The UN made Bush lie?

If so, they really do deserve to be punished somehow. Make the delegates and staff in New York pay for lunch out of their own pockets once a week, or something.

I'm no doubt being unfair, but Glenn Reynolds now looks back at the rationales for the Iraq war (in light of "final" confirmation that there were no WMDs), and I believe he adds a twist we have not seen before.

The biggest criticism of the Bush Administration here is that (1) it made the mistake of listening to George "slam dunk" Tenet and the CIA on this issue; and -- bigger mistake -- (2) it made the mistake of trying to go through the United Nations, which required it to make more of the WMD business than was otherwise necessary.

Of course Reynolds still isn't admitting Bush lied. Bush trusted Tenet, and he made more of the WMDs than would otherwise have been necessary. What was Bush's "real" rationale, which for some strange reason (intimidated by the UN?) he didn't emphasize?

...the war was about remaking the Middle East, helping to establish a democracy in a vital spot, neutralizing a longtime, and still-dangerous foe with ties to terrorists, and putting the U.S. in a position to threaten Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, not simply about getting rid of WMD stockpiles.

I guess these thoughts can be teased out of Bush's speeches, but on the whole it's something we've heard from pundits and bloggers more than the official spokespeople, who emphasized 1)WMDs and 2) Iraq's links to terror, and specifically the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the U.S., here and now. Wrong on both counts. Still the old dilemma: lying or clueless? Reynolds says "pretty much everyone" thought Saddam had "stockpiles" of WMDs (he hadn't actually proved otherwise); so maybe not everyone thought Saddam was working closely with Osama? Maybe that was convenient fiction from the get-go? It still just seems that a convenient package of crazy, hysterical crap from Ahmed Chalabi and Laurie Mylroie was moved very abruptly from rather obscure Power Point presentations in second-rate hotels, right into the White House, with very little opportunity for real debate or dissent.

Matthew Yglesias reminds us that from the time UN weapons inspectors actually got back inside Iraq, none of the U.S. claims about WMDs panned out. The U.S. attempted to give locations that were supposedly certain to have big, significant facilities, but there was nothing. In other words, the best and most recent evidence showed nothing--not 90% of the most dire estimates, or 50% or 10%, or granted there were no nukes, but plenty of chemicals and biologicals (which a lot of people can make in their bath tubs): nothing at all. Reynolds has mentioned before that Clinton said about the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that he thought Saddam had WMDs. But by that time, Clinton had not been briefed on the subject by experts for more than two years. When the U.S. invaded, what we now know as the truth was slowly emerging: no WMDs whatsoever. It seems the U.S. wanted to invade quickly before that truth emerged--just as Bush chose not to take out Zarqawi, an actual Al Qaeda operative who was somewhere (actually in U.S.-friendly Kurdistan) in Iraq.

Eisenhower was told in briefings, and in the annual intelligence estimate, that the Soviets had dozens or thousands of missiles. Recent photos showed nothing, and Krushchev said they had little or nothing. In 1960, it turned out, they had about four missiles. Eisenhower didn't blame the CIA for misinformation for the rest of his life, or force anyone to resign. He just made good decisions.

The neo-cons, or whoever was decisive here, must have thought the stars had converged perfectly. The U.S. the only megapower--really no reason to fear a strictly military response from anyone at all. There is the old problem of winning hearts and minds, but who can resist democracy, if they're given a fair chance at it? And aren't we basically likeable? Maybe Vietnam was just an anomaly in the otherwise unblemished record of great and glorious U.S. success in war. Maybe we can succeed at relatively little cost.

In his long book on the war between Athens and Sparta (what we call the Peloponnesian War--the losers in the war--Athens--wrote the books and taught us how to speak about it), Thucydides speaks of a cause of war (aitia) and a prophasis (roughly a pretext). Pretexts are offered up like the special of the day at a farmer's market; a real cause may not be spoken by anyone.

Are we approaching the point where we can speak of both pretexts and real causes for the U.S. invasion of Iraq? I think there were some necessary if not sufficient conditions that brought it about:

1. Iraq was somehow related to 9/11. This is to take seriously what Reynolds and others have been saying. Either Saddam was somehow a) an immediate threat or b)working closely with those who were or c)anyway, it would help Iraq, the region and the world to get rid of him--make another 9/11 less likely. De-stabilize a number of bad regimes that either support terrorism or make it more likely (the two being constantly confused). Not clear whether this requires a stable regime, noticeably better than Saddam's; a democracy; or what.

2. Oil. This is to take seriously many critics of Bush. Among other things, Wolfowitz promised the U.S. Congress and the public that oil revenues would pay for the war. That was a relief.

3. Israel. Whether or not taking out Saddam would help Iraqis, Arabs, the U.S., the West, the future of civilization, it would surely help Israel. Although: experts have said Israel's first choice would have been regime change in Iran; second, probably Syria. Perhaps Israel didn't think Saddam was actively supporting terrorists to any significant extent. (Although he was apparently one of the bankers who would pay the families of Palestinian bombers/martyrs).

4. Should be easy--possibly even a cakewalk.

None of these reasons are contemptible in the least, and they may actually work out. Popular movements against the worst Arab states and Iran may gain confidence from the Iraqi example; the flow of oil may be maximized, whether or not Iraq gets a democracy or a regime we particularly like; Israel may continue to make progress toward peace. A higher price will have been paid by the U.S. than Bush or anyone around him probably expected, but in a way there is something noble in that.

Of course, Iraq may go south; then it will be a question whether the oil continues to flow even at levels that were sustained under Saddam; neighbouring countries may partition Iraq, and bad regimes may be encouraged rather than discouraged. The U.S. may "allow" such developments in order to reduce its losses. Such developments are not likely to help Israel, and may hurt.

Are there underlying causes, largely unstated, that might help us explain what has gone on?

1. It is surely not too nasty to say that as a result of 9/11, Bush and many other Americans wanted to make war somewhere. It is especially striking in Bush's case, since he pretty well said openly he neither knew nor cared about any country outside the U.S. with the possible exception of Mexico. Afghanistan was good, but it wasn't enough. Why be the only mega power that has ever existed, only to feel helpless in the face of the 9/11 attacks? Why attack only places like Grenada?

2. Make history. Be the greatest generation. An extreme defence of Bush would say that civilization is at stake--in a way, as much as in a combination of World War II and the Cold War. If Islamic fundamentalism/terrorism keeps growing, it can threaten more and more of our people and our economy. Only the megapower can stop this. Diplomacy and negotiation are part of the picture, as the left-wing intellectuals say, but they are by no means all of it. If Bush succeeds, he may bring democracy to a significant part of the world by his own direct action--more than any U.S. president has done in Latin America, or in the ex-Communist countries.

UPDATE: More from Yglesias (link above):

...contrary to the ex post rationalizations from the right, it's simply not the case that "everyone" -- or even almost everyone -- thought Saddam Hussein had WMD at the time the war started.

[snip]

But the United States wasn't being governered by rational people, so they, along with their cheerleaders in the press, proclaimed that if inspections weren't finding the weapons, that wasn't because the weapons weren't there but because the inspectors were corrupt, incompetent, or something like that. Therefore, an invasion was necessary.

This judgment -- the judgment that took us to war, the judgment that's led to all the many American casualties and the many more Iraqi casualties, didn't reflect any sort of international consensus whatsoever.

Again, I don't think that since there were no WMDs, there was no good reason to go to war at all. But I'm trying to be clear. On the part of some of Bush's defenders, there is a potent mixture of hatred of the terrorists who actually attacked the U.S., hatred of Saddam, and hatred of the UN for ... I don't know... not being sufficiently pro-American, and allowing "all these problems" to fester.

Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:32 pm MST by robertll | Email Article |

Return to Main Page

The UN made Bush lie?