Wampum

Chasing a Ghost

What are we to make of the news about David Kay, the chief WMD hunter in Iraq? He has resigned his position. In an interview, Kay expressed the view that no substantial stockpiles of WMD are in Iraq. Mr. Kay has also noted that:

the C.I.A. and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf war, in 1991.and that there has been no substantial production of WMD since the first Gulf war in 1991.

These days, it seems difficult to find anyone who based his or her support for the war on the urgency of disarming Saddam. Many folks justify the war on the basis that Saddam was a brutal dictator who oppressed the Iraqi people with rape rooms, mass graves and other techniques.

Others justify the war as a means of showing that we are serious about terrorism and that by striking in the heart of the Arab world we provide a powerful symbol of American strength. Still others hope that Iraq emerges as a democratic nation, marking a different path for the Arab world. Finally, some see the war in Iraq as a first step in a series of confrontations between Islam and the West.

For one person, however, the war was about the WMD. For that person, had it been known that Saddam had no WMD, the war would not have been necessary. That person is George W. Bush.

President Bush made clear in the run up to the invasion that war could be avoided if Saddam disposed of his WMD. George W. Bush would have permitted Saddam to remain in power free to oppress the Iraqi people, sending them in countless numbers to rape rooms and mass graves if it had been known that Saddam possessed no WMD. In the absence of WMD, George Bush did not feel that the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq was worth the price in blood and treasure. It now appears that George W, Bush went to war chasing a ghost.

Those are strong words. The evidence to back up those assertions is contained in the words of George W. Bush and administration officials in the run up to the war.

On October 21, 2002, President Bush made some remarks after meeting with Congressional leaders. He said:

Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq. I've made up my mind we need to disarm the man. .. I'm suggesting that the same old stuff isn't going to work, John. And we won't accept the status quo. There needs to be a strong new resolution in order for us to make it clear to the world -- and to Saddam Hussein, more importantly -- that you must disarm.

The decision to go to war had not been made but the President was determined that Saddam would be disarmed. Does that not imply that it was possible that disarmament could avoid a war? If disarmament would not avoid the war, why was it important that our position on disarmament be made clear to Saddam?

Two weeks later at a campaign speech in South Dakota on November 3, 2002, President Bush said:

And my message to Saddam Hussein is that, for the sake of peace, for the sake of freedom, you must disarm like you said you would do.

It is hard to understand a call for Saddam to disarm “for the sake of peace” as anything other than suggesting that war could be avoided if Saddam disarmed. The President did not say, “for the sake of peace, resign.” He did not say, “for the sake of peace, liberate your people” and he did not say “for the sake of peace, establish a democracy.” The requirement for peace was disarmament. According to David Kay, that requirement was met.

Eleven days later on November 12, 2002 at the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department Operations Center the President said:

It's over, we're through negotiations, there's no more time. The man must disarm. He said he would disarm, he now must disarm. And, you know, this kind of deception and delay -- all that is over with. The country is committed to making the world more peaceful by disarming Saddam Hussein, it's just as simple as that.

Two days later, on November 14, Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan noted what the confrontation was really about:

Saddam Hussein needs to cooperate and he needs to comply. And he needs to move to disarm. We are very serious about this. I think that's very clear. And the international community is speaking with one voice. The United States is speaking with one voice. And this is about disarmament and he better not start playing games.

It was not about Iraqi kids having schools. It was not about rape rooms. It was not about a grand neocon idea of remaking the Middle East. It was about disarmament and, according to David Kay, Saddam was disarmed.

On November 23, 2002, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer squared the circle of disarmament and regime change:

MR. FLEISCHER: The President's position is that Saddam Hussein needs to live up to the resolution and disarm. If he does not, he will be disarmed. So that's the President's position, to be clear about what the President is saying.

QUESTION: The President has never said that we want to remove Saddam Hussein from office.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said that he hopes that Saddam Hussein and Iraq will comply with the resolution. If they don't, we will disarm them.

QUESTION: In the press conference with Tony Blair, the President didn't say, "We want to remove Saddam Hussein from office"?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President's position is either he will disarm or we will remove him so Iraq is disarmed.

QUESTION: Did he or did he not say that he wants to remove Saddam Hussein, in that press conference with Tony Blair? I mean, is that his position or not?

MR. FLEISCHER: Look, this is an age-old issue and we've gone through this a month ago about can Saddam Hussein disarm.

QUESTION: No, but do we want to remove him from office or not?

MR. FLEISCHER: If he doesn't disarm, yes.

QUESTION: If he does disarm?

MR. FLEISCHER: If Iraq disarms and you have all the other products of the U.N. resolution obeyed and what President Bush called for in New York obeyed, then the regime will have effectively changed. ..This is not very complicated. The objective is to disarm Saddam Hussein and have Saddam Hussein live up to everything that he committed to, that the President called on him to do in his September 12 speech.

As Fleischer said, it was not really very complicated. If Saddam disposed of his WMD, war could be avoided. Saddam had no WMD and George W. Bush was intent on chasing the ghost.

In his December 7, 2002 radio address the President described disarming Saddam of his WMD as “a central commitment of the war on terror” necessary to “prevent terrorist groups and outlaw regimes from threatening the American people with catastrophic harm.”

We now know that even before the war began, we had achieved a “central commitment of the on terror” and that it was not necessary to go to war with Iraq “to prevent terrorist groups and outlaw regimes from threatening the American people with catastrophic harm.” Of course, the specter of the ghost remained so we went to war.

On January 2, 2003 the President spoke to the press. He said:

First of all, you know, I'm hopeful we won't have to go war, and let's leave it at that…Until Saddam Hussein makes up his mind to disarm -- see, it's his choice to make. See, you need to ask him that question, not me…. He is a man who likes to play games and charades. The question is, will Saddam Hussein disarm. The world has asked him to disarm from weapons of mass destruction. The first indication isn't very positive that he will voluntarily disarm….You know, Saddam Hussein -- hopefully he realizes we're serious, and hopefully he disarms peacefully. He's a danger to the American people, he's a danger to our friends and allies. For 11 long years, the world has dealt with him. And now he's got to understand, his day of reckoning is coming. And therefore, he must disarm voluntarily, I hope he does. All right, let's go get a coffee.

Having no weapons of mass destruction, disarming was not a choice available to Saddam. It is deeply ironic that Saddam could have prevented war and remained in power if he had taken the precaution of acquiring some WMD so that he could disarm. Having acquired no WMD, Saddam could not disarm and therefore could not avoid war and ouster.

On January 14, 2003 at a photo-op with Polish President Kwasniewski, the President told us what he had in mind:

What I have in mind for Saddam Hussein is to disarm. The United Nations spoke with one voice. We said, we expect Saddam Hussein, for the sake of peace, to disarm. That's the question: Is Saddam Hussein disarming? … Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm.

How clear was President’s Bush’s message that Saddam could avoid war by disarming? In Saint Louis on January 22, 2003, the President said:

He's a dangerous, dangerous man with dangerous, dangerous weapons. And that's why the world came together at the United Nations Security Council and said, Mr. Saddam Hussein must disarm. The message was as clear as can possibly be delivered -- Mr. Saddam Hussein must disarm.

My hope is that Saddam Hussein will disarm voluntarily; that's my hope. I take seriously the commitment of any troop into combat. I desire peace. But in the name of peace, in the name of securing our future, if Saddam Hussein will not disarm, the United States of America and friends of freedom will disarm Saddam Hussein.

On January 29, 2003 President Bush noted that if Saddam disarmed, the horrors of war could be avoided:

I'm convinced that this still can be done peacefully. I certainly hope so. The idea of committing troops is my last option, not my first. I understand the terrible price of war. I understand what it means to put somebody into combat. I know what it means to hug mothers and wives. But I've got to tell you something. I've thought long and hard about this. The risks of doing nothing, the risks of assuming the best from Saddam Hussein, it's just not a risk worth taking.

So I call upon the world to come together and insist that this dangerous man disarm.

The last two statements can only be understood as stating the President’s position that if Saddam disarmed, he could remain in power. If he disarmed, there would be peace. Peace in that context means that Saddam, the brutal and evil dictator, would have remained in power free to oppress the Iraqi people..

Had it been apparent that Iraq possessed no WMD, Mr. Bush’s position on the war would have been no different that of Howard Dean. Mr. Bush did not think that liberating the Iraqi people was sufficient reason to go to war. He did not think that establishing a democracy in the heart of Arabic speaking nations was sufficient cause to go to war. He did not think the opportunity to remake the Middle East in Tom Friedman’s image was sufficient cause to go to war.

Mr. Bush thought that Saddam’s failure to disarm WMD was sufficient cause to go to war. Saddam had no WMD to renounce, so war was inevitable. Many people now believe that the war was justified by reasons other than Iraq’s possession of WMD. I expect that President Bush shares that view today.

Before the invasion, disarmament was Mr. Bush’s reason for the war. We had achieved that goal before a shot was fired. We went to war chasing a ghost.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at January 26, 2004 09:21 AM | TrackBack