Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sig who wrote (105511)	7/15/2003 10:48:37 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush misled public, and military, about war in Iraq BY WILLIAM O'ROURKE Columnist The Chicago Sun-Times July 13, 2003 That the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been largely futile (one hopes the military will, at least, turn up Saddam, if not A-bombs) does not cause me much concern. As a reason for attacking Iraq, I always considered it far down on the list, even though the Bush administration put it at the top. Though both have resigned recently, President Bush appointed Victoria Clarke, from the Hill and Knowlton public relations firm, to run the PR side of the Iraq conflict, and Charlotte Bears, an advertising executive, to improve the administration's image in the Muslim world. The ad and PR and military campaigns worked hand in hand. Their technique was the same as the list of ingredients now required on most foods: In tiny type, the contents are given in descending order of amounts. On the wrapper, large letters announce healthy ingredients, but the label shows those come at the end of the list and are the smallest part of whatever is being sold. Likewise, Bush and Vice President Cheney went on and on about Saddam's imminent threat and his many WMD. That is what was advertised, but WMD actually were the least of it. After 9/11, White House advisers wanted to make use of the terrible al-Qaida attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq. There were geopolitical reasons for remaking the map of the Middle East. Following those were lesser, but just as potent, security interests in acquiring control of Iraq's oil reserves. Those elements would be listed first if the Iraq war came with a label of contents: bringing up the rear would be WMD. But in order to sell the war to the American people, the imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction had to lead the way and be promoted. "All Natural!" "Fat free!" The WMD claims were marketing pitches. Because the war was sold as a military necessity, not a humanitarian adventure, the current lawless state of Iraq should not be a big surprise. The quote from an officer early in the conflict, "The enemy we're fighting is a bit different from the one we war-gamed against" becomes not the pessimistic remark it seemed at the time, but a prescient one. That the Bush administration misled the public is quite clear; what has been less clear is that it also misled the military. If, all along, the cause and the aims of the war had been stated honestly, the military would have prepared for the war they found: one where the regime was toppled quickly and the population did more lasting damage to the country's institutions and infrastructure than our forces did. There have been macabre whisperings of what went wrong: We didn't kill enough people in Iraq, we didn't destroy large numbers of the Republican Guard. It is a variation of the old Vietnam-era saying, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" In Iraq's case it was: What if we went to war and no one resisted? Obviously, there was some resistance. Nearly 150 Americans were killed in what Bush called "the major combat operations" that ended in April. It's hard to believe what has occurred since was Saddam's plan all along. He goads us to invade his country, take it over with token resistance and then, after we won, he lets the real war begin. Soon the death count will surpass that of the major combat period. If Saddam couldn't win a conventional conflict, perhaps he thought he could win a guerrilla war. The only way to do that would be to turn us into long-term occupiers. Regardless, there is not much historic precedent for accomplishing what we have set out to do: a foreign power taking over a country and quickly leaving behind happy campers ready to go to the polls to elect wise and capable leaders. Certainly, our recent experience in Afghanistan tells another story. We are better at taking over little countries, like Panama. It's hard to run a country with the size and history of Iraq. Very hard. If one wants to know a reason for the war, one should look at what we do seem to be able to control and make work: the oil business in Iraq. Can that be just a coincidence? suntimes.com