A Thinking Reed

This seems like a pretty big deal, doesn’t it?

Written by

Lee M.

in

The New York Review of Books is going to become the first major American media outlet to (finally!) publish the “smoking gun” memo of Tony Blair’s government. The memo indicates that the decision by the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq had been made as early as July 2002, and that the justifications (WMD, ties to terrorism) came afterwards.

From the memo:

C [a British intelligence agent] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The accompanying story suggest that the confrontation with the UN was engineered largely in order to provide a legal pretext for the war, not to avoid it:

Thus, the idea of UN inspectors was introduced not as a means to avoid war, as President Bush repeatedly assured Americans, but as a means to make war possible. War had been decided on; the problem under discussion here was how to make, in the prime minister’s words, “the political context …right.” The “political strategy” — at the center of which, as with the Americans, was weapons of mass destruction, for “it was the regime that was producing the WMD” — must be strong enough to give “the military plan the space to work.” Which is to say, once the allies were victorious the war would justify itself. The demand that Iraq accept UN inspectors, especially if refused, could form the political bridge by which the allies could reach their goal: “regime change” through “military action.”

Tom Dispatch has been permitted to make the NYRB story available early here.

Comments

5 responses to “This seems like a pretty big deal, doesn’t it?”

  1. Joshie

    A possibile connection I would like the hear somebody explore is the administration’s insistence on not releasing the names and discussions involved in the VP’s enegery policy meetings way back in 2001.

    Is it possible that the administration fought so hard against the release of that material because war with Iraq was already being discussed (or decided) at that point?

    Reply
  2. Joshie

    energy, dammit.

    Reply
  3. Maurice Frontz

    “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

    What should be beyond dispute is that, at the very least, American intelligence regarding WMD’s was wrong or interpreted incorrectly, although it should be said that, even if the WMD’s in Iraq had been destroyed in the early 1990’s, they retained their fascination for the Iraqi leader and his Baath party and armed forces. So much so that, Iraqi army officers said after the conclusion of major hostilities, they knew their units didn’t have WMD’s but they believed without a doubt that other units in the army had them.

    The intelligence memo can be interpreted in at least two ways. Given the repeated use of quotes by Joseph Goebbels, it seems that the interpretation Mr. Danner espouses is that the Bush administration knew perfectly well that there were no WMD in Iraq and that they simply needed a justification for war which they made up out of whole cloth and then sold to the American people with all the cynicism of Goebbels.

    However, the words “justified by” which appear in the memo do not necessarily indicate that the justifications for war were invented justifications. One can justify one’s decision for war by pointing to the (believed) preexistence of WMD’s and ties to terrorists. It was accepted in the U.S. intelligence community through the later years of the Clinton administration into the first year of Bush’s first term that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. That the U.N. was unable to find them became proof either of the impotence or the outright collaboration of the U.N., a belief that is easier to understand, in hindsight, given the selling of banned weapons material to Iraq by the French and the corruption in the oil-for-food program.

    In other words, you still pay your money and take your choice when it comes to evaluating the “smoking gun.” Either the Bush administration was wearing colored glasses, or they were engaged in a deception campaign not seen since, well, the last war America fought, if you believe every theory. Of course, the theory that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor is still alive and kicking. Where did I read that conspiracy theories are born because people are unwilling to believe that their leaders are actually that stupid – that they “must” have known more than they said they knew?

    The memo says nothing new, but Mr. Danner uses its every ambiguity of language to prove the point he believes already – that Bush is Hitler and Goebbels rolled into one. Yes, and even if every accusation about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs had turned out to be true, you still would have needed to convince the American and British publics of its legitimacy. Mere humanitarian concerns have been historic non-starters, as we have proved that we can tolerate the killing fields of Rwanda and Sudan as long as we have our high-speed connections.

    I’ll be interested to hear your comments, especially if this blows up over the next week while you are gone. I have no problem with those who believe we should not have gone to war in Iraq. It’s when the name “Goebbels” is thrown around that I fear people have a little bit of hatred of their own coloring their own vision.

    Reply
  4. Marvin

    “This seems like a pretty big deal?” Man, they’re getting ready to put away Michael Jackson! After all the good he’s done for the children!! Where are your priorities?!

    Reply
  5. Lee

    Pr. Fronz –

    I agree with you that the Goebbles stuff is way over the top and only undercuts the author’s credibility. Also, I for one never thought the administration made the WMD stuff up out of whole cloth.

    What the memo does indicate to me, though, is that the administation was so determined to go to war with Iraq (in part, no doubt, because of sincere concerns about WMD & terrorism) that they seemed unwilling to let anything count as evidence that Iraq didn’t have WMD. For instance, the failure of the UN inspectors to find WMD was always taken to reflect a flaw in the inspectors rather than as evidence that maybe there were no WMD. If the UN process was just an elaborate dog and pony show that only delayed an inevitable war, it does seem to me that the administration was not making a good faith effort to avoid war, which, we usually say should be undertaken only as a last resort.

    OK-now I’m really out of here!

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts