Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Opinion

New Book Illuminates Top Levels of Government Heading Into Iraq

April 17, 2008 01:26 PM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link

I haven't finished reading Douglas Feith's War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, but I feel secure in saying that it is an extraordinarily frank and persuasive book. Feith, who served as under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, has been criticized harshly and, I think, unfairly for somehow lying us into Iraq. In War and Decision he presents his view, fortified by generous quotes from government documents, reports, and memorandums. He should be saluted for getting many materials declassified so that we can have a clearer idea of what was actually going on at the top levels of government. I have long been struck by the contrast between what we can read today about the acts of leaders in World War II and what I gather was available to readers at the time. This book provides our first in-depth look at the inside of the Bush administration's national security top leadership from one who was there.

One warning, however: Those who are looking for dirt on Feith's colleagues in government are not going to find it here. He seems to be at pains to relay the arguments of those who had different views fairly and accurately. He concedes some mistakes of his own. And he contradicts much of what has become conventional wisdom about the Iraq war. To whet your appetite, here is an excerpt from the introduction:

Readers who have invested time and faith in the current public affairs literature may find it jarring to discover that key Administration figures—Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, myself, and others—made arguments and advocated policies that run directly counter to the positions usually associated with them. For example:

  • It was the Pentagon "neocons" who continually urged the President to tone down his democracy rhetoric.
  • The most powerful analysis of the downsides of going to war in Iraq came not from the State Department or the CIA, but from Donald Rumsfeld.
  • The Pentagon-CIA dispute over the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship began with objections by Defense officials about the CIA's politicization of intelligence, not the other way around.
  • The work of the State Department's Future of Iraq project on post-Saddam political transition was opposed not by Defense officials, but by Colin Powell and Richard Armitage.
  • It was CIA officials who predicted that Iraqis would launch pro-U.S. uprisings after the start of the war.
  • It was State Department officials who advocated a multiyear U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Tags: Iraq | Iraq war (2003-)

Tools: Share | | Comments (7)

Reader Comments

Obama's Comments on Trade

Obama makes it clear that one of the irrational prejudices of small town America is one against free trade. Yet he has pandered to this bias in order to cultivate votes in his own campaigning. This would seem to be a paramount example of telling the "fools" what they want to hear in order to keep them placated. It is cynical and dishonest and yet it is evidently admitted to by Obama, himself, by joining his own remarks made in different speeches together.

It certainly makes the earlier reassurance by an Obama economic advisor to the Canadian government that his position against NAFTA was not real but simply for political impression more believable. Obama's rock-bottom beliefs on free trade may be rational, but it is his dishonesty and contempt for "small-town" America that is troubling.

Saddam and al Qaeda intel battle

Nice post Michael. If you read George Tenet's book about the background disputes on the Saddam al Qaeda question you still get this inconsistent dismissal of what was good and bad intel on the issue. I tend to agree with Feith that the CIA was putting way to much stock in the secular vs. Islamist thing and were throwing out intelligence that disagreed with this faulty premise.

I have a few future interviews on this topic scheduled at my site, www.regimeofterror.com, from some others who were behind the scenes on this and I think the public really deserves to hear both sides, not just the pro CIA, anti Bush side we are deluged with any time the topic comes up in the "mainstream" press.

Seventh bullet point

The most important bullet point of all.

*It was President Bush, the Republicans and the conservative half of the Democratic Party that are responsible for this $3 trillion disaster.

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

The Numbers With Michael Barone

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.