wrong again and i was right.Ah that felt good.Now for my healthy breaFast(thats how Obama said it recently)and my morning jog!
President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials promoted the invasion of Iraq with public statements that weren’t supported by intelligence or that concealed differences among intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee said on June 5th 2008 in a report that was delayed by bitter partisan infighting.
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence,” Rockefeller said in a statement. “But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.”
“Before taking the country to war, this administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced,” Rockefeller said. “Unfortunately, our committee has concluded that the administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence.”
Michael E. ‘s comparison of Saddam to Hitler is laughable, as is his implication that the inspections of Iraq were ineffective. The inspectors were allowed to go just about anywhere, and the Iraqis always conceded entry after initial objections. Iraq was hardly in an offensive posture in early 2003, as it was still under sanctions, embargoes, and occasional US bombing. So, we had our boot on the serpent’s neck, in full control of every conceivable contingency. But angling for nothing less than war and occupation, Bush jumped into the viper pit, committing our troops to needless bloodshed and our treasury to the whims of private contractors interested in profiting from the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq. Before unilaterally ordering the UN inspectors out, Bush kept demanding a list of WMD, which Saddam did not have. He demanded that Sadam prove a negative, to wit, that there were no WMD anywhere, hardly an equitable demand since it makes compliance impossible. What inventory lists Saddam did turn over, Bush deemed incomplete or false. Bush, scamming for pretext, declared Saddam’s failure to comply with Bush’s demands to be the causus belli; in truth, Bush had determined to invade well in advance of any Iraqi violation. Being the “decider”, Bush next unilaterally and publicly declared these breaches to be sufficient causes for war. He skipped over UN jurisdiction in making these critical determinations.
Finally, I think it’s important to recall the proof that Bush’s mind was made up months before, inasmuch as Ms. Rice told Richard Clark and others like Richard Haas not to waste their time dissuading the President from his plans of attack. Furthermore, some of the torture Bush approved extracted false statements from detaineess about certain terror suspect’s links to Saddam, and Bush fit these known lies neatly into the national addresses he used to drum up support for the invasion. Michael E. needs to quit shilling for aggression and admit that this whole Iraq affair has been a needless disaster in every sense.
I must convey my appreciation for your generosity in support of those individuals that must have assistance with your area of interest. Your very own dedication to getting the solution all through became remarkably valuable and have usually enabled many people like me to get to their pursuits. Your helpful help can mean a lot to me and extremely more to my fellow workers. Thanks a ton; from everyone of us.
I do not leave a comment, but after reading a ton
of responses here Zakaria, Libya and Iraq: Don’t Remember What I Wrote. I actually do have 2 questions for you if you tend not to mind. Is it simply me or do a few of the responses look as if they are written by brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are writing at additional social sites, I would like to follow everything new you have to post. Would you list of every one of your social pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?