Letters to the Editor
-
I have to disagree that this war was fought for Israel
It is fair to say that some of the NeoCons had as a partial motivation a belief that they were advancing the interests of Israel -- you could definitely say that about say the appaling Wurmsers, Feith, Perle, etc. Whether the then Israeli government or the Israeli establishment thought that the war was a good idea is a very different question; indeed one thing that is becoming apparent is that apart from Netanyahu (known by most people who have dealt with him as an almost compulsive and pathological liar (to the point that Israelis I known wonder it it is psychological)), most Isreali politicians and officials regard AIPAC as a serious problem and increasingly a threat to Israel's interests.
The bigger issue with this war is the absence of any clear reason or rationale -- there is actually no straight reason that you can put your finger on and say, this is why the Bush Administration went to war. Let's look at some of the advanced reasons:
(a) Oil: it is fair to say that if Iraq had no oil, and was not in the biggest oil producing region in the world, both Gulf wars would never have taken place. The world has tolerated numerous invasions and oppresive governments in other places that have no oil -- and still does, Samuel Doe, Robert Mugabe, et al. That said, the going after Iraq's oil reserves makes very little sense -- big oil did not want an invasion, they though it was a bad idea and would destabilise what were then pretty low oil prices further. Indeed, Iraq in the Neocon's fantasy world would have left OPEC and its production ceilings, a disaster for the major oil companies. Only the incompetence of the Bush adminstration has caused the opposite result, actually lowering Iraqi oil output. Moreover, there was no way that even the Bushies could have gotten away with seizing Iraq's oil. The case that the invasion was done to get oil and at the behest of the oil companies does not stack up.
(b) Israel's interests. Yes the Neocons sent Netanyahu the infamous "clean break" paper, but it was full of holes. Iraq was not an imminent threat to Israel and the Israeli put Iraq years, even decades away from effective WMD. If this was done to serve Israel's interests, it was only in the perfervid imaginings of AIPAC, not the bulk of the US Jewish community or for that matter Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I will though concede that AIPAC is a nasty, dangerous organisation, whose shills haunt forums attacking anyone who criticises Israel -- but I would add that no one is doing more damage to Israel's standing in the US. Quietly, US politicians Democratic and Republican are seething at AIPAC's immoral bullying, and they blame Israel for it -- which is a very dangerous situation for Israel, because "payback is a bitch."
(c) Weapons of Mass Destruction. Well we know the story here, most of it. But the unmade point is that even assuming, arguendo, that Saddam had some WMD, the broad view was that the program had to be tiny and very unadvanced and years from effectiveness. in hindsight he had none, but even in foresight the WMD if they existed were not a real threat.
(d) Spreading Democracy. First this was not a justification given a priori by the Bushies. Second, anyone who had seen the evidence of Algeria, etc. would be aware that democracy in the Middle East tend to lead to the election of Islamicists. We can criticise western support for authoritarian rulers in the middle East from Morrocco to Egypt, but on the evidence democratically elected governments are not that attractive either. Moreover, the Palestinians have really been treated very very badly by the Israelis, with the connivance of the West and in particular the United States. Their Arab co-religionists have a legitimate "beef" and therefore it is apparent that a government with popular support, and that wants to keep it (see Nasser) is going to be hostile to Israel (the AIPAC guys are chocking on the their Cornflakes.)
(e) Ending Sunni oppression of Shiites/Kurds. This is a funny one -- Chirac is on the record as having warned Bush that he was just playing into the hands of the Iranians, and indeed Western tolerance of Saddam had been because he was a counterweight to Tehran. Meanwhile the US key regional ally, Turkey saw Kurdish seperatism as a real threat. Given the cynsicism of the Bushies, and they Islamophobic tendancies the whole argument is surprising -- moreover, the Saudi sponsors of Bush are very orthodox Sunnis.
(f) Al Quaeda link -- always was complete nonsense
(g) Oedipal complex of GBW. Hmm seems far fetched at first, but, hmmm. Trying to bring the 'rapture,' good grief that is beginning to loom like a serious maybe. W is simply a dumbass and Cheney is not sane, definitely true -- is this why?
The basic point I am making is that the harder you look at this whole mess, the harder it is to find any sensible reason for the Iraq invasion. In fact I am pretty sure that no substantive reason was ever articulated for going into Iraq, if it had it would have been submitted to ruthless analysis and the Invasion could not have happened. It seems to me that invading Iraq became a sort of idee fixee of Cheney and his merry band sometime before 2000 and having decided on it they then started ooking for a pretext -- but the reason they becamse obsessed with it is unfathomable.
It is the very lack of any intelligible rationale or objective that lies at the heart of the fiasco and tragedy that is the Iraq war. Had there been one, then the war might not have taken place, or when it did take place the post-war plan would have been in place to achieve the stated objective. Put bluntly, these guys are bozos.
-
Hook, line, and stinker
Mr. Tenet shows many characteristics of an abused spouse. He regularly gets beat up but remains loyal to his abuser. He can not acknowledge that he was set up as a dummy. His pride is about all that remains. If he loses that, he is broken.
“Curveball” was the source used by Pentagon and civilian groups to make the case for war against Iraq. All CIA analysts knew from the start that “he” was a fabricator. In fact, the CIA was not allowed to interview Curveball, who was a German asset (the Germans stressed that Curveball was a known fabricator). Even the code name, Curveball, implies the source is unreliable.
But Tenet allowed himself to be persuaded by the following argument posed by the war mongers: Well, can you prove what Curveball is saying is not true? And Tenet fell for the bait.
When Tenet was giving the Medal of Freedom, he could not resist the bait. With that act the President hooked Tenet’s lasting loyalty.