Highlighted Major Speeches
Government Ethics in the
Post-Iraq War Era
The Investment Dealers Association, Canada
23 June 2003
It pains me to point this out, but in my view the United
States invasion of Iraq was one of the most ill-advised and reckless
actions that the US government has ever taken. I make this
statement not as a knee-jerk anti-war activist, but as one who still
proudly defends our effort in Vietnam, and who has spent a total of
five years inside the Pentagon.
We should start with the premise that a unilateral war - a war in
which a country attacks another when it has not been itself attacked
- must be undertaken only when the country's national survival is
clearly at stake, or under circumstances where the international
community is so threatened that a strong power such as the US must
save it from an enormous menace. Iraq clearly did not meet
either of those tests.
Additionally, I find it regrettable that the Bush administration
squandered an historic opportunity to unify most of the world
against the notion of organized international terrorism, and through
its relentless pursuit of war against Iraq created instead an era of
unprecedented bad feelings. The present administration
accomplished this through a puzzling campaign of arrogance and
condescension toward long-time allies, and by completely redefining
the war against terrorism until it became a war against Iraq.
This “morphing” of the war against international terrorism
into the invasion and occupation of Iraq had its roots in the 1991
Persian Gulf War, when many neo-conservatives, led by the editorial
page of the Wall Street Journal and key figures in such think tanks
as the American Enterprise Institute, believed that the US should
have continued on to Baghdad after ejecting the Iraqis from Kuwait,
in order to establish their dream of a “MacArthurian regency” in
Iraq. In the first days after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, these well-placed advocates, many of whom
are serving in the Bush Administration, moved quickly to justify not
a general response against Al Qaeda, but an all-out invasion of
Iraq, possibly followed by invasions in Iran and Syria. While
their logic was that an Iraq invasion would make the world a safer
place, proper strategic thinking actually argued in the opposite
direction. If terrorism was principally a Mideast phenomenon prior
to 9/11, after that date it was clearly a global dilemma. This made
it imperative that smarter minds in America resist the notion of
taking over one country in one region, potentially for decades, when
the threat now extended across several continents and through a
large percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims.
And so we reach the question of ethics, and their impact on the
formulation of a policy that will now be with us for a long time.
The justification for a unilateral war against Iraq simply did not
exist on the facts.
Did these key players then lie to achieve their objective of an
invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq? If so, why?
And what are the immediate consequences? And given the
immediate consequences, what are the long-term ramifications, both
for the Bush Administration and for the United States?
Maybe we should simply use a softer, less provocative term than
lying. Let’s call it conscious deception. For what does seem
clear is that a small group of highly organized people worked very
hard to manipulate the American public, its government, and the
world's media, and not simply about the prospect that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction at its immediate beck and call. This
process involved quite a bit of “reverse engineering” – that is,
working backwards from the solution they had already agreed upon –
the invasion and occupation of Iraq – and coming up with the
appropriate formulas to justify the pre-ordained result.
On what issues did they mislead the American public and media?
First, that invading Iraq had anything directly to do with the war
against international terrorism. Second, that Saddam Hussein had
direct ties to Al Qaeda. Third, that Saddam Hussein possessed an
active capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction on
international targets – and here it should be emphasized that these
were specific and definite allegations of either weapons or delivery
systems that could be in place in a matter of hours, rather than
amorphous “development” programs. And finally – extremely
importantly at this point – that it would not take a sizeable
military presence to run the occupation of Iraq. The
Administration’s error on this last point was not negligence, as
many now claim. It involved a conscious deception regarding
the true price that would have to be paid after the initial military
incursion. The neo-cons in the Pentagon were given consistent
military advice that was deliberately ignored, warning that it would
take hundreds of thousands of American troops to stabilize a
post-invasion Iraq.
And so the question becomes: Why did they misrepresent these issues?
The answers to these questions are not as complex as the media might
like to make them. The people who gave us the war in Iraq knew that
the American public would not support a war against Saddam Hussein
without something as grievous as a tie-in with international
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. They knew that Americans
would not support a war that was to be followed by an open-ended
occupation with hundreds of thousands of troops. And most
importantly, they believed, and still believe, that they can get
away with it. Their logic involved a gamble -- that a quick
battlefield success would erase the questions that led to the war
itself. They were certain that American "boots on the ground"
would change the public perception, because as soon as our forces
were in harm's way the American public would rally around them. And
rally around them the American people did, at least until the
conventional fighting was over, and the tedious occupation began. .
Many of them misrepresented the issues because they also believed
that it is the prerogative of governments in time of war to lie to
the common people, who in their view might not really understand the
complexities of war. Sir Winston Churchill once famously pointed out
that sometimes in war, a bodyguard of lies is necessary to protect
the truth. But here the lies were told merely to get us into a
war. And there was no overriding truth to be protected.
And finally, they lied because the stakes to them were worth it, and
in their minds would become irreversible once the US actually began
the war that they had sought. Their goal was to achieve their own
long-term objective of having American troops on the ground in that
part of the world for the indefinite future, for a variety of
political and strategic reasons that are part and parcel of the
think tank discussions, but were never articulated by political
leaders who were making the case for the war.
The immediate results of these lies are, quite frankly, gravely
serious. As opposed to the oft-cited situation in Japan after World
War Two, where General Douglas MacArthur carefully preserved the
structure of the Japanese system and governed through it, the
government of Iraq has been eliminated without a government to
replace it. Our troops are hostages to a solution and - predictably
- have become terrorist targets on a daily basis. The party line is
that these terrorist targets are mere leftovers from Saddam's
regime, but the reality seems to be that these are also people who
have come to resent an American occupation. Many among the Sunni
faction are contesting our occupation in what is now being called
the Sunni Triangle. The Kurds are waiting to carve out their own
political territory in the north. The Shi'a factions are waiting for
the right moment to weigh in on Iraq’s future, and whichever way
they decide to do so, they are looking at a win. If true democratic
elections are held, they hold a majority of the votes. If they
decide to fight a guerilla war, they will have been able to watch
the Sunni and other guerrilla fighters, and to learn from their
mistakes.
All of this is occurring under the umbrella of an increasing hatred
of the US around the world, which will probably translate into
further terrorist recruiting. And, not incidentally, the
people who brought us this war are strongly urging further action in
Iran and Syria.
This is the situation that the US has inherited from the actions of
those who pushed us into an unnecessary war. And they have brought
both the Bush Administration and the country some critical long-term
problems.
What kind of problems? We have a huge percentage of the US military
committed to the internal security of one country - a country that
did not even directly threaten us. We are now in danger of having to
readjust our military forces all around the world in order to feed
the requirements of this occupation, which still is tying down about
250 thousand American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. As a
result, we may see American interests dramatically affected in other
parts of the world. -- 70 percent of the US Army's operational
forces and probably 50 percent of the other services are now
deployed overseas. It's also conceivable that many in the American
military will begin voting with their feet, declining to re-enlist
in the face of continuous overseas deployments. Also, the countries
that were supposed to be intimidated by our actions have, in many
cases, become emboldened. For instance, both Iran and North Korea
are now rushing to complete nuclear programs, and neither seem to
fear an American invasion because it is widely known that the
American military is stretched so thin.
As the ramifications of this policy unfold, the American public will
probably start losing confidence in the veracity of President Bush.
If this happens, Bush is toast. Recent poll numbers indicate that
this may already be happening, as Bush’s approval ratings are moving
steadily downhill. In addition to the “truth” factor, it is now
clear that paying for this unnecessary war is going to start showing
its effects on the American economy. It is difficult to pin down the
Administration on actual cost, but it is clearly going to be at
least 40 Billion dollars over the next year.
Many opposition politicians are now claiming that President
Bush deliberately lied to the American public in order to bring us
to war. I believe differently. I believe that Bush lacked the
leadership style that would have allowed him to seek out and
understand opposing views, and thus became captured by the zeal of
the neo-conservatives in his administration, led by Vice President
Cheney but dominated by key figures in the Pentagon itself. Thus the
true debate over the next year or so should not be about his
veracity, but about his competence.
In any event, we have now inherited the Tar Baby of Iraq. What can
be done about this? Unfortunately, not much.
We can solve the Palestinian question, bringing peace to Israel,
which might change the entire dynamic of the region. History does
not give us much reason to be optimistic on this count, particularly
over the next year.
We can declare victory in Iraq and withdraw, turning the occupation
over to a United Nations force. This option is perhaps the only one
with true possibilities, but the people who brought us this war have
so alienated our allies that they are now reaping the whirlwind of
their own past arrogance. And few of those who got us into this
situation want the United States to leave Iraq in the near future
anyway.
We can hold fair elections and turn Iraq back over to its own
people. This prospect is unlikely, and raises the question of
whether those who invaded Iraq really want the Shi'a to run the
government.
We could pump enough oil that the Iraqis will grow so rich that they
don't mind being ruled by an American dominated government.
Some people actually have raised this possibility as a serious
option, but it misunderstands both the history and the culture of
the region.
Consequently, absent some deus ex machina that will allow the US to
withdraw its forces, we are faced with two unavoidable realities.
The first is that we must prepare for a long-term guerrilla war that
could bring in Muslim extremists from around the world who now have
American soldiers in fixed positions and don't mind dying to kill a
few. And the second is that the US military is going to be
overworked, stretched thin, and strategically vulnerable for some
time to come.
This is unhealthy. The unfortunate truth is that it was also unnecessary.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS