Foreign Policy
National Security
-
COIN
7 Lessons for the Next Small War
-
Marine Corps
What Game Is Gen. Amos Playing?
-
Culture
Make Your Soldiers Feel Like Family
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Tuesday, March 1, 2011 - 7:18 AM
Share
Few people know the ins and outs of the Bush Administration as well as the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, who is flat-out disgusted with the evasions and elisions in Donald Rumsfeld's new book. Here he explains why:
By Bob Woodward
Best Defense guest
columnist
On page 527 of his memoir Known and Unknown, Donald Rumsfeld recounts what he says was an exchange on Oct. 14, 2003 with Condoleezza Rice who was then Bush's national security adviser. She apologized for a flap over Iraq policy at the time.
You're failing," Rumsfeld said.
"Don, you've made mistakes in your long career," she replied.
"Yes, but I've tried to clean them up," he said.
Rumsfeld's memoir is one big clean-up job, a brazen effort to shift blame to others -- including President Bush -- distort history, ignore the record or simply avoid discussing matters that cannot be airbrushed away. It is a travesty, and I think the rewrite job won't wash.
The Iraq War is essential to the understanding of the Bush presidency and the Rumsfeld era at the Pentagon. In the book, Rumsfeld tries to push so much off on Bush. That is fair because Bush made the ultimate decisions. But the record shows that it was Rumsfeld stoking the Iraq fires -- facts he has completely left out of his memoir.
For example, I reported in my 2004 book, Plan of Attack (p. 25), that at 2:40 p.m. on 9/11, with the smoke and dust still filling the Pentagon, according to the notes of two of Rumsfeld's top aides, Rumsfeld mused about whether to hit "S.H. @ same time," not only bin Laden. One note taker reaffirmed this in an interview with the 9/11 Commission, and said that "S.H." referred to Saddam Hussein. (p. 335 of Commission report, and p. 559 footnote 63). None of this is in Rumsfeld's book. But he does cite the aides' handwritten notes for other quotations he uses in his book to recount that day. (p. 343 of his book, and p. 759 notes 30, 31 and 32. The notes are of senior Rumsfeld aides Victoria Clarke and Stephen A. Cambone.)
On January 9, 2002, four months after 9/11, Dan Balz of The Washington Post and I interviewed Rumsfeld for a newspaper series on the Bush administration's response to 9/11. According to notes of the NSC, on September 12, the day after 9/11, Rumsfeld again raised Iraq saying, is there a need to address Iraq as well as bin Laden?
When Balz read this to Rumsfeld, he blew up. "I didn't say that," he said, maintaining that it was his aide Larry DiRita talking over his shoulder. His reaction was comic and we agreed to treat it as off the record. But Balz persisted and asked Rumsfeld what he was thinking.
"Yeah," Rumsfeld finally told us. "I wanted to make sure that -- I always ask myself, what's missing. It's easy for people to edit and make something slightly better. But the question is, what haven't we asked ourselves? So I do it all the time. I do it here, I do it in cabinet meetings or NSC meetings. It was a fair question."
"I don't have notes," Rumsfeld insisted. "I don't have any notes." His memoir cites his personal handwritten notes dozens of time.
One of the important questions about the Iraq War has always been about when and who started the Iraq clock after 9/11. On page 425, Rumsfeld alleges that Bush on Sept 26, 2001 -- just 15 days after 9/11 -- called him to the Oval Office. "He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq..." Rumsfeld provides no footnote for this scene.
When I interviewed Rumsfeld at his Pentagon office on Oct. 23, 2003, Rumsfeld had a different story. "I do not remember much about Iraq being discussed at all with the president or me or the NSC prior to when the president asked me to -- asked me what I thought of the Iraq contingency plan -- that I believe was November 21st of '01." He was confident of the date because six days later he went to talk with the combatant commander for the region, Gen. Tommy Franks. "And I would not have waited long from the president asking me."
White House records and President Bush's recent memoir, Decision Points, support the Nov. 21 date. "Two months after 9/11 I asked Don Rumsfeld to review the existing battle plans for Iraq," Bush wrote, placing the request in November 2001 (p. 234)
The question of the date is not just a matter of whether something occurred on a Monday or a Thursday. On Sept. 26, 2001, the Bush administration was focused on Afghanistan. The first CIA team had just entered and the bombing had not yet begun. By his own account Rumsfeld was intensely trying to figure out how to begin the military aspect of Afghanistan War with bombing and inserting Special Operations teams.
At a Camp David meeting on Sept. 15 -- eleven days before Rumsfeld says Bush made his first Iraq war plan inquiry -- Bush rejected going after Iraq. In fact, Rumsfeld himself writes, that "at the September 15 NSC meeting at Camp David days earlier when Iraq had been raised he [Bush] had specifically kept the focus on Afghanistan." (p. 425)
According to Rumsfeld, on Sept. 21, he and General Franks "drove over to the White House to present his initial operational concept" for Afghanistan (p. 370) and a more detailed approach was given to Bush on Sept. 30 (p. 373). It is inconsistent with everything known that in the middle of all that planning and anguish over Afghanistan, Bush would raise Iraq on Sept. 26.
However, by Nov. 21, the United States had had unexpected success in Afghanistan and controlled half the territory. Thousands of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters had fled the capital Kabul into Pakistan. If Bush were looking for another target -- and he clearly was -- that would be the time, not on Sept. 26.
Another key question: When did Bush finally decide to commit the United States to war? Rumsfeld writes, "Up until the very minute the president authorized the first strike [March 19, 2003] there was no moment when I felt with razor-sharp certainty that Bush had fully decided." He does describe a meeting Jan. 11, two months earlier, when he met at the White House with Cheney, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, and Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Rumsfeld quotes Cheney telling Bandar, "The president has made the decision to go after Saddam Hussein." In his book Rumsfeld adds, "Of course, Bush would not irrevocably decide on war until he signed the execute order." (p. 450)
According to my reporting, Cheney went further in that meeting, telling the Saudi ambassador, "Saddam is toast." In addition, General Myers outlined the battle plan from a Top Secret map.
When I interviewed Rumsfeld on Oct. 23, 2003, less than a year after that meeting, he said he "looked him [Bandar] in the eye and said, you can count on this. In other words at some point we had had enough of a signal from the president that we were able to look a foreign dignitary in the eye and say you can take that to the bank this is going to happen."
All other evidence shows that at least by Jan. 2003, Bush had decided on war. Earlier that month he told Rice, "Probably going to have to, we're going to have to go to war." That month he also told Karl Rove, his top political adviser, who was planning for the re-election campaign the next year, "We got a war coming."
As numerous accounts have documented, the post-war planning and organization was close to a disaster. Rumsfeld blames the lack of "effective interagency coordination" and "the way the United States government is organized." (p. 487)
As secretary of defense he was responsible. Under our system, he was next in the chain of command after the president, effectively making him the deputy president for war. But he sidestepped his responsibility time and time again.
Some six weeks after the invasion Rumsfeld visited Iraq and was leaving on his plane. He had been notified by General Tommy R. Franks, who was retiring as combatant commander for the region, that Army Lt. Gen. David McKiernan "would be the senior commander in Iraq for 90 days." (p. 497) He then recounts this scene, which would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic:
On my flight heading back to Kuwait City I was startled to see McKiernan onboard the C-130 aircraft. I asked him where he was going.
"To my headquarters back in Kuwait," he said.
"Well, aren't you in charge of what's going on in Iraq?" I asked.
McKiernan told me he went in and out of Iraq once, sometimes twice a week to check on things. It struck me that in the crucial weeks following the fall of Saddam, McKiernan did not seem to think of himself as the command in charge of the ground operations ... McKiernan seemed to have removed himself from the critical daily responsibilities in the country.
Rumsfeld makes no effort to explain how he, the well-known control freak, would allow such drift and ambiguity about who was in charge.
By June 2003, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the junior three-star in the Army was made commander in Iraq (p. 500-01). "I do not recall being made aware of the Army's decision to move General Sanchez into the top position," Rumsfeld writes. The Army's? It was an abdication of his own, clear responsibility.
Though Rumsfeld occasionally praises Bush, a careful reading shows that he clearly feels that Bush did not lead enough. "NSC meetings with the president did not always end with clear conclusions and instructions," he wrote on page 319, seemingly directing his fire at Rice. "The core problems the NSC faced resulted from the effort to paper over differences of views."(p. 329). But then he takes aim right at Bush, "I thought it unlikely that Rice was managing the NSC as she did without Bush's awareness and agreement."
And so the book marches to the end. Chapter 49, the seven pages covering his firing by Bush as the secretary of defense, is called "Farewells." He launders the whole episode. Because he was willing to resign, he makes it sounds almost voluntary when Cheney calls to tell him that Bush wants "to make a change." When he meets with Bush (p. 707) to submit his resignation letter, Rumsfeld writes with classic condescension, "I tried to make the situation easier for him." It was almost, he subtly and deceptively suggests, as if Bush didn't want to do it. He writes that Bush told him, "This is hard for me. You are a pro. You're a hell of a lot better than others in this town."
Rumsfeld is indeed a pro -- at ducking and weaving and dodging responsibility, a reflection of much of what is worst in Washington.
Near the end of the Oct. 23, 2003 interview -- page 39 of my transcript -- this interchange took place, illustrating the worst and the best of him:
Rumsfeld: "And you lie, you told people I stuck a finger in your chest. I never stuck a finger in your chest."
Woodward: "Yes, sir, yes, yes."
Rumsfeld: "I never touched your chest."
Woodward: "I swear you did."
Rumsfeld: "Did I?"
Woodward: "Yeah, you did."
Rumsfeld: "Physically?"
Woodward: "You did, physically, it wasn't hostile you were illustrating a point."
Rumsfeld: "Good."
Woodward: "I explained that. I thought you scored a very good point."
Rumsfeld: (laughter)
Woodward: "Which was about surprise and off balance."
Rumsfeld: "Oh yes, I did. I remember that you're right ...Yeah, right, you are right ...I said you got to get a little off balance -- I've done that. He's right, I'm wrong."
He had moved from calling me a liar to acknowledging that my memory was correct and his wrong. He probably should have been more tentative at both the front end and the back end, but there it was, Rumsfeld in full.
On July 7 and 8, 2006, I conducted nearly three hours of interviews with Rumsfeld. Near the end, I heard the final denial. I quoted Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara who had said, "Any military commander who is honest with you will say he's made mistakes that have cost lives."
"Is that correct?" I asked.
"I don't know. I suppose that a military commander --"
"Which you are," I interrupted.
"No, I'm not," Rumsfeld said.
"Yes, sir," I said.
"No, no well ..."
"Yes, yes," I said, raising my hand in the air and ticking off the chain of command. "It's commander in chief, secretary of defense, combatant commander."
He said, "I can see a military commander in a uniform who is engaged in a conflict having to make decisions that result in people living or dying and that that would be a truth. And certainly if you go up the chain to the civilian side to the president and to me, you could by indirection, two or three steps removed, make the case."
I quoted this interchange in my third Bush book, State of Denial, and then wrote: "Indirection? Two or three steps removed?" This was truly inexplicable. It was as if he could not see himself and realize that he was avoiding his duty. When all the records are available, the other memoirs written and the history complete, this failure to accept responsibility will likely be his legacy.
Speaking of things that would be hilarious if not so tragic, take a look at this declassified document from his days as Secretary of Defense...really illuminates his leadership style.
http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/1686/2003-04-07%20to%20Doug%20Feith%20re%20Issues%20with%20Various%20Countries.pdf
FOIA Rumsfeld's notes from 2:40 on 9/11
In case anyone's interested, in 2006, the notes referenced above about S.H. were released under FOIA. Spam filter won't let me post a link, but it's the first search result for a Google search of "FOIA Rumsfeld 9/11."
Where is Woodward's analysis of himself
Woodward is always interesting to read - though his books strike me as profoundly unreliable.
Where was Woodward's skepticism during his first two books about W.'s military adventures?
Why didn't Woodward ever discuss Cheney's influence on W. - so artfully exposed in the WaPo "Angler" series?
Why did Woodward wait until 2006 to notice that there were some (um...) problems with the way the Iraq war was being conducted?
Okay - I get it: it's okay to trash Rummy these days. But if Woodward wants to get real about Washington power players who dodge and weave to evade responsibility, he might try looking in the mirror.
The Iraq war has been a military + political disaster for the US. There's plenty of blame to go around, and the smug DC fourth estate should take it's share (Ricks being a notable and courageous exception)
Woodward does us all a disservice as a journalist, by holding these facts for himself to later sell back, with his canny sense of timing, to his countryman in a book for profit, and is no better in some regard than the man he discusses.
When an eagle is about to strike, it will fly low and draw in its wings. When the mountain lion is about to pounce, it will lay back it’s ears and crouch down low. When the clever sage is about to move he will certainly display a stupid countenance.
I have observed these things, as well as people who are mean, perverse, and crooked who overcome those who are straight. These people overthrow the laws, create chaos, and are selfish.
Damn Rumsfeld, but also I damn those that knew and held back for profit or otherwise.
Woodward, like Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al., was part of the rancid "Hubris and Conceit" stew that was/is Iraq and Neo-Con foreign policy.
Woodward's review of Rumsfeld's book is a personal exercise in CYA backtracking. Just as writing it is a CYA exercise for Rumsfeld.
Woodward is too much the court historian, and I think he goes whichever way the wind blows. His hagiography "Maestro" soured me on him forever.
I suppose that working on Wall Street all my life has jaded me into letting pass egregious behavior that in normal places would offend public decency. TYRTAIOS has just refurbished my ethical consciousness with his very effective parry of Woodward’s ‘opportunistic’ thrust in the guise of balanced journalism. Good show!
OK, maybe Bob Woodward hasn't been a golden boy since Watergate. Maybe there is some "impropriety" with the way he handled the Plame affair. Maybe he's reserved the good scopes for the time of his own choosing.
But damnit, if you are going to photograph sharks, you gotta get in the water with them. Without Woodward's exposes of the inner dealings in the Bush Administration, we might never have known just how bad those people really screwed the country, the people and maybe most importantly, the troops who went down range.
I'd give the man a pass for what he has done for history. Maybe because of Bob Woodward, this Executive Branch criminality will not happen again. Maybe now with his efforts vis-a-vis the Nixon and GWB operations we can restore this government to the people, not the self-proclaimed elected elite.
Hope springs eternal Gold Star Father. With the utmost tact, and in the rhetorical, revisit your last paragraph in a day or two, and tell me you still believe.
Your point that Woodward’s scintillating access does allow us to get a glance at an administration’s level of ignorance, and arrogance, in taking a country to war that we may have never had, I concede to you, is always a good thing.
However, Bob Woodward as an individual that had been described as one of America’s preeminent investigative reporters, and a former naval intelligence officer (perhaps an oxymoron), that now reminds us of what he knew, and who has indicated people he had talked to pre-Iraq invasion, said the evidence justifying a preemptive invasion was skimpy, and that he had further played around with writing a story about it, and did not, rings hollow to me.
I find the man disingenuous, but admittedly, in the end, it is former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld that we should direct our deepest contempt for. . . . .but damn it, I still don’t trust Woodward! : o
Wilco.
But I merely want the truth to go forward.
SF
Woodward wants to have it both ways
As ugly as the picture of the Bush administration preparing for a needless war in Iraq all during 2002 (what's the rationale that will gain us the most public support and let's march through Turkey, etc), Woodward's insider dealing is decidedly not a pretty picture. Woodward wants to have it both ways: he's in the know and he's totally outside the picture. I have recoiled at his stance for many years. Couldn't agree more with this writer.
Anyone interested in adding a few "knowns" to Mr. Rumsfeld's "unknowns" would do well to read Fred Kaplan's review on Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2284351/.
It's only been a few years since Mr. Rumseld was SecDef, so there hasn't been much time for posterity to judge his record. That said, there's quite a record on his time at Defense. Even at this early stage, it may be fair to ask whose performance as SecDef was poorer and/or more memorable -- Robert McNamara or Donald Rumsfeld?
My father served under Westmoreland and McNamara, and he still swears McNamara drove him up the wall moreso than anything Rumsfeld did. A precursor to today's PowerPoint presentations, he says McNamara's charts used to grate on everyone. He almost can't say 'charts' without a hint of anger.
Don Rumsfeld makes the assumption that everyone has a short memory. Thankfully, for history’s sake and unfortunately for Rumsfeld’s reputation, Bob Woodward has a very long memory and does take notes.
For some reason after reading Woodward’s response to Rumsfeld’s book and thinking about how the Bush Administration went about making war I cannot get the old movie ‘Animal House’ out of my mind. I’ll let others decide who the Bluto Blutarsky is in the Bush-Delta’s but Rumsfeld is most certainly Doug Niedermeyer.
"When all the records are available, the other memoirs written and the history complete, this failure to accept responsibility will likely be his legacy."
His failure to accept responsibility is merely a byproduct of his ineptitude at being a war time SecDef. The ineptitude should rightly be his legacy.
"Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"
Wait … what?!
Bob Woodward has a 2006 transcript of an interview with Rumsfeld that Woodward chooses to feature the part about Rumsfeld's physical abuse of … Bob Woodward?! ("I never touched your chest." )
What about Rumsfeld's role in officially sanctioned torture? Did you even ask Rumsfeld about his torture policy? What did Rumsfeld say about his torture policy?
I am reminded of the penultimate encounter when Pacino as LTC (Ret.) Frank Slade says "if I was half the man I used to be I would take a flamethrower to this place." Then he responds to Charlie's critics and the fellow conspirators [paraphrased appropriate to our topic] "and George, Dickey, and Donald....F*ck you too."
"Rummy's unvarnished disdain for Rice.
As head of communications for the NSC and a deputy asst. to the President during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I was an eye witness to SecDef Rumsfeld's utter disdain for then Nat'l Security Adviser (NSA) Condoleezza Rice.
Here is but one example: Asked to present and explain the inter-agency coordination of public communications regarding Iraq to a "principals committee" meeting (an NSC meeting of heads of agencies which does not include the President) in the White House situation room, I prepared a brief talk and power point deck, which was distributed to my counter-parts in the WH press office and the relevant agencies including Defense and State at least 3-4 days in advance of the meeting.
One of the power point slides used simple graphics to illustrate the flow of information to garner feed-back and approval from the agencies. The abbreviation NSA appeared prominently on the slide. Sec. Rumsfeld looked up from his deck, announced he'd never seen it before and asked, quite pointedly, "What is a NSA? As I worked to contain my surprise, Condie quickly shot me her "I'll handle this" look, turned to Sec. Rumsfeld and said "Don, that would be me, the National Security Adviser"
Either the two time Sec. of Defense and former WH CoS was sinking into senility or he was signaling his utter disdain for the office of NSA and its then current occupant. As a former senior member of his own Pentagon staff had told me shortly after I joined the admin. that Sec. Rumsfeld had long believed that the office of NSA was completely unnecessary, I think the latter proposition is true.
"As a former senior member of his own Pentagon staff had told me shortly after I joined the admin. that Sec. Rumsfeld had long believed that the office of NSA was completely unnecessary..."
For what he apparently considers a "completely unnecessary" office, that didn't stop Mr. Rumsfeld from putting blame at its feet for some of the missteps during the Iraq war. The general picture of all the accounts is that the SecDef worked around and/or ignored normal channels, including the NSA/NSC, but when the history is being written he sees them as perfectly relevant and of course culpable. But then, hasn't he argued that no one did anything wrong? Just judgment calls that didn't pan out. If that's true, then why does he ascribe any blame to any one? Truly amazing.
Stunning that dysfunction like that is tolerated. Bosses could have corrected this, or colleagues could have complained, or subordinates could have leaked like a sieve.
W was either okay with this arrangement, this Team of Unmoored Rivals, or was so out of the picture that he didn't care or know what was going on. 100,000's of dead people and trillions of dollars later.... No doubt a mild preview of how a Palin NSC would perform. I can't imagine that BO's crew is much better.
The American people get the government they deserve.
"Measurable cerebral activity is virtually absent" -Joan Didion
This mind numbing minutia of non facts sounds too much like Woodward's books where all matters have equal weight. Can a finger push mean anything of the significance Woodward asserts?
Does anyone trust Bob Woodward to be anything other than a band wagon jumper? He lost objectivity in MAESTRO.
Ultimately can Woodward be trusted after claiming the deathbed interviews of William Casey in Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA?
The Didion quote is from her fine analysis of Woodward in Joan Didion, “The Deferential Spirit,” The New York Review of Books, September 19, 2006, Vol. 43, Number 14.
The case can be made for Rumsfield's selective use of facts but Woodward isn't the one to do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPeJhz3Txo
Yes, I think so. Yes, I think I would say so.
Take off the uniform - here's your mufti
Robert McNamara left active duty in 1946 with the rank of lieutenant colonel and with a Legion of Merit.
Were DR an actual stronger personality and loved a fight better there would have been a better story to tell by the great distinguished reporter in regard to DR's response to the previous Secretary of Defense's assumption as Secretary of Defense to the sensibilities of the direct commander in the field.
Bobby - you weren't there. You got bits and pieces of the events, and this is important: AFTER THE FACT. When people were already covering their butts and memories had faded. You weren't there Bobby, so you filled in holes with fantasy conversations. You are the travesty here.
Are we discussing which of these clowns served the nation best? It would be more interesting to attempt to identify any official, civilian or military who performed their jobs responsibly and well. By placing his wife's high school schoolmate, General Tommy Franks, in charge of CENTCOM; President Bush ensured the continuity of incompetence. General Zinni's staff spent one year crafting a post conflict plan for Iraq. He reports that Franks and his staff never looked at it. The plan anticipated the conditions that were actually encountered. The entire administration cared so little about the aftermath that they didn't review the Army's decision to place LTG Sanchez in charge.
Our JCS leadership was composed of a bunch of sycophants. These military enablers permitted Secretary Rumsfeld to impose his eclectic, flawed knowledge of warfare on the execution of both conflicts. This made a mess of post invasion/liberation Iraq and doomed the outcome of Tora Bora and Anaconda.
It isn't enough to identify the malefactors in an administration, one must also hold accountable those who knew better, but chose acquiescence and conformity. That cost and continues to cost American lives. Why would it be in the interests of a 4 star general to kowtow to officials he knows to be wrong? How do we grow such weak reeds?.Woodward does not signify.
"To revenge reasonable incredulity by refusing evidence, is a degree of insolence with which the world is not yet acquainted; and stubborn audacity is the last refuge of guilt." Samuel Johnson
Bob (Woodward),
I appreciate your inputs, but beg to take issue with you on your fundametal line (plan) of attack.
The job of the media was to close the loop between an informed public and a responsible government. Was this done before, during, or after the invasion? Or did the media play politics itself?
It is a fixation that is a bit off base for you to be pointing fingers at Rumsfeld as if he alone was the isolated commander or, on another take, that Bush was somehow himself soley responsible for intelligence decisions. You behave as if the American people are dups and puppets of either the government (on the right when things go wrong--or apparently wrong) or the media's own puppets to play with.
Concentrate on your job, Your last number of books (and I read your State od Denial while in Iraq), were overtly partisan. They did little to help me understand the intelligence flows and decision making except in the "gossipiest" (alternatively "Woodwordian") manner imaginable.
Does anyone at the Post understand what a journalist should really do? (Get information to the public--rich, unvarnished, and truthful).
Cut out the damn politics. I saw the results of partisan stupidity. You should be glad that you did not. But, your intelligence should make you aware of it.
Drop me a line sometime and I'll read you a little more from the Riot Act (with enough analysis and facts that an honest man would be happy to have heard it).
Woodward is part of the problem. Journalists are failing us. Big time. They are attracted to conspiracy theories, and impressing their templates on the facts, no matter how hard the facts have to give way to fit.
Shameful, really.
Woodward is unable to understand why a President who is dealing with Arab belligerence and attacks against the US, would be thinking about an Arab leader (SH) who was belligerent toward the US, and who we had already been in a shooting war with (though now in cease fire).
Gee Bob... I don't see any relation...
(sarcasm off)
To my simple mind, and I would suspect any common sense Texan, the fact that we had, for 8 years, threatened Iraq with a resumption of a shooting war (an end to the cease fire of the Gulf War) yet never having done so, would seem to present the US as incapable of responding to Arab aggression. A paper tiger.
SH and Iraq were an unresolved issue, one that SH had BEATEN us on... by yanking us and the United Nations around for a decade... violating the terms of our cease fire agreement, with little reprisal. To any self-respecting Arab, that points toward American weakness, which is an obvious opportunity.
Arab leaders could promote/fund/support terrorists at will, and clearly America couldn't do a thing about it, as witnessed by the success SH was having with the Clinton Admin.
So of course terrorists planned and trained for their attacks during the Clinton administration.
A reversal of Clinton's paper tiger approach had to end, and end immediately, in order to change the perceptions of Arab leaders.
Message received.
This is all common sense stuff, people. You don't have to be a conspiracy journalist or a rocket scientist to figure it out.
But, horseshit.
Do you believe that our dealings with the rest of the World boil down to "An Eye for an Eye"?
Spare me the paper tiger bullshit
Ryder, your man Bush was the captain of the ship of fools that ran aground on the rocks of reality and history. Bush is arguably the worst president in our history, Cheney the worst VP, Rice the worst NSA/Secstate, and Rumsfeld, worst SecDef. The worst SecDef and president hit the trifecta by selecting 4-star Peter Principle Tommy Franks and Desert Boot Warrior Paul (Jerry) Bremer to show old Saddam Hussein and his Arab legion who wasn't a paper tiger. You know what, slick, the U.S. may not be a paper tiger, but all of those clowns are.
Woodward? I would never in a million years turn my back on Bob Woodward. Those regarding whom he writes are fools; he is a snake, in it for the buck and notoriety. It'll be somebody like Woodward who withholds the details of a first nuclear strike, hoping to make a buck from reporting about it. The only loyalty in him or in any of the members of the ship of fools is to themselves.
What are these odds that all of these greedy and self-serving people would congregate at the same point in history?
It's been explained to you so that even anyone could understand
If all you have as your intellectual response is (paraphrasing) "Everyone with an R next to their job title is the worst at everything", then why should anyone take you seriously?
I don't.
We are not talking about perfect people... none ever are. All you are doing is spouting hate. All I am addressing is how EASY it is to come to the conclusion that Iraq needed to be resolved. And it did.
If you don't resume hostilities when the terms of a cease fire are broken, you are a fool. Anyone can understand that.
Clinton THREATENED it, but never did. He was the man that was supposed to make the world love us, yet the 9/11 attacks were conceived, planned, and trained for during his administration.
He was wrong. And so are you.
Ryder
If that is all you got out of my post... then I am speechless... Not sure what I can do.
It was not eye for an eye.
SH TOOK OVER AN ENTIRE COUNTRY,and KILLED AND RAN IT'S ENTIRE POPULATION OUT.
SO.... we took him on, very successfully. The people of Kuwait returned home. We then CHOSE to enter a cease fire agreement and NOT continue to pursue him deep into Baghdad on the CONDITION that he agree to the specific terms of a cease fire agreement.
He agreed.
And as any one knows, when the terms of a cease fire agreement are broken, hostilities begin again. It's not an eye for an eye. It is just process... the process that gives meaning and utility to the entire concept of a cease fire agreement.
Clinton knew it, and you can watch him on you tube, addressing the nation, telling SH that he was prepared to resume attacks if SH failed to resume adherence to the cease fire conditions. Maybe you never knew that.
I did. Anyone who cares about the situation should also.
That Clinton FAILED to follow through sent a VERY loud message to the Arab world. We were weak. We were vulnerable. We talked big, acted small.
Bush, like any Texan, understands the simple idea of walking the talk. It's common sense.
On 9/11 there was no reason to assume that SH had nothing to do with the attack... we were in a continued conflict with him, and *I* sure as hell would have told my people to start thinking about what we would need to do about it if he was, but ALSO the additional need to resume hostilities based on his flagrant disregard for the cease fire agreement that Clinton never acted on.
As simple proof this was on GW Bush's mind, he specifically said, openly, before the entire world, that SH could avoid the entire thing IF he resumed adherence to the cease fire agreement.
SH chose not to.
The rest is history.
Again... not rocket science, people. Nothing close.
Ryder, please explain a couple of things?
1. What were the "flagrant disregard(s) for the cease fire agreement"?
2. What was it that SH had to do to "(resume) adherence to the cease fire agreement".
3. Why does it take a "Texan" to understand the simple idea of walking the talk.
Also,
1.No one stated that an "R" behind the name means we hate them. You Sir seem to make great strides to chastise Pres. Clinton, a guy with a "D" behind his name.
2. Please explain how you came up with the idea that the mandate of the coalition of nations joined to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait in 1990 had anything to do with pursuit "deep into Baghdad".
3. Please don't insult me about knowledge of history. I have lived it and studied it for many years. I have a very vested interest in the conflicts with Iraq.
4. I would like to have a civil conversation about this subject--it has absorbed a great deal of my life and soul. I have a strong belief in our nation and I merely wish to fix and improve her.
Discussion of what went down with our interchanges with Iraq needs to be honestly discovered because quite basically we screwed the pooch on this and I don't want to see something similar happen ever again.
If you have not read the cease fire documents, as I have... then it's your loss. Quit talking for a change, and read a little. Start with President Clinton's address to the nation where he makes the same case I just made.
If you won't read the documents.... if you won't listen to President Clinton, if you won't listen to me... then you are lost in your own private idaho, and not my problem.
Learn to do research. Learn to FIND and READ the actual documentation. Like I said, at this point, I simply can't take you seriously.
But since I am feeling particularly generous... I will give you a leg up...
UN Resolutions 686
The Safwan Accords (signed by Schwarzkoph)
UN 687
and 25 ADDITIONAL resolutions since 687
Clinton's own words, addressing the nation in 1998:
[...]
"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community - led by the United States - has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday - make no mistake - he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. "
"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. "
Of course, as we all know... Clinton's actual response was astoundingly small (operation Desert Fox)... and did not result in the full cooperation of Iraq. Clinton knew how to talk, of course... but he never accomplished his goals, although as many point out, the timing of his acts often were coincidental to Clinton's impeachment hearings, but I will leave that level of political wrangling to others. Washington news staff were privately calling it "Monica's War".
But that aside... if Clinton could recognize the CLEAR dangers of becoming a paper tiger, then why can't you? Any parent understands the importance of following through on threats. It's basic, simple, common knowledge.
For those that continue to doubt that Bush considered the entire issue of failing to deal with SH all during the 90's... he speaks directly to this issue, about 10 days before the start of the Iraq War:
"This is not only an important moment for the security of our nation, I believe it's an important moment for the Security Council itself. And the reason I say that is because this issue has been before the Security Council, the issue of disarmament of Iraq, for 12 long years.
And the fundamental question facing the Security Council is will its words mean anything; when the Security Council speaks, will the words have merit and weight? I think it's important for those words to have merit and weight, because I understand that in order to win the war against terror, there must be a united effort to do so. And we must work together to defeat terror."
Like I said.... he viewed Iraq as an unresolved situation that had to be resolved as part of the overall response to Arab aggression. He knew we had been sending the wrong message. He was determined to send a different one. "We're not going to be pushed around by Arabs any more." (paraphrased).
It's that simple. That's how Texan's think. (And he's not wrong for thinking it.)
Yes, in the end, he and his administration really spun up the WMD angle as *part* of the "pitch". But a pitch is just a pitch. We should all be seasoned enough around here to know that. The need to resolve Iraq was the bottom line issue, and was settled early on (I would say hours after 9/11). What the "pitch" would evolve into over the many months that followed is all part of political and legal maneuvering, guided by varied advisors to a President that already knew what he was doing, and why. Nothing more. SH was leaving Iraq, or going down... one way or another, following 9/11. I also don't doubt that GWB figured that SH had something in the way of WMD... he honestly believed it, but also that it simply didn't matter much to the basic reason for taking action, which he decided on the morning of Sept 11.
It's REALLY, REALLY simple. People like Woodward make it far more complex than it ever was.
And if you don't think Texan's think that way... then you really should meet a few. I know what I'm talking about.
My experience, limited though it is, with Rumsfeld involves hearing him speak, usually in defense of some decision or other concerning Iraq or Afghanistan. The man is a master at avoiding the truth and creating supportive facts, basically a liar. If the results of these distortions were not so serious and damaging he could be called comedic. Sadly many have died as a result of his and the Bush administrations Iraq oil grab attempts. Ironically we were not to become the beneficiaries of "success in Iraq" as the oil rights were bought up mainly by Russia, eastern Europe, and BP.
The present push for democracy in the Mideast and Northern Africa isn't even related to our adventures in Iraq but to the growth of web access in those areas with the predominant difference that the people of the states currently in rebellion are initiators and active in their respective movements and many don't want the U.S. involved as they are afraid that we will stay and force our own style of democracy on their contries or worse, install another dictator who is very dependent on the U.S. to remain in power. As a country, although we say we like democracy in others, we prefer nice compliant tyrants who will do our bidding.
Rumsfeld was dishonest in the worst way, he got people killed for artificial reasons. Sadly, the Obama administration has followed suit. We want to put an oil pipeline through Afghanistan from the north. This was probably the real reason for the continuation of fighting there; that and the fact that, while in Iraq we are in a nearly perfect position to respond militarily to Iran should the need, or opportunity, arise. They have plenty of oil too!
... we launched not one, but TWO wars to "get oil"... Bush 1 and Bush2, and somehow we forgot to get our hands on any oil, even though we had total control of the southern oil fields for YEARS...
Of course we SAID IN ADVANCE we didn't want the oil.... and we didn't take any oil... and yet that is all to easy an explanation for you.
Have you not noticed that it is the unique history of the United States to win conflicts all around the world... liberate people, NOT take their land, or their wealth, but instead spend even more of our treasure to help rebuild the countries we had beaten?
Since you impress me as the kind of person that greatly appreciates couch time watching entertainment, might I suggest a wonderful movie from 1959 called
"The Mouse that Roared"... highly rated... Starring Peter Sellers:
"The Duchy of Grand Fenwick decides that the only way to get out of their economic woes is to declare war on the United States, lose and accept foreign aid."
That's right.... get in a war with the US, so that you can lose and become financially sound again.
If the pattern of US involvement in conflict was apparent back in 1959, even to the film industry... then where the heck have you been?
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(40)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE