Another Look at America’s Secret War
This month has been an eventful one in the Iraq War. Iraq is continually in danger of being ripped apart even further by the different factions, and nations funding those factions, struggling for dominance. Unfortunately, there are few voices in the media that can or try to provide comprehensive analysis at any real level of depth that enable an understanding the forces in this war.
Those who opposed the war point to every new catastrophe as proof that Iraq is a quagmire. Those who support it complain constantly that the “liberal media” (a humorous concept, indeed) simply refuse to acknowledge the victories that America has achieved in the Middle East. There are times when the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but this is not one of those times. The truth lies buried at a deeper level, and the real failure of the influentials in this debate has been to not provide a framework for understanding the true nature of the Iraq war and the “war on terrorism” on a larger scale.
In 2004, George Friedman, the founder of private intelligence firm Stratfor, released a book, called America’s Secret War, designed to change that. The book itself is one of the few books that people on both sides of the debate appreciate, for it is an extremely balanced, given Friedman’s occupation, look at the history and current events in the Middle East.
The book is broken into three sections. The first three chapters set the context for what Friedman calls the “the Fourth Global War,” a term he later seems to back off from, instead calling it the “U.S.-jihadist” war. In this first section, he provides a concise and well-rounded account of the history and origins of the war. In particular, he tells the fascinating history of U.S. foreign policy mistakes in the context of Islamic civilization.
In the preface, Friedman states “the closer you stand to an object, the less sense it makes. The closer you watch this war, the more incoherent it becomes. This book uses Stratfor’s geopolitical method to step back from the events and see the order hidden within.” In this respect, and many others, Friedman succeeds wildly. He undertook the tenuous task of providing the context and rational basis for a war which many couldn’t understand.
The second section of the book tackles the issue of how American intelligence works (and doesn’t work) and why it has been responsible for so many catastrophic failures.
Finally, Friedman uses Sept. 11 as the pivot point of the book and traces the events immediately following the attacks to their origins in this war. Along the way, he writes a compelling history of the war in Afghanistan and paints the picture of that region as perhaps the most dangerous and captivating place on the planet. From there, he attempts to show that the invasion of Iraq was a very bad decision, and at the same time absolutely necessary. He asserts that the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with WMD (no news there) or the freedom of the Iraqi people (as the Romantics were led to believe).
These, and all of the other public explanations for the war were indeed lies, but necessary lies, Friedman maintains, in the face of America’s need to achieve its true goal: prove to Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East that America is not a military weakling. That’s it. That’s why we’re at war in Iraq. That one is a little harder to use in order to garner public support. The ultimate purpose is to convince Saudi Arabia that we are worse enemies than Al Qaeda so that the Saudi regime will support our efforts to track and destroy the terrorist organization.
Friedman readily admits that this motivation will surprise most Americans who see themselves as powerful, honorable (more on this later) warriors. In the Middle East, however, we are generally looked at as rather insignificant militarily. Of course, we have the ability to project force and influence to almost every corner of the globe, but our political status as a democracy undermines our resolve to fight at any expense, especially if it involves large amounts of U.S. military casualties. Innocent civilian casualties don’t seem to bother us so much.
From this proposition, Friedman explains the events of this war as a natural consequence of assuming that we had no other choice. As an American citizen born in the middle of the Cold War, and as one who has seen the Cold War and its players evolve quickly into the leaders of the current conflict, I think it is worth investigating Friedman’s, and our government’s assumption that we had to go to war. This conclusion was reached too easily. Again, the fundamental motivation was to convince the Middle East, particularly the Saudis, that we are scarier than Al Qaeda. When we have reached this state of affairs, is it not worth questioning whether how we got here was the result of bad decisions instead of blindly following a possibly mistaken assumption to its logical and inevitable conclusion?
The fundamental problem with both this assumption and this “solution” is that when we apply military solutions to complex problems on an increasingly global scale in a context of always-on communications, we not only risk getting ourselves into unsustainable campaigns, we ignore the reality that not every foe can be or should be defeated through a violent response. Nor, when we do respond with violence, do we properly acknowledge our own culpability in the creation of the situation itself.
Such mistakes are dangerous, and will lead to more violence. And more uncontrolled spending. There is no good way to end this war through violence. It will lead to another war, even in the best possible circumstances, within twenty years.
America and the West, throughout recent history, failed to capitalize on its most valuable asset: its cultural influence and image of freedom and prosperity. Instead, we undermine our own freedom and the rest of the world’s prosperity through our government’s and predatory corporation’s attempts to manipulate the global economy in our failure. This provides ammunition for our “enemies.”
There are three reasons people go war:
1. They feel the need to protect themselves and their way of life from aggressors.
2. A powerful elite feels the need to protect its interests.
3. People, largely ignorant of the subtleties of war and the global economy yet remain highly idealistic about their own nation’s greatness, are duped into fighting for or supporting one of the first two groups as a result of falling prey to Romantic, patriotic imagery and a violent propaganda.
On the last page of the original edition of his book, Friedman makes the following statement:
The weakness of the U.S. is not our soldiers, not their numbers, but the vast distance that separates American leaders from those who fight. From government officials to media moguls to finance power-brokers, few members of the leadership class have children who are at war. To them, the soldiers are alien, people they have never met and don’t understand. When the children of the leaders stay home, the leaders think about war in unfortunate ways. As the most powerful nation in the world, we will be fighting many wars. A ruling class that sends the children of others to fight, but not their own, cannot sustain its power for very long.
This war is an excellent example of all three of the above reasons people go to war. One group, radical, conservative Muslims perceive their way of life threatened by Western influence and the influence of corrupt Islamic governments. (Actually more of a concern for them - Al Qaeda wanted the U.S. to invade the Middle East in order to cause the public to rise up against their own governments.) The U.S., the powerful, perceives its interests as jeopardized and has responded with violence abroad and authoritarian measures against its own citizens at home. Finally, members of the third group, a diverse population made up of everybody from NASCAR patriots to Tolkien dreamers who speak of a “just war” have been duped into believing in and fighting for an Administration that has anything but their interests in mind.
The chief characteristic of policy in the 21st century should be a focus not on short term military victories but on a sustainable vision for the future. Perhaps that is too much to ask. But a democracy cannot succeed if its primary vehicle for action in the world relies on expeditionary wars designed to make other nations afraid.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Good post more later.
p
March 20th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Wow, this sounds like a fascinating book. I\’m gonna try to track this one down. Thanks Ray.
-Matt
March 20th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
I\’m pleased to see that you were able to complete the read. I hope it was as enjoyable for you as it was for me.
WARNING: All readers may want to stop now. I tend to ramble as you will soon learn.
Your analysis was very complete, but we view this situation through different lenses. For example, when you related to the argument for WMD\’s and the freedom of the Iraqi people as being justifications that were lies… \”These, and all of the other public explanations for the war were indeed lies, but necessary lies\”… I think that you may have taken some factors at face value (a rare practice for you). To be a lie, a claim must be delivered with the understanding that it is a deception from the truth. Recent NYTimes information reveals a shocking truth; Saddam\’s own generals thought they were armed with biological and beyond WMD\’s. Their lackluster defense is now attributed to their shock at learning they would not have nerve agents and other WMD\’s with which to defend themselves agains the invading forces; information they learned immediately prior to the onset of the war when attempting to prepare with tactics that would\’ve yeilded terrifying body counts. Our intel sucked, MI6 intel sucked, the UN intel sucked, and apparently the Iraqi generals\’ intel sucked. This prewar environment cautions us when assigning intentional misdirection or lies to a people or administration. Unless you are absolutely certain, I think we should continue to call these \”lies\” universally accepted intelligence failures (some sarcasm for fun).
Where we might agree pertaining to the above example would be Friedman\’s revelation that WMD\’s and freedom were not the PRIMARY causes or catalysts for the current conflct. You are correct when you review Friedman\’s analysis to include much more complicated motives for the invasion of Iraq. A strong military example that may influence Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as Pakistan and Indonesia is certainly a clear claim that America\’s Secret War makes for our invasion of Iraq. This does not mean that additional motives \”do not fit\” into the framework for going to war. It\’s like making any decision in life where we look for the key determining factors or big picture, and support it with other smaller factors. You may also agree that it is unpractical and potentially dangerous for us to openly air our additional intentions to the American public and enemies alike. Saudi Arabia, \’our great friend and declared ally\’, may not take kindly to our open declaration that this action is intended to keep them in check as well as create a footprint to assist that part of the world with their budding democracies.
So does this administration have our best interests in mind? War is deplorable, but we have not been attacked in quite some time. Iraqis have voted and have also dissented freely in their streets. Both of these are new phenomenons to them. We know Iraq is no longer attempting to develop WMD\’s, their freedom is growing, and we can say neither of these things about Saudi Arabia or Iran. Additionally, we now have a footprint in this unstable region. Our presence is a cooling factor that potentially impedes the ability of Iran and others to move forward with plans against our interests, allies, and views of a peaceful middle east. Are our best interests being considered? for some of us the answer maybe yes, or at worst maybe.
Considering that we are at war, it is an improved breed of war by historical standards. Selfishly, we have only lost 2,300 troops in 3 years. The last couple of months have shown this rate to be dropping as well. 500 of the deaths are not combat related. So 1,800 deaths or 600 a year for a WAR? in a hostile country? that is a tremendous success for such a mission. Iraqi\’s and innocent civilians, not as lucky, agreed. But they are no longer dying under the regime of Saddam for voicing a view of dissent. Those days are over and are replaced with days of voting, protesting, and nation building.
So there is the start of my dissertation. The Adderall wore off long ago. Only time will tell if your prediction of our action taking us directly into war again within 20 years will come true. You\’re probably right. History is too rich with war to go against those odds. Freedom.
Good night.
-Nate
March 21st, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I have to agree with Nate so far was what I have read here. I have been studying this war and history of both the crusades and the region with interest lately and I have to say, nothing I have found so far has shown the Iraq war to be a major mistake from the viewpoint that we will be successful in Iraq. Granted there is always risk in war (Large risks too) but the truth is that in money, politics, love and war, you must be able to handle some risk or you will see no gains.
I disagree with the premise that was mentioned that the book made about the reason for the Iraq war however. If the main purpose of attacking Iraq was to scare or somehow show the Saudi’s who’s boss, I feel it would have been FAR more efficient to have simply toppled the Saudi regime and instilled something more to our liking than to attack Iraq would ever be. So that’s why it seems to me that that was not one the main goals per say even if it was an intended side effect. I think a study of the history of Iran and the Ayatolla’s intentions of creating an Islamic empire probably would show that that along with Al Qaeda’s combined intentions is a bigger reason for our being there, and for attacking those people who would wish to harm us on foreign soil rather than our own as a much more compelling reason.
Regardless of what reason anyone says is the reason for the war, Self preservation IS the main reason for any war when you get down to it.
The Iraq war is far bigger than just Iraq… it has consequences for the world potentially very good, but also could be very bad if things go wrong.
Some interesting reading on the crusades
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm
March 21st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Ron - good to see you here, as always.
The point you raised was actually dealt with in the book. The reason we didn’t go after the Saudis is quite simple: toppling the Saudi regime would have been extremely dangerous for U.S. policy. While Al Qaeda is largely the result of Saudi policy and there are strong, very strong Wahabi elements within Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda and the Saudi regime are not on friendly terms. The conservatives within Saudi Arabia resented deeply the Saudi’s allowing us to construct bases there. If we toppled the government in Saudi Arabia, we would lose a powerful buffer between our interests and radicals.
However, the book clearly maintains that Saudi Arabia was not as afraid of us as they were of Al Qaeda. That is the reason we went to war - to convince the Saudis they were wrong.
Keep in mind who wrote this book. Friedman is the founder of a company that is essentially a private CIA. It is in his financial interests to advise the U.S. government on sound military strategy and intelligence. If HE says that this was the primary goal of the war, and that things like Iraqi freedom and WMD were just smokescreens (he calls them lies - I just used his term, Nate) then his statements have incredible merit.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:41 pm
“Our presence is a cooling factor…”
A cooling factor? I’d hate to think what an irritant would be.
As Condi has said, history will judge this war. I’d be willing to bet that history will judge this war as a $300 billion U.S. taxpayer-funded Al Qaeda recruitment video.
We’ve played completely into the hands of the Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda is infinitely stronger today than it was three years ago. Millions of young, formerly moderate Muslims now firmly believe the claim that was, until a few years ago, up for debate: The U.S. wants to take over the Middle East and subject Muslims to a decadent Western hegemony.
Face it, Bush lied. Perhaps he lied to himself so he could tell the rest of us something he believed, but he lied. He listened to the voices that supported his desire to go to war (Chalabi, for instance), regardless of their credibility, and he ignored his own CIA (who told him clearly that there were no ties between Saddam and 9/11, and that Saddam was only dangerous to us if attacked), because he wanted to go to war.
Nate, it’s interesting that you only list U.S. casualties when calculating the human cost of the war. Bob Dylan once said “We don’t count the dead, boys, when God’s on our side.” It’s too bad.
At least 150,000 Cambodian non-combatant civilians were killed by illegal U.S. bombing raids after we had already clearly lost the war in Vietnam (the real number is probably closer to 300,000, not counting those killed in Laos), but they didn’t really matter either. Nor did the millions who died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, a regime which was defended as legitimate by the U.S. at the U.N., a regime that would have never come to power if the peasantry hadn’t been radicalized by unjust, unjustified and immoral American foreign policy.
So far, no one can say for sure how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by U.S. guns and bombs, and no one can begin to guess how many more will be killed by the civil war we’ve fomented. History repeats itself, but we never seem to learn. Sure, Saddam sucked, but I’m not sure the cure is going to end up being any better than the disease.
Speaking of diseases, does anyone know how much free healthcare we could provide for the poor at home and abroad with the billions we’re wasting in Iraq?…
March 21st, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Incidentally, we tend to restrict our definition of ‘freedom’ to the right to hold democratic elections, and the right to public dissent. Most of the world also includes ‘not being occupied foreign armies and their puppet governments.’
Our lack of understanding of that fact cost us dearly in Vietnam, and I predict that Iraq will be no different.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
John,
Example of irritant - Pulling out of Iraq today.
Where do you source information for the claims \”Al Queda is infinitely stonger, millions of young moderate blah blah believe claim blah blah decadent Western hemegony\”?
What is your definition of lying? Being wrong? Does it stem from intention? How do you know the thoughts and desires of a man whom you have probably never met? Have you asked him?
Yes, it is true that I only know stats of the US casualties, but that does not mean that I did not acknowledge Iraqi deaths or that I feel they are insignificant. It is precisely because I feel that they are significant that I am so pleased to see that they are not dying at the hands of Saddam\’s political machine at the rate and volumes that we are still learning about as we continue to uncover countless murders through mass graves and other sources of evidence. I am sure many innocents have died through this conflict and my soul cries out for them. I believe millions died because we did NOT intervene in Rwanda among other places as well. That bothers me too. I am willing to critique our motives for intervening and not intervening geopolitically. Are you willing to explore possibilities that the situation in Iraq might be more positive then we are led to believe by some sources?
As far as Vietnam and Cambodia are concerned, I have never claimed that the US was blameless and shameless in our actions. I know you have deep interest and a caring heart for these people and greatly respect that. That does not mean, however, that this current action is a repeat of Vietnam and Cambodia. That is too simple of an assessment of our current situation and reeks of political bickering and a shot fired in the sound-bite two party war.
True Freedom is never achieved without risk, pain, growth, and unfortunately blood. Iraq is closer to true freedom and to a future that affords their retaking of the political power and rule than in recent years. It is too easy to come to the conclusion that the US has \’given\’ them a \’puppet\’ government. I am unwilling to come to \’easy\’ conclusions such as this without exploring the legitamacy of these brave Iraqi leaders and the political ideals they have determined are worth dying for.
Allied involvement in Japan and Germany seems to have had some measure of success post WW2. This success was not immediate and similar accusations pertaining to nation building and slow progress could have been made about those situations.
I predict that we neither fail in Iraq, nor do we end up pleasing everyone, especially those who question all things \’American\’.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
“Are you willing to explore possibilities that the situation in Iraq might be more positive then we are led to believe by some sources?”
Nate,
Of course. As a matter of fact, I supported the war when we went in. I’m by no means a hard-core leftist or anti-war activist. I even voted for Bush once. But it’s crystal clear to me that we’ve been lied to, and that pisses me off. Especially over something this important. Bush’s multitude of shifting justifications for this thing is a great indication that this thing is a house of cards.
“What is your definition of lying? Being wrong? Does it stem from intention? How do you know the thoughts and desires of a man whom you have probably never met? Have you asked him?”
Yes. Of course. George and I regularly do lunch. Come on. If a personal relationship with a historical or political figure is the prerequisite for judging his actions, we have no basis for sorting out any of the issues that make or have made the world around us. Even Jesus told us that we can know a tree by its fruit.
To me, it’s clear — George wasn’t just wrong, he was evasive and duplicitous and manipulative. And it’s not just this issue. Don’t get me started on ‘compassionate conservatism’ that is neither compassionate nor conservative; billions in deficit spending to gut programs focused on the poor and protect the riches of oligarchs.
“I predict that we neither fail in Iraq, nor do we end up pleasing everyone, especially those who question all things \’American\’.”
I think that the most patriotic thing we can do is hold our government accountable when it falls short of its noble ideals. Questioning one’s government is the key to democracy, no?
At any rate, I doubt we’ll convince each other. You’re an articulate and thoughtful guy, and I’m glad we live in a country where we can exchange our ideas freely.
God bless America.
And Iraq. And Libya. And Sudan. And North Korea.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Damn, I just can’t put this down. Anyway, I had a couple more thoughts:
“It is too easy to come to the conclusion that the US has \’given\’ them a \’puppet\’ government. I am unwilling to come to \’easy\’ conclusions such as this without exploring the legitamacy of these brave Iraqi leaders and the political ideals they have determined are worth dying for.”
Nate, you should know that this has been anything BUT an easy conclusion for me to reach. Realizing my government and president’s faults was a painful process. Now that I’ve adjusted my political perspective to fit reality as I see it, it’s all a whole lot clearer. But not easier at all.
“Allied involvement in Japan and Germany seems to have had some measure of success post WW2. This success was not immediate and similar accusations pertaining to nation building and slow progress could have been made about those situations.”
The situations and justifications for our involvement in these wars are so completely different, it’s useless to compare them. Germany and Japan were aggressively attempting to take over the globe. Iraq, post-Desert Storm was completely contained. Furthermore, our involvement in WWII was supported by more than half of the world. One could hardly call our current coalition a broad-based movement founded on consensus — many of the nations on our side were threatened or coerced, a fact that is quite well documented.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t think that we can or should pull out of Iraq today. We’ve gotten ourselves into quite the mess (unnecessarily, I believe), and we’re going to be paying for generations.
I don’t know what we should do. But then again, neither does the president. He hasn’t once given a clear, cogent, workable plan for any phase of this thing other than the initial invasion. Arrogance? Ignorance? Probably both.
Nearly everyone in the world (except for Fox News, World Magazine and official government spokespeople) with any sort of access to and background in the Middle East knows that this thing is an ill-conceived, poorly-executed cluster fudge.
All that having been said, I’m glad that I don’t have to align myself as a Democrat OR a Republican. Neither party speaks for me, and neither represents the Kingdom of God. Not even close.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Good responses John.
I agree, no political party ever could speak for the spirit of Christ or the Kingdom of God. That would be an afront to His purpose. I just get frustrated with people who debate the Iraq war based upon what they’ve read or heard in the popular medias. In my opinion, they are dangerous sources of information when used as the defining primary decision making guides.
I think this book is a great read and encourage anyone who would like to intelligently debate the Iraq war to give it a good look. As with any subject, if we care enough to converse inteligently we will erase our ignorance with a deeper focus on the issue… and that requires extra work.
As far as W goes… Even if we don’t like him we need to be careful what we accuse him of. I would agree that he has not been articulate or clear with explanations of actions. I don’t determine him to be lying though. America’s Secret War does a good job of explaining why he can’t always come out with a clear statement of what we are doing for strategic and security reasons among others. Add to this his lack of ability to speak a single coherent sentence and you have the makings of a PR disaster.
-Nate
March 25th, 2006 at 8:22 am
“I just get frustrated with people who debate the Iraq war based upon what they’ve read or heard in the popular medias. In my opinion, they are dangerous sources of information when used as the defining primary decision making guides.”
Depending on what you define as the “popular medias,” I’d argue that they’re a heck of a lot more reliable than the military or the president as sources of information. Unless of course you’re referring to talk radio and Fox news, in chich caseI’d probably agree with you.
I consume everything from the Drudge Report to the BBC to NPR to the Washington Post to NYT and try to get a composite picture. I DON’T listen to official state organs, as they exist solely to justify whatever action the executive chooses at any given time.
“As far as W goes… Even if we don’t like him we need to be careful what we accuse him of. ”
I hear this alot from conservatives, many of whom had no such compunction about eviscerating Clinton and accusing him of everything from cynical, opportunistic attacks on foreign countries to detract from pressure at home to the murder of Vince Foster (and countless others, to hear Jerry Falwell tell it).
March 25th, 2006 at 10:07 am
John - you bring up a lot of great points here. In particular, this last one struck a nerve.
It fascinates me how much a “cult of W” has grown up around this administration. For almost no reason that I can fathom, other than perhaps because he claims to be a Christian, the supposed integrity of Bush is somehow deemed unassailable.
That is the thing that concerns me most about those who support this war, the Patriotic act, domestic spying, and everything other stupid idea this administration came up with: they apply to this administration characteristics of paternal affection and seem to really believe that all of this is for our own good as Americans and the good of those we attack.
And the more doublespeak/doublethink/abstract language I hear defending it, the more it pisses me off.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I’m reading a book called “Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty.” Interesting reading. Obviously, no American political dynasty, er, administration can even compare to the Kim regime, but I do note some similarities — in type, not degree — to the current administration.
The Kims’ “war” against enemies at home and abroad covers a multitude of sins. The people figure, “Well, we’re at war. The south might attack at any moment, and counter-revolutionary forces within the country threaten our ‘national security,’ so I the Great Leader is justified in stifling dissent, keeping all of us under constant surveilance and siphoning off dangerously high percentages of the GNP to increase the military’s might.” As long as the Kims are in power, the “war” will never end.
The Bush administration uses its “war on terror” to get away with pretty much anything it wants to do. And that’s what I think the war in Iraq is really about. Historically, during times of war, the Executive Branch gets increased power and decreased accountability. I think that Bush tasted some of that power after 9-11, and is simply unwilling to give it up. And many Americans just nod their heads and say, “Ditto, Ditto, Bush. Whatever you say. We’re at war, after all; if we criticize, we’re giving comfort and aid to the enemy and diminishing our national security.”
And on it goes.
Is it 2008 yet?
March 28th, 2006 at 4:57 am
“”intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”
As my daddy used to say, “Half a truth is a whole lie.”
—
NEW YORK A confidential memo of a two-hour meeting between President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Jan. 31, 2003, makes clear that the White House was bent on attacking Iraq two months later no matter what, The New York Times wrote Monday in a story based on its review of the document.
Bush made clear to Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second United Nation resolution, “or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons,” writes Don Van Natta, Jr. after examining the memo written about the meeting by Blair’s top foreign policy adviser David Manning.
“Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,” Manning wrote in the memo. “The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,” Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president, according to Van Natta.
Stamped “extremely sensitive,” the five-page memorandum had not been made public. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo, but the Times is first to review the full five-page memo.
The two leaders apparently predicted a quick war and “manageable” aftermath, Van Natta writes. Bush predicted that it was “unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups,” and Blair agreed.
“The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq,” The Times relates. “Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.”
It also described the president as saying, “The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam’s W.M.D,” referring to weapons of mass destruction.
As for post-war planning: The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. “The prime minister asked about aftermath planning,” the memo says. “Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.”
Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, Van Natta explains.
The so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
March 28th, 2006 at 4:57 am
Oh, wait. The horse is dead. Sorry to keep beating it…
March 28th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Actually it’s not dead yet. I foresee no change in our foreign policy or the way we vote people into office.