The Decision to Liberate Iraq
June 12th, 2008 at 05:10am Mark Noonan
Much nonsense has been written about this, while Gay Patriot has come across a man, Doug Feith (former Bush Undersecretary of Defense), who clears up some of the fog in War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism:
He (Feith) observes that his book “tells a story that contradicts key parts of almost all the major books about the Iraq war,” refuting, for example, “the notion that President Bush came into office determined to go to war no matter what.” Discussing how the president’s team made the call to go to war, he quoted from his book:
Our main concern was not that Saddam would then attack the United States out of the blue. We worried rather that, in his effort to dominate the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East, Saddam would aim to deter outside intervention by developing his conventional and WMD capabilities, along with the prohibited long-range missiles (or, possibly, terrorist alliances) to deliver them.
In some future clash— over Kuwait or some other Iraqi target— Saddam might draw inspiration from 9/11, providing terrorists with anthrax, smallpox, or nerve gas to attack us.
What impressed me about Feith was his civility, his command of the issues and his good humor. I consider myself fortunate that I had the chance to talk with him, albeit briefly, about his experiences in the Administration and in dealing with a hostile press, interested in him not so much to learn his contribution to policy-making, but instead to ridicule him as a caricature of a gung-ho pro-war conservative.
Doug Feith was far from the caricature of the out-of-touch Republican official. Instead her offered a lucid explanation of the decision to go to war that makes one wonder why the Administration didn’t put him at the forefront of their efforts to explain its policies to the American people. The president would have been better served had it relied more on Feith’s counsel in setting policy in Iraq and his verbal gifts in communicating that policy to the American people.
That, by the way, was not my primary concern - from my point of view, the whole purpose of liberating Iraq was to change the socio-political dynamic of the Arab/Moslem world and reorientate it in a pluralistic, democratic direction. The liberation was a means to an end - namely, that the people of the Arab/Moslem world be given a fair chance at deciding their own future, with a prayer on our part that they will choose to live and build rather than kill and destroy (and this prayer is being answered in the affirmative, daily, in Iraq and Afghanistan). But there was also the fact that Saddam was a growing threat, a terrorist sponsor and someone who had demonstrated his willingness to be quite horrific if he saw any personal advantage in so doing. For the President - outside of any larger strategic ideas - it came down to this in the post 9/11 world: do we work on the assumption that we can contain Saddam even to the point of preventing another 9/11, or do we get rid of him as the safer alternative?
The choice to go on the offensive is always fraught with risk, and it takes rare courage for a commander to order one - one thinks of the complete failures in wars past (McClellan in the Civil War being a prime example) who failed the test…who simply lacked the courage to step out into the unknown and attack the enemy. The bunker mentality in command is always appealing - you can feel safe and sure and your risks are limited or, at least, it seems so…but any commander who just waits for the enemy to strike is setting himself up for complete defeat, because the attack will come in a time and place least expected. President Bush seems to have immediately understood on 9/11 that unless we struck at the enemy, we were doomed to ultimate defeat - there was no grand conspiracy, just an understanding that the result of a defensive war is defeat, and that in war there really is no substitute for victory.
It seems certain that the internal debate was strong prior to the decision to liberate Iraq - and those who counseled caution, even to the point of de-facto cowardice, were able to martial strong arguments on their side; but to say that those who prevailed and ordered the liberation were wicked while those who opposed it were saintly is to over simplify a highly complex issue. While there is an absolute Truth ruling the universe, imperfect human beings can only, at best, come close to such truth - we can never be sure, on our own hook, that we’re 100% right, and to indict a decision in hindsight based upon information the decision makers didn’t have at the moment of decision is both unfair and worthless.
President Bush, in the end, ordered the liberation of Iraq with the strong support of the American people and the Congress of the United States - those who now try to say they were hoodwinked into agreement are the worst sort of blackguards; people who stuck their finger in the wind in 2002 and then, again, in 2004 and just went where the wind was blowing, and who now try to convince us that they are the honorable ones standing up for principle. In the event, the liberation was a complete success, and after a long period of difficult battle, the right strategy (and, note it, a highly aggressive strategy) is prevailing in the post-liberation phase of the Iraq campaign. President Bush has been proved right in the particular desire (to eliminate the Saddamite threat) and in the general sense (that liberating Iraq would be conducive towards building a free and anti-terror Arab/Moslem world). I imagine that, once Bush is out of office, the scoundrels who now condemn will once again see where the wind is blowing and will tell us they were with us all along - but, no matter; such people are beneath contempt and unworthy of notice. What matters is that we have a President who is able to make a decision - and who has been assisted by men and women who strongly argued their conflicting cases. Our hope is that on January 20th, 2009 we will still have such a President, and such an Administration.
Entry Filed under: President Bush, War on Terror
24 Comments
1. Marty13 | June 12th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Deleted - obscenity.
2. extramedium | June 12th, 2008 at 7:51 am
“do we work on the assumption that we can contain Saddam even to the point of preventing another 9/11, or do we get rid of him as the safer alternative?”
I guess every man has to decide this for himself, and we’ll never know who was right. I believed that the path of containment was the right one then, and I believe it now.
“The choice to go on the offensive is always fraught with risk, and it takes rare courage for a commander to order one”
To say that it takes “courage” for the commander of the world’s greatest superpower to preemptively attack (or re-attack as it were) a small neutered nation is quite a farce indeed. Did anyone think it would take more than a week or two to defeat Iraq’s forces? For me, to destroy a little nation because you are afraid that they might assist terrorists is pure cowardice.
I suppose you could say that it took political courage for this group of Neoconservatives to pursue their dream spreading democracy at the point of a gun. But honestly, what did they really have to lose but their reputations? Everyone but them paid the real price in the end.
3. neocon | June 12th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Hard to believe how the greater vision of liberty, human rights and democracy in the ME continues to be belittled, ridiculed and excoriated from a party that claims to champion those same values.
Evidently there is a price tag on human rights, and the liberals are unwilling to pay that price for others. Now that’s compassion.
The Iraqi government is currently working with the US on a new security deal that will allow the current UN mandate to expire, which the Iraqis see as very important to continue to establish their sovereignty. It’s important to see the effort the Iraqis are putting forth to move their country forward towards peace and democracy. I only wish the liberals were a little more supportive.
But, they have their own selfish agenda. No time for others, right?
4. Robin Naismith Green | June 12th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I think you need to pick better Bush cheerleaders than Doug Feith
5. neocon | June 12th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Talking points? No, talking points are:
war for oil
civil war
illegal occupation
etc.
Supporting a young democratic government in the ME and helping to protect their sovereignty, is not a talking point. Try and keep up.
6. neocon | June 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
The following is another “talking point”
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20313&Itemid=128
7. Jay Gaultieri | June 12th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Other than being able to get McClellan’s “I was there” perspective his book only confirms what has been apparent for some years now. The neoconservative movement had a dream of transforming the world into American-friendly democracies through military means dating back to at least 1997. This was supposed to be done through a small, highly-mobile US military force highly reliant on technology. Iraq was to be the first country invaded due to its weak government and strategic position. From there the US would invade Iran, a country the neoconservative movement believed was ready to “blow sky-high”. The architects of all of this knew that getting all of this in motion would require a “Pearl Harbor” type event and they got their event in 9/11.
None of this is news, of course. It can all be verified by checking out the website (newamericancentury.org) of the think tank the White House neoconservatives belonged to, the Project for a New American Century. The average American doesn’t know all these bits of info but long ago figured out plans were made to invade Iraq before 9/11.
The only people this comes as any kind of a shock to are folks who get their news from Fox, talk radio, and forwarded viral emails. It took Mark Noonan a week-and-a-half to come up with this very tepid response, which is more than other hard right news sources are doing. Most are choosing to not say anything at all, since by now those who still support President Bush are the hard-core dead-enders who are never going to change.
8. Dennis | June 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
What a bunch of rubbish. If the Bush admin were so interested in the greater vision of liberty, human rights and democracy for mankind why did they not set about spreading the same in Africa?
Africa has over triple the population of the entire Middle East and a far more abysmal record of human rights and brutality; in sub-Saharan Africa children are pressed into military service, addicted to drugs and discarded like trash when their short lives are used up.
The great neoconservative lie about bringing liberty and democracy to Iraq is ridiculous on its face. Like the Republican agenda to create a permanenent majority in Congress, the grand project to “liberate” Iraq was based not on spreading democracy but a simulacrum thereof - a cheap substitute designed to mimic the real thing, but with altogether different underlying principles.
The Iraqi people’s rejection of the Bush admin’s “status of force agreement” and the conservative Supreme Court’s rejection of the Bush admin treatment of Guantanamo detainees are pretty good indications of the hollowness of the administration claims to honor democracy and human rights.
Not to mention that implementing the neoconservatives’ utopian designs relies on secrecy, misinformation and propaganda - and so far has resulted in spectacular waste, fraud and wholesale violations of human rights.
9. majoriot | June 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Suddenly the “justification for war” has become the altruistic “really, we are here for your own good” sentiment?
We will invade you, destroy your country, kill your loved ones, create a battleground inwhich you and your loved ones are expendable, and then presume to occupy your country with free reign until we deem otherwise.
This is liberation?
Please. Just shout “I love Imperalism” and be done with it.
10. Greenskeeper | June 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
6. neocon | June 12th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Supporting a young democratic government in the ME and helping to protect their sovereignty, is not a talking point.
You almost had me with a wisp of a tear thinking a con could care so deeply about nation building. I am sure I can find similar post by you during the 1990’s. Yeah right.
11. bagni | June 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
markcision
the cosmic crew is bewildered?
you said,
“liberating Iraq was to change the socio-political dynamic of the Arab/Moslem world”
we galactically guess you and feith have done it
unfortunately the dynamic you changed
changed too dynamically in some other direction
12. Pain | June 12th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
There is none of this in Africa Dennis.
In Iraq there was plenty
Oil.
Secrets.
Arabs to shoot.
Big open spaces to drive big vehicles.
Non Christian places of worship to trample.
QED.
13. FmrMarine | June 12th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
pain;
Dont forget NO…..lesbo’s or homos to persecute!
OH wait
islam BEHEADS them…..drat!
14. bongoman | June 12th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
It’s about getting our 58 bases, nothing more, nothing less.
15. neocon | June 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Greenskeeper,
I actually believe in nation building and liberating oppressed people across this globe at any cost. Nothing is more important. I had no problem when Clinton was taking out Milosevic.
The question is; why don’t you?
Question for the liberals. Why aren’t all of you up in arms about the lack of fed response to the floods in Iowa? I see people on roof tops needing help? Why isn’t there more outrage? Why the outpouring of concern for the residents of NO and the lack of concern for the residents of Ottumwa?
16. neocon | June 12th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Pain,
You’re getting more delusional by the day. And that’s saying something.
17. Mark Noonan | June 12th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Bunch of worthless comments from the liberals, as usual…except for extramedium:
It is true we’ll never know what 2008 would look like had we not liberated Iraq - one can never know the future and no amount of research will tell you what would definitively have occured had a different choice been made. My bet is that Saddam would have long ago broken even token sanctions against himself by using bribes to French, German and Russian politicians to smooth the path at the UN.
Be that as it may…
You fail to understand what real courage is - it isn’t being Audie Murphy battling the enemy, but the decision by Audie Murphy to go after what is on the other side of the hill…that is the act of courage. When you step into the unknown, you are without the normal supports people have - and by going on the offensive (that is, by coming out of our safety zone) we took a tremendous risk, and to take that risk took massive courage.
As for who paid the blood price - which seems to be your largest concern - might as well complain about Lincoln’s decisions, because he was expending hundreds of thousands of lives at minimal risk to himself…ditto FDR.
18. Dennis | June 13th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Mark, here is what I said: “implementing the neoconservatives’ utopian designs relies on secrecy, misinformation and propaganda - and so far has resulted in spectacular waste, fraud and wholesale violations of human rights.”
To you this is a worthless observation - but it could not be if you were a true conservative. Which you decidedly are Not.
In your 11:24 pm post you bet Saddam would have bribed French, German and Russian politicians - without addressing, we note, whether or not those politicians could have been bought. But there is one thing Saddam certainly would not have been able to do, had the US kept him contained with due diligence: to kill nearly as many Iraqi civilians as Bush’s war has killed.
Unlike many whom you criticize I have been against this war since before it began. I indicted Congress for acquiescing to it from the start - and still indict the media for its role in pumping up a wholly illegitimate action by our government. And I continue to indict Congress for refusing to impeach Cheney and Bush for their clearly unconstitutional and criminal acts.
As to who paid the blood price - it really has been the people of Iraq. They had no choice in the matter. Our troops DID have a choice, and gambled on the honor of our nation’s leaders. It was a bad bet; the leaders are frauds and the troops lost.
The house always wins, it seems. Of course that’s the way it was in Saddam’s Iraq as well. But there always comes a day of reckoning - as there always is a higher Power, who judges rightly in the final end.
19. Dennis | June 13th, 2008 at 1:32 am
A post script on whether those French, German and Russian politicians could have been bribed… probably. But America’s leaders sold their souls and our nation’s honor for vainglory - which could be argued is a more venal sin than selling out for money.
Of course the prospect of cheap oil certainly motivated Mr. Cheney and others as well (witness his remarks yesterday to the US Chamber of Commerce). If this were not so the admin should long ago have released the minutes of his meeting with energy executives prior to the Iraq invasion.
All of this and more just begs the question, and renders absurd, your after-the-fact claims of our “liberating” Iraq. We have done nothing of the sort. All the Status of Force issues emerging now, and the Bush admin’s differences with the Iraqis on these issues, are simply more evidence of the dishonesty of this whole endeavor.
I await your deletions.
20. What? | June 13th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Mark writes:
When you step into the unknown, you are without the normal supports people have - and by going on the offensive (that is, by coming out of our safety zone) we took a tremendous risk, and to take that risk took massive courage.
So taking a risk you know nothing about is now an act of courage? Last time I checked that was called “reckless.” If I took my entire life savings and gave to someone who called themselves a stock broker, I would be courageous in your eyes? Bizarre, Noonan.
Your Audie Murphy comment is easily distinguishable. Murphy was the only person who would bare the consequences of the risk if it did not pay off. The risk was his alone.
The Bush Administration put the country at “tremendous risk” without fully understanding that risk or informing the country about it. Courage would have been to realize this and march the troop back down the hill.
The saddest part is that the risk was tremendous in both probability of paying off and the magnitude of the loss. The chance our war is going to somehow bring democracy to the entire ME is a long shot at best. The price we paid for taking this long shot is the blood of our own countrymen, 100,000 Iraqis who never consented to the risk, and our good name.
The Lincoln/FDR comparison is also inapt. Neither of those men started the wars they had to fight. Additionally, the risk involved in not acting in the Civil War or WWII balanced, if not outweighed, the risk of acting.
Here, the risk of not going to war was not great and certainly did not outweigh the risks of going to war (risks Feith now claims the the Administration was well aware of prior to striking). Saddam had no capability of striking us. He was not friendly with Al Queda. He was contained.
21. extramedium | June 13th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Mark,
I’ll grant you that - it does take courage to move outside the comfort zone or to step into the unknown, but then again there are countless issues of courage having to do with going to war that we could chat about.
The specific courage that I focus on when I look at this situation is the courage of restraint/i>. It’s the leadership and confidence to know that you are powerful enough to easily destroy a foe, yet you hold this power back as an absolute last resort. It’s the the of courage that prevents a father from giving his 5 year old a broken jaw when he talks back to him. It’s the kind of courage that stops a man from being a cowardly wife beater or domestic animal abuser.
We can debate all day about faulty intelligence and whether the public was lied to, but one thing is indisputable: very high ranking and influential people in the Bush administration came into the 1st term wanting to re-engage with Iraq regardless of other what events were to transpire. Those same people stoked an enormous sense of urgency to take us back to war with Iraq once 9/11 set the stage, and it was rooted more in ideology and a dream of spreading democracy than in an absolute necessity.
I’m not against war - sometimes it is absolutely necessary. I’m not even saying that we should never have reengaged with Iraq. I’m just saying that it could have waited, and we should have focused our brave forces and our countless billions of dollars on other pressing matters to do with fighting terrorism.
I don’t expect that you will ever give in on this point - you have too much of your pride invested in it. But I can’t help but challenge you each time you come up with a new revisionist point of view that says it was a good idea to invade Iraq in 2003.
22. extramedium | June 13th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Oops - trying to be too clever with the HTML formatting - meant to just italicize the word ‘restraint’.
23. Jay Gaultieri | June 13th, 2008 at 7:22 am
If anyone doubts what I posted, go to newamericancentury.org and check it out yourself. Then look at the names on the Mission Statement.
24. neocon | June 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Jay,
First of all, this is another liberal talking point dating back years that ALL of us are familiar with. But it’s nice you finally showed up.
Re: the PNAC, waht is wrong with wanting to promote a “benevolent global hegemony” in oppressed regions?
Isn’t that what you want from our government towards our own citizens? Yes, I think it is. So why would you deny the benevolence of our government towards others that are more in need?
Are you selfish? Or do you just not care about other people?