[Note: The author of the essay below, Thompson Buchanan, is a retired Foreign Service Officer who has been sickened by the sight of America squandering the great asset of global sympathy and cooperation following 9/11, and the lives and treasure of America through an unjustified “war of choice.” He served eight years in the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War and saw how patient containment overcame an opponent infinitely more dangerous than Iraq. From his service in Africa and on African problems, he learned about the power of nationalism and the complexity of having foreign powers try to accelerate the internal processes of evolution. Having served on the front lines for his country, he does not take kindly to the un-American practice of labeling as “unpatriotic” or “defeatist” anyone who criticizes Administration policy. He argues below for a return to American ideals and international standards of conduct.]

Democrats should welcome and not shy away from debate over Iraq. It provides them with an opportunity to make the election a referendum on leadership and political judgment in matters of war and peace. The Republicans are understandably trying to use the recent small signs of progress in Iraq to whitewash their irresponsible decision to go to war in Iraq, and their mismanagement of the war. This offers the Democratic Party an opportunity to use the debate over Iraq as a “teach in”, to help American voters understand how America was stampeded into war, and what the consequences have been for the national security interests of the country. If the voting public, regardless of political persuasion, understands what happened, and the price that America has had to pay for an unjustified “war of choice,” it will have a chance at the ballot box to repudiate the Administration and policies that led us to this debacle. The hope is that future Presidents will learn from this rebuff that the American people expect in its Presidents better judgment, vision and understanding of the national interest when asking the nation to support a “war of choice.”

THE MOVING FORCES BEHIND THE WAR.

Lobbies are an essential feature of the American democratic process. It is vital, therefore, that whoever is President is able to distinguish the national interests of the United States from those of the many vocal self-interested parties. In the case of Iraq, the Administration gave undue weight to the views of an odd alliance of interest groups who saw war with Iraq as promoting their own separate agendas.

* There were exile politicians like Chelabi, who saw in the destruction of Saddam Hussein the means for their return to power in Iraq.

* Some of Israel’s friends argued that the destruction of both Iraq and Iran would be in the U.S. national interest. It is understandable why they might see advantage in a policy that destroyed Israel’s most serious regional rivals, and in the process further alienated the U.S. in the Muslim world, increasing its dependence on Israel as its “only real friend in the region”. But what is good for Israel is not necessarily in the U.S. national interest.

* An energy lobby led by Vice President Cheney had shown an interest in the untapped oil reserves of Iraq before 9/11. The longer the American military presence in Iraq, the greater the opportunities for the energy giants to cut themselves profitable deals. The establishment of four large U.S. military bases in Iraq and McCain’s talk of America being there indefinitely,, on the Korean model, would be consistent with a long range oil strategy.

* There were the Evangelical Christians who linked the destruction of Israel’s enemies to the final Armageddon battle between Good and Evil.

* Many of those hoping to benefit from the destruction of Saddam Hussein shared a Neo-Conservative belief that American power could and should be used to resolve American problems in the Middle East by imposing democracy on the region, starting with Iraq. This same hubris underlay the Neo-Conservative disdain for International treaties or views of the international community that might limit U.S. freedom of action.

THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS.

A President who seeks objective judgment in filtering out these many competing voices must be prepared to listen to conflicting views. This is particularly so when a President knows that he has strong personal feelings on the subject, as President Bush had against the man who had tried to kill his father. But the Administration failed apparently to give adequate weight to the loud voices ol opposition to a war of choice against Iraq. Among the dissenters were:

* Senior statesmen associated with the President’s father, who shared the view that Bush Senior had expressed after the Desert war that we must have an exit strategy if we were to press on to Baghdad, occupying this volatile region of historic religious conflict.

* Middle Eastern experts who shook their heads in disbelief at the Don Quixote idea that democracy could be imposed by American bayonets on a complex, profoundly different culture, where change must come about primarily through evolution within the society.

* Reservations were also raised in the Congress by both parties, and within the Administration, including reportedly by the Secretary of State.

The only credible justification for an attack on a sovereign state was that it represented a clear and present danger to its neighbors. But there was no “slam dunk” evidence that Iraq had acquired a nuclear weapon.. Indeed State intelligence and U.N. inspectors questioned the evidence.. And logic should have told us that Saddam Hussein was too calculating a despot, concerned for his self-preservation, to consider inviting the devastation of Iraq by using a nuclear weapon against America’s ally, Israel. If he was tempted to use a nuclear weapon, it would have been against Iraq’s hereditary and vulnerable enemy, Iran. Under the circumstances, the logical policy would have been one of continued containment, pressing Iraq for inspection, with an attack on any known nuclear site as a fall back position. But containment did not satisfy the ambition of those who sought the occupation of Iraq

STEAMROLLING THE OPPOSITION

It was essential for the “war party” to discredit and isolate all those voices of opposition who might otherwise arouse the public to the dangers of the enterprise. To this end, the Administration:

* Used Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon to emasculate the State Department, setting up a rival intelligence unit to counter “defeatist” reports from CIA and State, preventing the Pentagon from using in its planning either the information or the personnel involved in the production of a 13 volume study on Iraq prepared by State and CIA intelligence.

* Discounted the views of American Middle Eastern experts on the grounds that they were pro-Arab and Anti-Semite, a common Israeli complaint.

* Lent credence to a fabricated report that Saddam Hussein and al-Quada, who were bitter secular enemies, had been in secret negotiation.

* Dramatized all the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime that we had chosen to ignore when we were aiding Iraq in its war with Iran.

For America to make a war of choice, it was essential to prove to a sceptical world that Iraq was a threat to peace in the Middle East. The main argument used by the Administration was the scare-mongering charge that madman, Saddam Hussein, was producing Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were certainly grounds for suspicion given Hussein’s past record but the lack of conclusive evidence and the logic of the situation, discussed above, all argued for caution.. But persuading Secretary of State Colin Powell to “document” the case for war proved persuasive.

MISMANAGEMENT OF THE WAR

To run its war, the Administration wanted only loyal warriors not sceptics in its ranks. Hence it selected as American pro-Consul in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, a Kissinger acolyte who had some German but no Middle Eastern experience. It was under his leadership that some of the most grievous mistakes were made, trying to apply to Iraq the policies of De-Nazification and Demilitarization that had worked in the totally different situation and culture of Germany.

If the Pentagon had listened to the advice of its own military, and the Middle Eastern experts who wrote the 13 volume report on Iraq, many of the most costly initial mistakes mighty have been avoided. At least we could have gone in with a sufficiently large force to establish law and order and intimidate any opposition. The Pentagon’s hubris cost unnecessary lives and blackened respect for the occupying power on the part of the Iraqis.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS “WAR OF CHOICE.”

* The invasion of Afghanistan was also a “war of choice” with the enormous difference that we were supported by our allies and the United Nations. By diverting our war effort from Afghanistan to Iraq, we have allowed Bin Laden and the Taliban to begin working their way back into regional power, and it has become necessary to bring American forces back to Afghanistan, where they should have remained in the first place. In the light of Iraq, NATO governments have become reluctant to commit combat troops to Afghanistan.

* After 9/11, sympathy for America and our prestige were at their peak . This global political asset was squandered by our unprovoked attack on a sovereign state, that no one considered a “just war” by international standards. American prestige and credibility hit a new low, from which we have still to recover.

* We transformed Iraq from a brutal but stable secular state abhorrent to al-Quada into the most effective recruiting and training ground for insurgency that Bin Laden could ever have wished for.

* By the same token, we played into Bin Laden’s stated strategy of weakening the U.S. by drawing us deeper into the Middle East quagmire.

* We also played into Teheran’s hands, by destroying its historic enemy, Iraq, offering Teheran the chance to strengthen its ties to the Shiite majority in Iraq, and to exploit America’s weakened position in the Muslim world. Our efforts to develop a united front against potential Iranian efforts to go nuclear, were also weakened.

* And America itself has been weakened: our military have been stretched almost to the breaking point, and is in no shape to meet a serious threat elsewhere; and we have added enormously to the national debt at a time of potential recession and need for serious reconstruction at home.

* There is no way, of course, to measure the cost in human lives, American and Iraqi. But at a time when the scars of Vietnam were beginning to heal, we have opened another potential sore of disillusionment among the soldiers and their families, who thought that they were sacrificing for a noble cause.

* Finally, like poor chess players, we have become so fixated on defending one pawn, that we have lost strategic sight of the global chessboard. Russia’s President Putin has been quick to try and take advantage of the global resentment of American hubris. He has tried to dramatize the differences between a proclaimed Russian policy of multilateral cooperation and support for the United Nations with the “unilateralism” of the Bush Administration, and to strengthen Russia’s relations with our European allies. Russia and China both contrast their booming economies with an America weakened by war

CURRENT ADMINISTRATION STRATEGY

America will, of course, recover but at a price it should not have been asked to pay. Belated efforts by the Administration to return to traditional policies of international cooperation, and to the Clinton policy of trying to play the honest broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict, are all to be welcomed but lack credibility. This is particularly so in the light of the apparent Administration determination to maintain a military presence in Iraq, until we can claim victory and go home. But realistically, we are tying American policy in the Middle East, and American budgetary outlays for the indefinite future to the internal developments in Iraq, where “victory” will continue to recede as the inherent sectarian conflicts in Iraq take their toll. Whatever the arrangements we may make with the Iraqis, a continued American military presence in Iraq, particularly if accompanied by efforts to corner the Iraq oil market, will be resented throughout the Muslim world and undercut any serious American efforts to promote regional stabilization in the Middle East. To replace the bogeyman of al-Quada with Iran, as an excuse for staying in Iraq, and organizing a Suni alliance against Iran, insults the intelligence of sophisticated Middle Eastern leaders.

THE VOTER’S CHOICE

The vital question for the American voter, regardless of political affiliation, is what price we are prepared to pay for a policy that would have us bogged down in the Middle East indefinitely, with little hope for a victorious outcome. A policy that presently is costing over $12 million a week at a time of mounting problems at home. And the larger question is how do we make sure that another administration does not stampede us into a “war of choice” where our vital interests are not involved. The answer to both questions lies in the ballot box.

* The voters should make clear that we are not prepared to stay any longer than necessary to withdraw our troops safely from Iraq, stationing any residual intervention forces elsewhere.

* And by administering a crushing defeat to officials associated with the Iraq fiasco, make any future American President hesitant to lead America into a war of choice where the threat to American security is not self-evident.

Certainly by Republican standards of impeachment in the case of President Clinton, impeachment of the President and Vice President over their war in Iraq, would be fully justified. But it would be extremely unwise. The emphasis of the next President should be on overcoming the crippling partisanship of recent years instead of further dividing the nation.

In practical terms, the electorate is faced with a sharp choice between the past and the future.

* Senator McCain is a man of great integrity and courage but he remains traumatized by defeat in Vietnam;

* He failed to learn from Vietnam that, for there to be public support in any prolonged conflict, the threat to American interests must be fully credible.

* He should also have learned from Vietnam about the power of nationalism in opposing occupation by a foreign power, whatever the good intentions of that foreign power.

* Finally he should have learned, that our retreat from Vietnam did not have the predicted “domino effect” of toppling our allies in South Asia . Similarly there is a lack of reality in McCain’s scare talk about what might happen if we were to leave Iraq. The states of the Middle East will work out their complex relations in a way that protects their national sovereignty without the clumsy intervention of Nanny Auntie Sam.

* There is reason to be concerned that, as a military man, McCain may be inclined to see military solutions to problems that are essentially political.

* But, as a military man, he should understand that withdrawal from Iraq is the equivalent of tactical withdrawal from an ultimately indefensible outpost to strengthen the nation’s central front.

* The Administration’s shrinking definition of victory in Iraq as essentially “stability” promises a prolonged American involvement in the domestic affairs of Iraq. To label those who question the wisdom of such a policy as ”defeatists” serves only to deepen the polarization of America at a time when the nation needs to unite behind a policy that is more credible and sustainable.

Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be a welcome change from the Republican Administration. But Senator Obama offers the more appealing and credible alternative.

* While a number of Americans, including Senator Clinton were genuinely persuaded that the Iraq war was necessary to protect America, Senator Obama opposed the war from the outset.

* Unlike those who would demonize states, with whom we are in conflict, like Iran and North Korea, he would be prepared to discuss our differences without making surrender by them a preliminary condition of negotiation. In other words, he is a negotiator.

* He has a different approach to the threat of global terrorism. By declaring an unqualified “global war on terrorism”, the Administration encouraged every despotic state to label as “terrorists” dissident movements whom we should welcome. Obama would replace the military emphasis of the war on terror with an emphasis on precision intelligence, police and special forces work, identifying the terrorist cells and neutralizing them with a minimum of anxiety-creating publicity, on the European model.

* Our goal should be to increase the sense of isolation and
vulnerability on the part of the small, radical Muslim cells that metastasize like cancer around the world. Trumpeting that these cells are part of a global Islamo-Fascist movement undercuts this strategy by reassuring the militants that they are not alone but part of a global movement that obviously frightens the “imperialists.” It also strengthens the belief among Muslims generally that the West is indeed their enemy. To build up fear in the American public of this new bogey, Islamo=Fascism, may serve the interests of the Republican Party, but it does not serve the interests of the nation. It is time to “cool it” and focus on the many more serious threats to the country, both at home and abroad.

* In dealing with contentious issues, international or domestic, Obama’s first instinct is to reach out to the other side to see whether we cannot find some common ground without in any way compromising American interests, or his own progressive principles. He is a unifier not a divider.

* It follows that, in dealing with the outside world, Obama believes that, respect for international treaties and cooperation with other states is a more effective way to strengthen America than unilateral diktat.

* In that same spirit, he would seek to strengthen the authority and institutions of the United Nations, and of regional organizations so that they may reduce the need for America to intervene politically, or even militarily in conflicts that have been allowed to fester.

In short, Senator Obama has a mindset for the 21st century, prepared to rethink America’s problems outside of their old paradigms. To offer America a change from the failed policies of the recent past.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post