Lester Pearson (1897 - 1972), Canadian prime minister
The other night, On the Mark and I attended a talk/discussion sponsored by the Downtown Los Angeles Library with George Packer, who wrote “The Assassins’ Gate, America in Iraq.” I found the conversation as interesting as his book.
I cannot encourage you strongly enough to read “The Assassins’ Gate, America in Iraq” to get an understanding how America was hoodwinked into attacking Iraq using a disastrous foreign policy known as the Bush doctrine.The neoconservatives in the Bush gang led by Vice President Dick Cheney, with strong support from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz were the main architects behind the war. Anyone who disagreed had to remain quiet or they were fired. General Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, said that Iraq world require “ something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers.” Shinseki was fired and publicly contradicted by Paul Wolfowitz. Bush’s economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay candidly predicted that the war could cost as much as $200 billion, he was quickly reprimanded and eventually fired.
In a nutshell that does not do justice to the book, but shows my opinion, the motive behind going to war was a strong, although not factually supported, belief that the United States could bring democracy to the Middle East and change the political landscape to something more to the United States’ liking.
During the talk, Packer said that Bush was not necessarily a neoconservative ready to rush into Iraq, but 9/11 threw him into the neoconservative group. Once Bush was completely on board Cheney and Rumsfeld could easily push their agenda through.
As more books and analysis come out on Iraq documenting what went on behind the scenes, I believe it will show the flawed thinking behind our effort and prove that Iraq was/is one of this country’s biggest mistakes.
4 comments:
I was impressed by 2 things: First, you're reasoned and intelligent comments, and second the fact that you actually quoted a Canadian. :)
Very interesting. As you know, I've been trying to figure out the Bush administration's motive for invading Iraq. This explanation makes more sense to me than anything I've heard before. And, of course, the BA always did put this forward as one positive outcome that the war would accomplish.
Arguably, the administration may still achieve that outcome. I think the Iraqis are taking sides: some are excited about the new, (quasi-) democratic beginning that is before them, even as others violently oppose it. It remains to be seen how that internal debate will play itself out over the next generation or two. Democracy may in fact take root.
Your synopsis of the book is also interesting since it confirms the surface appearance: that Bush isn't smart enough to be the ringleader, he's just the stooge of some very hawkish men who effectively govern through him.
I don't see how any American could feel good about that: i.e., voting for Bush and getting Cheney / Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz as de facto President.
Q
Q, I had you in mind as I wrote this piece. Bush is known and likes to be known as someone who delegates and makes decisions. However, the big flaw with his systems is that he doesn’t know all the facts when he makes decisions. He is an incurious person who relies on others to give him the facts. Unfortunately, his gang pushed forth their agenda.
Also, the way the war was handled with no exit strategy was all of Rumsfeld’s poor planning. All the military brass wanted 500,000 or more troops in Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted fewer than 100,000. They settled on 160,000 initially. There was a plan for rebuilding Iraq after the war, but again, Rumsfeld shelved it saying that it was the Iraq’s responsibility.
Our country was hijacked by extremists known as neoconservatives.
Similar sentiments were behind why I thought everyone should at least see Fahrenheit 911, even if they don't agree with all of Michael Moore's politics. Of course, there are some who still refuse to do that.:(
Post a Comment