I believed, and posted as much at the time, that the weapons of mass destruction issue was spin. However, it wasn't because I believed there were no WMDs and the administration was lying about it, but rather that of the laundry list of possible reasons to invade Iraq, WMD was just most appealing to the public and the most legally sound way to achieve other foreign policy goals. That's how Washington works. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, the little tin pot dictator actually didn't have any WMDs handy when the dust settled.
Political speeches have failed to surprise me for over a decade now. If you are familiar with the issues you'll not likely hear anything different from what you can read in a press release. Having written numerous speeches during a five-year period, I tend to pay attention to the format, the use of language, the use of metaphor and icon and the quality of the speaker’s presentation (the technique). The same way, I imagine, Toad pays attention to the technique when another pilot makes a cross-wind landing in an airliner when he is in the back as a passenger. The exception to that, a real WTF moment, was the whole “Axis of Evil” speech. Here you have a list of countries not related, for the most part, with radical Islamic fundamentalism and a clear and growing focus on Iraq from the administration. What the hell did that have to do with getting the people responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers?
At first, the only logical explanation for action against Iraq, a secular Stalinist dictatorship that would probably be our best friend in the war against Islamic terror if Saddam hadn't bothered to invade Kuwait in 1991 and didn't have a hard on for Israel, was the whole war for oil thing. But that just didn't quite cover it. It became clearer to me following an article in The Chicago Tribune and a review of many, easy to find, primary sources. If you look at the makeup of the current administration's cabinet, you can find support among the neoconservative elements (a strong faction) for an invasion of Iraq dating back years before 9/11. At no point during that time was “WMDs aimed at America” a cornerstone of their arguments, though the threat these weapons might pose to our "allies in the region" was highlighted.
People like
Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle,
Douglas Feith,
Donald Rumsfeld and
Dick Cheney were on record (some directly in a letter to
Bill Clinton in 1998) asking for this action, and have similarly testified before Congressional committees during the same time period. In a vision worthy of Robert McNamara, they see the road to Middle East peace as hinging on some democracy domino effect along the lines of "build it and they will convert." Saudi Arabia was also seen as being unstable, a potential Iran, with the need to establish a secondary source for basing in the region as well as a backup in case something happened to Saudi oil production. Additionally, and as secondary benefits, there were potentially significant economic opportunities for the U.S. oil industry in rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure, the potential to increase Israel's safety on Israel's terms (strong, direct neoconservative links present to Likud policy agendas), reducing the threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from a future Iraqi invasion and of course closure for some of the issues that arose from the end of the first Gulf War. Again, you can find most of this of this direct from the horses’ mouth by accessing the
Project for the New American Century (please follow this link to see a broad description) and this one for
The formal Web site. Worthy to check out, really must read infromation.
Additionally, it has come to light that Paul Wolfowitz was pushing for the Iraq option on 9/12 and seemed have blinders on concerning Osama bin Ladin even as information was developed pointing out who the real culprits were. This is been documented in a variety of " insider " books that of came out since and have not been generally disputed, though the significance has been downplayed by those involved. With a P.R. perspective you could see it unfold rather clearly. It has also been clearly documented that there was a fight for the heart and mind of the President between his neoconservative cabinet members and the old school conservative, Colin Powell. The neoconservatives won.
If you remember, there was a strong push in the first couple of weeks after the attack to link Iraq to 9/11. That just didn't pan out (formally, though message development continued to successfully establish a “link” in much of the public’s mind). While action got under way against Afghanistan, certainly a legitimate target, the focus then shifted to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. This was undoubtedly driven by the fact that there were legal opportunities to pursue this route, as well as consumer marketing 101 which states emotion sells -- not facts. What are the chances of America going to war to overthrow Saddam based on bland think-tank foreign policy theory? Who would pay attention to that? It’s a lot easier decision to make if you are worried about getting vaporized in your bed by Saddam’s atomic bomb. Further, conventional PR wisdom dictates that few people will bother to take a critical look at the logic behind the threat.
1. Saddam Hussein was a Stalinist dictator who focused much of his genocidal efforts on eradicating his personal threats from radical Isalm. If you give Osama bin Ladin WMDs you can flip a coin to see if he's going to use them on you or against the United States.
2. Saddam Hussein clearly had regional ambitions. After going to enormous trouble to develop these weapons it is a illogical to assume that you are going to give them to somebody else.
3. There are far more credible chemical and nuclear threats posed by other countries that would logically have been higher on the list as a first target and that subsequently have not prompted similar action.
With WMD not viable today, the PR machine has moved on to the next message, “The liberation of the suffering people of Iraq.” Not the formal reason we invaded (a small point of course), but again, filling that important human need to be “right” and justify the initial support for the action. Seems to be working so far. Of course, that’s all water under the bridge now. We broke it, we’re there and we have to fix it. If we are really lucky, Iraq will stabilize and the necon regional vision may actually pay off. Then again, it may backfire totally with an Iraqi quagmire as the least of our worries. We’ll just have to wait a decade or so and see.
Charon
