Rethinking the Iraq Critics

May 8, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (57)

In trying to understand news about the conflicts in Iraq, I work to keep in mind the difference between what we know now about decision-making in World War II and what most Americans knew at the time. From the memoirs and documents published after the war, we've learned how leaders made critical judgments. But at the time, even well-informed journalists could only guess at what was going on behind the scenes.

Today we're only beginning to learn about what went on behind the scenes on Iraq. One important new source is the recently published War and Decision by Douglas Feith, the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. Feith quotes extensively from unpublished documents and contemporary memorandums, just as in the late 1940s Robert Sherwood did in Roosevelt and Hopkins and Winston Churchill did in his World War II histories. The picture Feith paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we've become familiar.

One such narrative is "Bush lied, people died." The claim is that "neocons," including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have already concluded. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam's hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat.

Unfortunately—and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush—the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren't found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem, rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others. The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans have guns is not a problem; the problem is that criminals can get them and have the will to kill others. Similarly, the fact that France has WMDs is not a problem; the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was.

Feith identifies as our central mistake the decision not to create an Iraqi Interim Authority to take over some sovereign functions soon after the overthrow of Saddam. Bush ordered the creation of such an authority on March 10, 2003. But it was resisted by State Department and CIA leaders who argued that Iraqis would not trust "externals"—those in exile—and who were especially determined to keep the Iraqi National Congress's Ahmed Chalabi from power. As head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer took the State-CIA view and, without much supervision from Washington, decided that the U.S. occupation would continue for as long as two years. Only deft negotiation by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld produced a June 30, 2004, deadline for returning authority to Iraqis. The January 2005 elections placed many of the "externals," including Chalabi, in high office.

Feith admits he made mistakes and misjudgments. He criticizes Bush for not defending the main rationale for invasion—protecting Americans from a genuine threat—and instead emphasizing the subsidiary and iffy goal of establishing democracy. He says little about military operations, beyond noting that Bremer and the military leaders had no common approach to combating disorder.

There's still much to be learned about our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq. But Feith's book is a step forward, as were those of Sherwood and Churchill 60 years ago.

Tags:
Iraq,
Iraq war (2003-2011)

Reader Comments Read all comments (57)

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

I'm not usually in the habit of beating a dead horse, but regarding Mr. Barone's insistence that the Bush administration did not politicize the intelligence about Iraq in order to move our country to war, I ran across an interesting example of this politicization process in the book “The One Percent doctrine,” by Ron Suskind. That Feith himself (whose recent book Barone uses as his primary source) was involved make this particularly interesting reading. Suskind recount’s the administration’s ad nauseam efforts to bludgeon the CIA into writing a report verifying a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Some excerpts (from pgs. 189-191):

“Relentless pressure is a strategy. Usually quite successful. It was employed both on the ‘war on terror’ against al Qaeda, and by the White House against the CIA . . . .

“On January 10 [2003] Jimi Miscik, the head of the DI [Directorate of Intelligence] walked down the hall on the seventh floor shaking with rage [and walked into] Tenet’s suite. She could barely get out the words. Stephen Hadley, Condi’s second, had called . . . . They wanted her down at Libby’s office . . . by 5 p.m. At issue was the last in an endless series of draft reports about the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. How many drafts? Miscik couldn’t remember. The pressure from the White House—and various intelligence divisions under the Vice President and Sec. of Defense—had started the week after 9/11.

“Cheney’s office claimed to have sources. And Rumsfeld’s too. They kept throwing them at Miscik and CIA. The same information, five different ways. They’d omit that a key piece had been discounted . . . . ‘Sorry our mistake.’ Then it would reappear, again, in a memo the next week. The CIA held firm: the meeting in Prague between Atta and the Iraqi agent [among other things] didn’t occur.

“Miscik was no fool. She understood what was going on. It wasn’t about what was true or verifiable. It was about a defensible position, or at least one that would hold up until the troops were marching through Bagdad, welcomed as liberators.

“A few days before, when she had sent the final draft over to Libbey and Hadley, she had told them emphatically, ‘This is it.’ There would be no more drafts, no more meetings where her analysts sat across from Hadley, or Feith, or the guys from Feith’s office, while [they] tried to slip something by them. The report was not what they wanted. She knew that. [But] No evidence meant no evidence.

“‘I’m not going back there, again, George,’ Miscik said. ‘If I have to go back to hear their crap and rewrite that [expletive] report . . . I’m resigning right now.’

“She fought back tears of rage.

“Tenet picked up the phone to call Hadley.

“‘She’s not coming over,’ he shouted into the phone. ‘We are not rewriting this [expletive] report one more time. It’s [expletive] over. Do you hear me! And don’t you ever [expletive] treat my people this way again. Ever!”

No politicizing? [Expletive] rubbish.

Thomas W. Muther, Jr. of KS 8:44PM August 02, 2008

Not meant to be critical, purely a matter of curiosity: how did you change your mind over time to support the Iraq invasion if you initially did not support it? You say that it had to do with your animosity for liberalism.

Are you recommending that approach as a basis for supporting a policy ( of any sort) - you don't like the people who oppose the policy?

As time goes by evidence continues to mount that those who were skeptical about going to war were correct. But as time passed, your thinking moved in the opposite direction.

Just curious.

russ ludeke of MN 1:50PM June 02, 2008

Romeo Bravo of CA is an example of liberal "Surface-Thinking." He wonders why Roosevelt did not get criticized for going to war against Germany (and Italy) blissfully without knowing that THEY DECLARED WAR ON US!

This level of the lack of historical knowlege is astounding. It is the same when liberals blame Muslim animosity against the West on the Crusades without the knowledge that Islamic expansionism was only stopped in Europe by Charles Martel, just south of Paris a couple hundred years before.

Gary of NJ 10:26PM May 25, 2008

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

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.

advertisement

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Obamacare Opponents Have to Keep Pushing Repeal

The way to repeal Obamacare is to hasten its ugly results.

Can Obama's Berlin Speech Match John F. Kennedy's and Ronald Reagan's?

The two famous Berlin speeches almost never were.

Reform Conservatives Need to Tackle Unemployment and Jobs

"Reform conservatives" are doing good work, but need to think about the ills of long-term unemployment.

If Background Checks are Good Enough for Guns, They're Good Enough for Jobs

Employers need to be able to consider all factors before making a hire.

NSA Leaker Edward Snowden Is Neither a Whistle-Blower Nor a Civil Disobeyer

Resisters who break a law must accept that they may be arrested and have a duty to submit to punishment.

Obama Should Bring Small Business Owners on His Trip to Africa

This country needs a national reality show.

Syria, Israel and the Obama Administration's Absentee Foreign Policy

Creating a mess you are going to leave for someone else to clean up is not a good way to manage U.S. foreign policy.

advertisement