Revisiting how and why on anniversary of the Iraq War

Just about twenty years ago (March 20, 2003) the United States and its coalition partners invaded Iraq and began one of America’s worst wars in terms of furthering the goal of making the world a safer place.  Since then, our natural tendency to forget, aided by the wish of some people who want us not to remember the reality of a war that lasted too long and was quite disastrous, have numbed us to how and why it began.

A refresher is in order.

George W. Bush, in his state-of-the-union speech in 2002, his first after the awful events of September 11, 2001, stated, “Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay.  And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own.”  He then set new goals, to counter the activities of the “axis of evil,” North Korea, Iraq, and Iran — none of which countries had furnished any of the terrorists who had bombed America.  Claiming that any of the three could “provide arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred,” specifically “weapons of mass destruction,” he left no doubt as to America’s next target: Iraq.

By then, invasion plans were being pushed by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the neo-conservatives who had taken over the direction and execution of American military and foreign policy.   For at least a decade they had been preparing such an invasion on strategic grounds, as detailed in my 2009 book, “The Forty Years War: The Rise and Fall of the Neocons.”  And George W. Bush wanted to finish the job left undone by his father, George H. W. Bush – to topple Saddam Hussein.

In 2002-2003, when cooler heads such as General Eric Shinseki, the army’s chief of staff, and Thomas White, secretary of the army, objected to the proposed invasion, Shinseki was forced to retire early and White to resign.  Others who should have known better, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former general, mounted few objections.

Many rationales were put forth for the war: that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; that Al Qaeda was operating there in great force; that we would be spreading democracy by means of our invasion; and that Iraq was no longer necessary to the U.S. as a counterweight to the more dangerous Iran.   In subsequent years all would be shown to have been false.  And the U.S. admitted they were false before the invasion.  In July 2002, the head of British Intelligence Service MI6 was told by his American counterparts during meetings in Washington, as recorded in the latterly-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002: that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

On Aug. 15, 2002, President H. W. Bush’s former chief military advisor, Brent Scowcroft, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Don’t Attack Saddam.”  Scowcroft cited a “virtual consensus in the world” against such an invasion, on the grounds that it “would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken” in the wake of 9/11.

Internally, an August CIA memo to the president and other top officials upheld its title, “The Perfect Storm: Planning for the Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq” by naming those bad consequences: anarchy in Iraq, a surge in terrorism around the world, deepening Islamic antipathy to the U.S., Al Qaeda exploiting the circumstances to find new safe havens, declining European confidence in U.S. leadership, a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, and chaos in Pakistan.   Almost all of these would eventually come to pass.  The memo was ignored.

In November of 2002, in the first national election since 9/11, Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate for the first time under a Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. That effectively sealed the push for invasion, enabling the pro-war clique in the White House to override any Congressional objections to beginning a pre-emptive war without a declaration of war from Congress.

 

Salisbury resident Tom Shachtman has written more than two dozen books and many television documentaries.  His website is www.tomshachtman.com

The views expressed here are not necessarily those of The Lakeville Journal and The Journal does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

Latest News

All are welcome at The Mahaiwe

Paquito D’Rivera performs at the Mahaiwe in Great Barrington on April 5.

Geandy Pavon

Natalia Bernal is the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center’s education and community engagement manager and is, in her own words, “the one who makes sure that Mahaiwe events are accessible to all.”

The Mahaiwe’s community engagement program is rooted in the belief that the performing arts should be for everyone. “We are committed to establishing and growing partnerships with neighboring community and arts organizations to develop pathways for overcoming social and practical barriers,” Bernal explained. “Immigrants, people of color, communities with low income, those who have traditionally been underserved in the performing arts, should feel welcomed at the Mahaiwe.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Living with the things you love:
a conversation with Mary Randolph Carter
Mary Randolph Carter teaches us to surround ourselves with what matters to live happily ever after.
Carter Berg

There is magic in a home filled with the things we love, and Mary Randolph Carter, affectionately known as “Carter,” has spent a lifetime embracing that magic. Her latest book, “Live with the Things You Love … and You’ll Live Happily Ever After,” is about storytelling, joy, and honoring life’s poetry through the objects we keep.

“This is my tenth book,” Carter said. “At the root of each is my love of collecting, the thrill of the hunt, and living surrounded by things that conjure up family, friends, and memories.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Beloved classic film ‘The Red Shoes’ comes to the big screen for Triplex benefit
Provided

On Saturday, April 5, at 3 p.m., The Triplex Cinema in Great Barrington and Jacob’s Pillow, the dance festival in Becket, Massachusetts, are presenting a special benefit screening of the cinematic masterpiece, “The Red Shoes,” followed by a discussion and Q&A. Featuring guest speakers Norton Owen, director of preservation at Jacob’s Pillow, and dance historian Lynn Garafola, the event is a fundraiser for The Triplex.

“We’re pitching in, as it were, because we like to help our neighbors,” said Norton. “They (The Triplex) approached us with the idea, wanting some input if they were going to do a dance film. I thought of Lynn as the perfect person also to include in this because of her knowledge of The Ballets Russes and the book that she wrote about Diaghilev. There is so much in this film, even though it’s fictional, that derives from the Ballets Russes.” Garafola, the leading expert on the Ballets Russes under Serge Diaghilev, 1909–1929, the most influential company in twentieth-century theatrical dance, said, “We see glimpses of that Russian émigré tradition, performances we don’t see much of today. The film captures the artifice of ballet, from the behind-the-scenes world of dressers and conductors to the sheer passion of the audience.”

Keep ReadingShow less