An interim White House report card on Iraq paints a grim picture. Yet, just as he did following the publication of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report last year, George W. Bush is making true to his promise to stay even if Laura and Barney, his dog, are his only two supporters.
A British multiparty commission set up by the Foreign Policy Center has called upon Britain’s new Prime Minister Gordon Brown to come up with a clear exit strategy from Iraq and to “actively and urgently...pursue changes of policy from our allies”.
Thus far, Brown has kept his Iraq policy close to his chest although due to distinctly anti-unilateralism statements made by several of his ministers known to be anti-war, he is being accused in some quarters of sending mixed signals to his “friends” in Washington.
Given that the American and British publics are overwhelmingly hostile toward the war and more than 60 percent of Iraqis support insurgent attacks on coalition troops, to use an expression oft quoted by Dr. Phil when he disapproves of his guests’ behavior, “What are they thinking?”
It would be fascinating to know their thinking in terms of their reluctance to walk away from the terrible mess they’ve created in Iraq but there’s a deeper question here.
In light of what we now know how on earth were they allowed to get away with invading a country under a long list of faux pretexts in the first place?
First they cited WMD, which didn’t exist. Then, they said Iraqis had been involved in the 2001 attacks on the US, which wasn’t true.
And lastly, they proclaimed they were there to turn Iraq into a shining example of prosperous democratic state to be emulated by its neighbors. Instead, when its neighbors peer across the fence, they shudder.
How were a tiny cabal made up of pro-Israel neocons, Messianic “End-times” Christians and emissaries from big business/energy companies able to hijack American and British foreign policy with such ease?
This is a question worth careful analysis by governments and think tanks everywhere to hopefully prevent a similar occurrence costing so many lives and treasure down the road.
There is little doubt that the American public was heavily swayed by 9-11, which the Bush administration craftily propagandized to oil its path into Iraq with such statements as “we have to meet our enemies on their own ground to prevent them from attacking us here.”
Pulling wool over the eyes of a public that was unfamiliar with the Middle East and, according to studies, was overwhelmingly unable to pinpoint Kansas or Great Britain on a map let alone, Iraq, was a simple task.
Then they used the fear factor over a nuclear-armed Iraq to persuade the public to support the invasion.
Also to blame was the compliant US media and to a lesser extent the British media, which failed to ask the right questions and, in some cases, turned itself into a government propaganda tool by reporting rumors as though they were gospel, published government press releases unchallenged and during the war shamefully embedded its reporters with coalition forces.
But to my mind the people whose hearts should weigh heavily with blame are ministers and politicians many of whom we now discover were against the war from day one but neglected either to speak out or quit their jobs in protest. Those people allowed the American president and the British prime minister to ride roughshod over their opinions and trash facts that contradicted contrived or cherry— picked intelligence.
Who are those cowardly, mealy-mouthed people who preferred to suppress their own code of morals and their duty to the electorate, presumably out of a false sense of loyalty to their boss or to salvage their own careers?
First on the list has to be then US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Cast yourself back to his 2002 presentation to the UN Security Council. It was made by a respected former military man, once tipped to be president, and with such conviction and passion that few failed to be impressed.
Everyone makes mistakes and you might be able to forgive Powell his. The problem is that even as he was enthusiastically mouthing his speech to convince other nations to rubber— stamp the war he himself was against the invasion.
At the recent Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado, Powell admitted as much. He now says he spent 2 1/2 hours in an attempt to persuade George W. Bush not to invade. “I tried to avoid this war,” he said. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers”.
I don’t blame Powell for his failure to change Bush’s mind but as he knew the invasion would lead to so much death and destruction and doubted the credibility of intelligence, then why didn’t he quit and make his concerns public?
British ministers are even more guilt-laden judging from the newly published diaries of Tony Blair’s once best mate and spin doctor Alastair Campbell.
He discloses that all of Blair’s closest Cabinet colleagues suffered from “severe moments of doubt” over the war and reveals that Blair’s staunchest allies, then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and then party Chairman John Reid appeared “physically sick” during a pre-war Cabinet meeting.
According to Campbell, John Reid said we should “never underestimate the instincts for unity and understand that we will be judged by the Iraq that replaces Saddam’s Iraq and by the Middle East”.
John Reid and John Prescott sensibly quit the Cabinet on the eve of Gordon Brown’s appointment. Like Colin Powell, they are out in the political wilderness.
If they had possessed one iota of the courage of the late Robin Cook, who resigned his post as leader of the House of Commons in March 2003 to protest the invasion, they might deserve our respect. Instead, they not only let us down but also themselves.
Now it’s the turn of Gordon Brown in Britain and House Democratic leader and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to display their mettle. How far are they prepared to go to stand up to Bush and his failed agenda? Let’s see.
