The US, UN & Iraq II

The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives' 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
ABCNEWS.com

March 10 ?- Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.


• Nightline, 3/5/03
COMMUNITY
• Should the U.S. Attack Iraq?


The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning ?- before it was even clear who was behind the attacks ?- Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.

Links to Bush Administration

Some critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially in Europe, have portrayed PNAC as, in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, "a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination."

The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998 open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power," they wrote, foreshadowing the debate currently under way in the United Nations.

Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.

According to Kristol, the group's thinking stemmed from the principles of Ronald Reagan: "A strong America. A morally grounded foreign policy ... that defended American security and American interests. And understanding that American leadership was key to not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world."

Pushing for a More Assertive Foreign Policy

After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam still in position as a potential threat, Kristol told Nightline, he and the others had a sense that "lots of terrible things were really being loosed upon the world because America was being too timid, and too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War era." In reports, speeches, papers and books, they pushed for an aggressive foreign policy to defend U.S. interests around the globe.

Clinton did order airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, but through the rest of his presidency and the beginning of Bush's, America's "containment" policy for Saddam lay dormant ?- until September 2001.

"Before 9/11, this group ... could not win over the president to this extravagant image of what foreign policy required," said Ian Lustick, a Middle East expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the president. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House."

Like other critics, Lustick paints PNAC in conspiratorial tones: "This group, what I call the tom-tom beaters, have set an agenda and have made the president feel that he has to live up to their definitions of manliness, their definitions of success and fear, their definitions of failure."

Kristol dismisses the allegations of conspiracy, but said the group redoubled its efforts after 9/11 to get its message out. "We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first, at us," he said.

Predicting Vindication

Now that American bombs could soon be falling on Iraq, Kristol admits to feeling "some sense of responsibility" for pushing for a war that will cost human lives. But, he said, he would also feel responsible if "something terrible" happened because of U.S. inaction.

Kristol expressed regret that so many of America's traditional allies oppose military action against Iraq, but said the United States has no choice. "I think what we've learned over the last 10 years is that America has to lead. Other countries won't act. They will follow us, but they won't do it on their own," he said.

Kristol believes the United States will be "vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq." He predicts that many of the allies who have been reluctant to join the war effort would participate in efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq.

This report originally aired on Nightline on March 5, 2003.

James Morrison, I welcome and applaud your participation, and your perspective and clarity of expression. Keep it up, please

I begin to suspect a period of positional warfare may ensue, allowing the weight of 4ID to be brought to bear. On the otherhand, if, as it currently seems, Saddam intends to redeploy his conventional forces, their very movement spells their doom. I doubt Saddam is disingenuous enough to make that mistake. He's studied Afghanistan and Kosovo, and learned much from Gulf War 1. I believe his strategy is to avoid exposing his heavier forces and equipment to certain destruction, relying on irregular and paramilitary activity to harrass anddelay Coalition forces long enough to allow World Opinion to force a political resolution. That will not happen. To imagine that it might is but yet another miscalculation of US capability and resolve. Whether right or wrong, the US has the resources and determination to press the issue to its own desired conclusion. Iraq will not be liberated within days ... nor was such ever realistically anticipated. The US will be the dominant player in The Middle East for generations to come.

percy maybe, but perc is just an abbreviation.

Gelisgesti

You have just posted a very accurate blueprint of what our foreign policy objectives should be----I agree with it and Kristols comments 100 %. It's called reality and if you folks didn't have your heads in the clouds you would agree.

LittleK

Cmon---just let it go.

I'm not harping, just wanted to understand where you were coming from.

Everyone loves a good joke right? Well please let me share a great one with you

A friend of mine is an officer in the naval reserve. A few weeks ago, he was attending a conference that included admirals in both the US and the French navies. At a cocktail reception, my friend found himself in a small group that included an admiral from each of the two navies. The French admiral started complaining that whereas Europeans learned many languages, Americans only learned English. He then asked. "Why is it that we have to speak English in these conferences rather than you have to speak French?"

Without even hesitating, the American admiral replied. "Maybe it is because we arranged it so that you did not have to learn to speak German."

I've thought, namecalling used to be done just by children in their pre-pubertarian period.

Perception, you obviously read the article while wearing your right wing glasses.
Ask yourself this question:
Why would ordinary citizens concern themselves wth the overthrow of a tyrant on the other side of the globe?

Money?

Geesti

It's called GLOBALIZATION -----If Saddam had studied Sun Tzu instead of Stalin and had more that a third grade thugs education he would already control all the middle east oil and therefore the economies of the entire world.

The first real blunder he made was starting the Iran/Iraq war. It drained his economy and killed a million people

The second blunder was invading Kuwait when he was only months away from having a nuclear weapon. We destroyed half his army and most of his equipment and discovered how close he was to a nuke weapon.

His third and last blunder was not taking exile when it was offered to him.

Perception -- The problem is, people do take offense when other people don't take care.

Ad Hominems and invectives are discourteous, junvenile and not allowed on A2K - under any circumstances!

I'll post this description again, just on the off chance it will sink in.

May I be so bold as to take a quote from roger's link:



Thank you roger!

Perception, I have neither the time or inclination to educate you ... I will try to keep you amused for a while .

And Jesus said unto his disciples, "Whom do men say
that I am?"

And His disciples answered unto Him, "Master,
thou art the supreme eschatological manifestation
of omnipotent ecclesiastical authority, the absolute,
divine, sacerdotal monarch."

And Jesus said, "What?"

Get it?

As Regards the United Nations:

The infamous 2nd resolution was less than a page of text and simply said that any one agreeing with it acknowledged that Iraq was in breach of UN resolution1441. I watched with my own eyes a few weeks before as Hans Blix gave his report and stated those instances where Iraq was in breach of 1441 . This implies, according to UN res. 1441 itself that Iraq was now subject to serious consequences. There was no need for the second resolution; this is the "International" legal reality. The only fuzzy aspect of this legal wrangling is what "serious consequences" meant. This is the only area where France would have some say or argument mitigating any interpretation that "serious consequences = War, not whether Iraq was in breach of 1441 or not. The UN inspectors, that France put so much faith in, told them that Iraq was in breach of 1441 in no uncertain terms.

Perception’s gripe with France I feel is valid. France IMO has a large responsibility for this war. Had France stood strong this would have presented a united front to Saddam who would then take note. This coupled with the build up of troops on Saddam's border could have convinced Saddam to cough up his illegal weapons.

The United States was WRONG by declaring early that it would disarm Iraq come Hell or High Water. France was Worse than Wrong by seemingly taking military action off the table and dividing the former allies by declaring it would block even the POSSIBILITY of military action.

Some would say that it was ultimately Saddam's responsibility to prevent war and to disarm. But if the U.S. and France want to be considered grown-ups in today's political world then they must not let small children of Saddam’s ilk to disrupt the peace of the world. This remains true for any nation or institution that aspires to international respect.

I must be honest. As presently structured, I cannot see the UN's relevancy as an institution for solving international disputes. It has no revenue generating power other then monies each member feels like giving at the time. It has no military power to convince rogue states like Iraq or North Korea to behave themselves. The 5 P members that essentially make all the decisions are not uninterested arbiters and can at any time initiate any action they so choose (U.S./Iraq, Russia/Afghanistan, France/The Ivory Coast). Alternately just one of these Nations can block the will of all the rest of the members.

The UN seems able to do some fine humanitarian work but, unlike private agencies (NGO's), its members must participate in catfights and backbiting before a decision is affected. Pretty good at peace keeping until one side of the conflict decides it has given peace enough of a chance, then real troops must be sent in, again, to show the offender the evil of his ways.

I don't know. It would be nice to have a higher authority that could realistically solve our problems and make everybody happy. Until that time arrives the U.S. will continue to look after its own security no matter how others interpret their actions. This does not make us evil, especially when we have forfeited our most precious treasure for others; this is implied in Perception's excellent quote of Colin Powell:

" Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

Respectfully,

JM

And I thank you, BillW.

Driving home just now with the news on (on NPR), I heard that the infantry is now subject to suicide attacks on the part of the Iraqi militia. Not crazed farmers with pitchforks but militia in trucks with explosives driving into (and taking out) one Bradley and two tanks. They are constantly getting these attacks -- ambushes --now. This tells me that unless they kill virtually every Iraqi, they will be subjected to these reprisals during and after the invasion.

In Baghdad, at the place where civilians were killed, some Iraqi boys had found a severed hand of one of the victims and were accosting foreign journalists, brandishing the hand, and yelling, "Is this freedom? Is this democracy?"

JM, you would need an all-powerfull world government of some sort to avoid any disagreements of nations, that is probably highly undesirable for a multitude of reasons. It is surely disappointing that the security council cannot find a consensus, but to blame the war on france seems to me to be a stretched speculation (if france stood strong, saddam would be more afraid.... ). besides i don't really think he would act any differently.
And UN? Well surely there are fallacies. Alternatives? Dissolve the United Nations? Would that lead to any good? No? Well then, I suppose we are stuck with it and ought to figure out how to make it work instead.

France was unwilling to negotiate anything that was proferred to the UN. If they are unwilling to negotiate anything, it seems to me they are responsible for acting as a wedge towards any solution for peace. You just can't be against something; you must also provide some options that will continue the negotiation process. In that, they have failed, IMHO. c.i.