Thinking

Why did the United States invade Iraq?

MidEast

Bush’s decision to depose Saddam has always perplexed the Policy Tensor. I have previously argued that US policy with respect to Iraq after 1990 was inconsistent with foreign policy realism; that, during the 1990s, US foreign policy was guided by the rogue states doctrine that served as the justification for the forward-deployment of US forces around the globe (and defense spending high enough to allow for garrisoning the planet after the threat from the Soviet Union vanished into thin air) by inflating the threat posed by confrontation states; that Saddam became a poster child of the rogues’ gallery that the foreign policy elite in Washington said they were determined to contain; and that the US policy consensus on the threat posed by the person of Saddam Hussein meant that Saddam was most at risk from a revisionist policy innovation in Washington.

So when George Bush went about “searching for monsters to destroy,” Saddam was the most tempting target. The consensus in policy circles against Saddam explains why the US invaded Iraq and not Cuba, North Korea, Iran or Libya; or any other confrontation state that could, more or less convincingly, be framed as a “rogue state”, “outlaw state”, “backlash state”, or “Weapon State” (as Krauthammer put it in Foreign Affairs). In short, Bush was following the path of least resistance when he chose to overthrow President Hussein.

But why did Bush want to depose Saddam in the first place? The US veto on potential rivals’ access to gulf energy was already secured by the United States’ impregnable maritime power in the region. That is, with or without a friendly regime in Baghdad, the US could deny any challenger access to gulf energy simply using its overwhelming maritime power.

Moreover, almost any conceivable US national interest could’ve been more easily secured by bringing Saddam in from the cold. If Bush wanted his friends in the oil industry to benefit from access to Iraqi oil, Saddam could easily have been brought in from the cold on that very condition. If Bush wanted to ramp up Iraqi oil production to lower oil prices (and perhaps undermine Saudi Arabia’s position as the swing producer and its hold on OPEC), the easiest way to do that would’ve been to allow Western oil firms to invest in Iraqi production capacity. If Bush wanted an Iraqi regime that was a geopolitical ally of the United States and Israel, even that was within the realm of possibility with Saddam at the helm in Baghdad.

Suppose that for whatever reason it was impossible for the United States to work with Saddam. Then, any conceivable US interest would’ve been better served by replacing the regime led by Saddam Hussein with a more compliant military junta. For a democratic regime in Baghdad was ethno-demographically guaranteed to fall within the orbit of Iran.

In fact, what I found after combing through the archives of the 1990s was that US-Iraq relations had been personalized to an extraordinary degree and that there was an overwhelming consensus in the foreign policy establishment that the ideal scenario would be a military coup by a more accommodative general. The idea was that if Saddam were deposed by a more accommodative general, we would get the best of both worlds. An iron-fisted junta would provide stability in the sense that Iraq would serve as a bulwark against Iran and keep a lid on both ethnic nationalism (Shia, Sunni and Kurdish) and salafi jihadism. And a more accommodative leadership in Iraq would remove Iraq from the ranks of the confrontation states and thereby enhance the security, power and influence of the United States and its regional allies.

These considerations explain why, after kicking Saddam’s army out of Kuwait, Bush’s dad left Saddam in power and watched from the sidelines as Saddam crushed the Iraqi intifada. Bush Senior later explained the decision in his book that he coauthored with Scowcroft:

While we hoped that a popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the United States nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Breaking up the Iraqi state would pose its own destabilizing problems.

The core of the Bush revolution in foreign policy was the decision to break with this policy consensus. Specifically, Bush Jr’s policy innovation was to overthrow Saddam Hussein without replacing him with a more accommodative military junta. What possible US interest could be served by that policy? What did principals in the Bush administration hope to accomplish? What was their grand-strategy? I think I finally have an answer.

My interpretation builds on the findings and arguments of a large number of scholars. For the sake of conciseness, I’ll focus exclusively on the excellent anthology edited by Jane Cramer and Trevor ThrallWhy Did the United States Invade Iraq? In what follows, I’ll summarize their findings before presenting my interpretation. All quotes that follow are from this book unless otherwise specified.


Cramer and Thrall argue that the core foreign policy principals in the Bush administration were President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It’s plausible to imagine that they came under the sway of neocons and to the neocons’ well-known strategy of regime change in Iraq in the heightened threat environment after 9/11. But that story is inconsistent with the facts.

The record indicates they did not even make a decision after 9/ 11; they apparently had already made up their minds so they did not need to deliberate or debate. Instead they discussed war preparations and strategies for convincing the public and Congress, with no planning for how to make democracy take shape in Iraq.

Cheney played an extraordinary role in the administration. In particular, he handpicked almost all the neocon hawks who led the drumbeat to war:

Cheney helped appoint thirteen of the eighteen members of the Project for the New American Century.… Cheney lobbied strongly for one open advocate of regime change—Donald Rumsfeld—who was appointed to be Secretary of Defense. And then, Cheney and Rumsfeld together appointed perhaps the most famous advocate for overthrowing Saddam Hussein in order to create a democracy in Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, as Undersecretary of Defense. Cheney created a powerful dual position for Scooter Libby …John Bolton as special assistant Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; David Wurmser as Bolton’s chief assistant; Robert Zoellick as US Trade Representative; and Zalmay Khalilzad as head of the Pentagon transition team…. [Cheney appointed] Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Abram Schulsky.

But, Cramer and Thrall argue, quite convincingly in my opinion, that “the neoconservatives and the Israel lobby were “used” to publicly sell the invasion, while the plans and priorities of the neoconservatives were sidelined during the war by the top Bush leaders.”

The State Department and the oil industry were becoming increasingly alarmed about the neoconservatives’ oil plan and Chalabi’s open advocacy for it. In the eyes of the mainstream oil industry, an aggressive oil grab by the United States might lead to a destabilization of the oil market and a delegitimizing of the Iraq invasion. This was argued in an independent report put out on January 23, 2003 by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute entitled Guiding Principles for U.S. Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq. The report cautioned against taking direct control of Iraqi oil, saying, “A heavy American hand will only convince them (the Iraqis), and the rest of the world, that the operation in Iraq was carried out for imperialist rather than disarmament reasons. It is in American interests to discourage surch misperceptions….

The State Department plan triumphed over the neoconservatives’ plan, and this helps demonstrate that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush did not allow the neoconservatives and the Israel lobby to dominate US foreign policy even from the inception of the invasion. In fact, Bush appointed Phillip Carroll, the former chief of Shell Oil, to oversee the Iraqi oil business. Carroll executed much of the oil industries’ preferred plans for Iraqi oil. Revealingly, when L. Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, ordered the de-Ba’athification of all government ministries in Iraq, Carroll refused to comply with Bremer’s order because removing the Ba’athist oil technocrats would have hindered the Iraqi oil business. In the end, the Baker plan (aligned with US oil industry interests) was implemented in its entirety. The US official policy was to use Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) that legally left the ownership of the oil in Iraqi government hands while attempting to ensure new long-term multinational oil corporation profits.

On de-Ba’athification, on Chalabi, on Iraqi participation in OPEC, on the privatization of Iraqi oil, on bombing Iran and Syria, on threatening Saudi Arabia or giving the Saudis access to advanced weaponry, the administration went counter to the neoconservatives’ proposals and policy desiderata. In fact, the “neoconservatives realized that they had been used to sell the war publicly but were marginalized when it came to the creation of Middle East policy. In 2006 prominent neoconservatives broke with the administration and resoundingly attacked Bush’s policies.”

So, if the neoconservative vision of an expanding zone of democratic peace was not the motivation for the invasion, what was? “Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush,” Cramer and Thrall argue, “were US primacists and not realists.”

Cheney authorized Paul Wolfowitz to manage a group project to write up a new Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) drafted by various authors throughout the Pentagon in full consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell (Burr 2008). The DPG was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992 (Tyler 1992). The radical plan caused a political firestorm as it called for US military primacy over every strategic region on the planet.

The draft DPG leaked in 1992 was widely perceived as a radical neoconservative document that was not endorsed by the high officials in the George H. W. Bush administration. Dick Cheney sought to distance himself from the document publicly while heartily endorsing it privately. Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams claimed that Cheney and Wolfowitz had not read it. Numerous other Pentagon officials stepped forward to say that the report represented the views of one man: Paul Wolfowitz. The campaign to scapegoat Wolfowitz for the unpopular plan was successful and the press dubbed the DPG as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine.” However, recently released classified documents show that the document was based on Powell’s “base force” plan and was drafted with the full consultation of Cheney and many other high Pentagon officials (Burr 2008). In the days after the leak, Wolfowitz and others worried that the plan would be dropped altogether. But in spite of the controversy, Cheney was very happy with the document, telling Zalmay Khalilzad, one of the main authors, “You have discovered a new rationale for our role in the world.”

Cramer and Thrall conclude:

We think a gradual consensus is forming among scholars of the war that Cheney, and to a lesser degree Rumsfeld, were the primary individuals whom Bush trusted. These three leaders together shared the desire to forcefully remove Saddam Hussein, they made the decision, and they made the key appointments of the talented advisers who crafted the arguments to sell the war to the American people. We have shown that President Bush was a zealous participant in the decision to invade, but he was likely not a primary architect to the extent the much more seasoned Cheney and Rumsfeld were. We find that the recently released documents proving intentional intelligence manipulation (especially from the British Iraq Inquiry, see Chapter 9), combined with the long career paths of Cheney and Rumsfeld and the actions of these top leaders before and after 9/ 11, belie the perception that the administration was swept up by events and acted out of misguided notions of imminent threats, Iraqi connections to Al Qaeda, or crusading idealism. The United States did not emotionally stumble into war because of 9/ 11. On the contrary, the top leaders took a calculated risk to achieve their goals of US primacy, including proving the effectiveness of the revolution in military affairs, and strengthening the power of the president.


The Policy Tensor agrees with the characterization of principals in the Bush administration as primacists. The problem is that invading Iraq does not follow from the grand-strategy of primacy. The primacists’ argument is straightforward and indeed compelling. The idea is that it was in the US interest to prolong unipolarity as long as possible and that required an active policy to prevent the reemergence of a peer competitor. As the authors of the Defence Planning Guidance put it in 1992,

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

Separately, in combination, or even in an alliance with a near-peer, the so-called rogue states were never (and never would be) in a position to pose “a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.” The combined GDP of the “rogue states”—Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba—never exceeded that of California, Texas, or New York. Even if Saddam conquered the Arabian peninsula and consolidated control over its oil resources, he would be in no position to “generate global power.” In any case, the unipole could quite easily deter an Iraqi invasion of the Arabian peninsula.

Even a nuclear-armed Iraq would be in no position to impose its will on US protectorates in the region, much less on the United States itself. Those who argue that a nuclear-armed Iraq or Iran cannot be deterred simply don’t understand the logic of nuclear deterrence. If Saddam has successfully acquired a nuclear deterrent, the United States would not have been able to invade and occupy Iraq. But the Iraqi deterrent would have been useless for the purposes of aggression, conquest, or regional domination. Had he retaken Kuwait, the United States would still have been able to kick him out simply because he would’ve been in no position to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against US forces for then he would be making the incredible threat of suicide to hold on to his conquests. Put more formally, extended deterrence is hard enough for the unipole; it is well-nigh impossible for a regional power like Iraq under Saddam.

If the United States under Bush had acted in accordance with the grand-strategy of primacy, she would have cared little about minor confrontation states and much more about actual potential rivals. In particular, the United States would have tried hard to thwart the emergence of a peer in the two extremities of eurasia. A more aggressive strategy to maintain primacy would see the United States not only preventing the consolidation of either of these two regions under a single power, but also undermining the growth rate of the only power that has the potential to become a peer of the United States without conquering a strategically important region. That is, if the Bush administration had followed the grand-strategy of primacy, it would’ve blocked China’s admission into the WTO, and more generally, prevented China’s emergence as the workshop of the world. That would’ve prolonged US primacy with much more certainty than the destruction of the entire rogues’ gallery.

So what was the grand-strategy that made the decision to invade intelligible?

Jonathan Cook has argued for a much more radical proposal in Israel and the Clash of Civilizations. He argues that it was in the Israeli interest to have its regional rivals disappear from the ranks of the confrontation states and be broken up into statelets that would not pose any significant threats to Israel’s regional primacy; and that the Israelis managed to convince principals in the Bush administration of the merits of their revisionist agenda for the region:

I propose a different model for understanding the [Bush] Administration’s wilful pursuit of catastrophic goals in the Middle East, one that incorporates many of the assumptions of both the Chomsky and Walt-Mearsheimer positions. I argue that Israel persuaded the US neocons that their respective goals (Israeli regional dominance and US control of oil) were related and compatible ends. As we shall see, Israel’s military establishment started developing an ambitious vision of Israel as a small empire in the Middle East more than two decades ago. It then sought a sponsor in Washington to help it realise its vision, and found one in the neocons. (p. 91.)

Yinon’s argument that Israel should encourage discord and feuding within states – destabilising them and encouraging them to break up into smaller units – was more compelling [than Sharon’s status-quo, state-centric vision of Israeli regional primacy]. Tribal and sectarian groups could be turned once again into rivals, competing for limited resources and too busy fighting each other to mount effective challenges to Israeli or US power. Also, Israeli alliances with non-Arab and non-Muslim groups such as Christians, Kurds and the Druze could be cultivated without the limitations imposed on joint activity by existing state structures. In this scenario, the US and Israel could manipulate groups by awarding favours – arms, training, oil remittances – to those who were prepared to cooperate while conversely weakening those who resisted. (p. 118.)

Israel and the neocons knew from the outset that invading Iraq and overthrowing its dictator would unleash sectarian violence on an unprecedented scale – and that they wanted this outcome. In a policy paper in late 1996, shortly after the publication of A Clean Break, the key neocon architects of the occupation of Iraq – David Wurmser, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith – predicted the chaos that would follow an invasion. ‘The residual unity of the [Iraqi] nation is an illusion projected by the extreme repression of the state’, they advised. After Saddam Hussein’s fall, Iraq would ‘be ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families.’ (p.133.)

I think Cook is mistaken about the importance of Israeli influence but he is onto something. Even if Israel managed to persuade principals in the Bush administration, there is no evidence to suggest that the Israel lobby, or even the neocons more generally (the lines between the two are blurred), had decisive influence over the Bush administration’s Middle East policy. (My position here is congruent with Cramer and Thrall’s). But what is clear is the frame of reference in which smashing Israel’s rivals would be in the US interest.

More precisely, I think principals in the Bush administration figured that Israel was nearly guaranteed to be a strong ally of the United States is a difficult region. After the reorientation of Egypt (mid-1970s) and the Islamic revolution (1979), three regional poles prevented total US-Israeli domination of the Middle East: Iran, Iraq and Syria. Smashing these confrontation states would guarantee Israel’s regional primacy and therefore, I think principals in the Bush administration reckoned, further the US interest in more easily dominating the region in a permanent alliance with its junior geopolitical ally. In other words, the grand-strategy of the Bush administration was to remove, by threats or by the use of force, Israel’s regional rivals in the Middle East.

They hoped to overthrow or cow into submission, the regimes of Iraq, Iran and Syria; and thereby establish unchallenged US-Israeli supremacy in the Middle East. What I am saying is that the United States’ grand-strategy was based on an ill-informed regional variant of offensive realism—one whose logic was conditional on a permanent alliance with a regional power—as opposed to the global and unconditional variant of offensive realism assumed by the grand-strategy of primacy (as put forward, say, by Mearsheimer).

It is clear that regional primacy was in the Israeli interest. It’s a bit of stretch to argue that it was it was also in the US interest. The problem is that, military primacy or not, Israel simply does not have that much influence in the region. Because it is a pariah in the Middle East, few actors try to seek its patronage (the Kurds are the main exception); most look to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or global powers. It is nearly impossible for Israel to play the role formerly played by Iran under the Shan or Egypt under Nasser. The United States has no choice but to work with other regional powers (Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran) to work out regional problems. Moreover, from the perspective of a global power trying to minimize the costs of ensuring stability in a multipolar region of strategic significance, a balance of power is considerably more attractive than the precarious primacy of a pariah; perhaps even one guaranteed to be a permanent ally.

But the fundamental flaw of the grand-strategy pursued by the Bush administration was not the conflation of US and Israeli interest. (It can be argued, after all, that since Israel was basically guaranteed to be a permanent ally, Israeli regional primacy was squarely in the US interest.) No, the fundamental flaw of the revisionist strategy was the outright dismissal of the costs of the ensuing instability. No matter how far the prewar consensus was from foreign policy realism, at least the unbounded costs of regional instability were understood. When Bush broke with the consensus and smashed the Iraqi state, he clearly did not appreciate just how bad things could get.

Breaking up confrontation states into ethnic statelets and zones of weakness may sound like a splendid idea to half-baked geopolitical analysts. But instability and weakness are a source of insecurity, not power; as both the United States and Israel have since discovered.

To wrap up: The grand-strategy pursued by the United States when it invaded Iraq was to smash the regional poles that acted as confrontation states in the Middle East, whose removal from the equation promised unchallenged US-Israeli supremacy in this strategically-relevant region. Principals in the Bush administration simply did not appreciate the unbounded costs of the regional instability that would ensue.

Advertisements
Standard
World Affairs

The Plot to Kill President George H.W. Bush

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 3.08.00 AM

Source: New Yorker

THE ROAD to the Iraq War began not with 9/11, nor with Bush’s election, nor even with the Project for the New American Century. It began instead with the capitulation of the Soviet Union.

Once it became clear that the Cold War adversary was going to knuckle under, the US military became extremely worried about the political sustainability of the military budget and the forward deployment of US forces around the world. For without the Communist threat, how was the US taxpayer to be persuaded to pay for garrisoning the planet? The solution that was hit upon—as early as 1988—was to inflate the threat posed by confrontation states. The idea began with talk about the “military sophistication of Third World dictators,” later morphing into the need to confront “outlaw states,” “backlash states,” and the one that really stuck: “rogue states.” The rogues’ gallery included Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea. But the poster child was unambiguously Iraq, in light of Saddam’s impressive record of military aggression, chemical weapons use, and human rights abuses.

For twelve years between the two wars, a considerable portion of US diplomatic and military muscle was deployed towards the containment of Iraq; featuring not only the most brutal trade embargo in history, but also the imposition of no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq and the de facto partition of the country; thousands of airstrikes and cruise missile strikes; and covert operations to topple Saddam Hussein. This low-intensity war on Iraq was supported by a bipartisan consensus in the United States on the threat posed by Saddam to US security interests. So when W looked to reconfigure the Middle East by force after 9/11, Iraq under Saddam offered the path of least resistance.

But the consensus did not emerge overnight. In fact, early in the Clinton administration there were significant moves towards a thaw in US-Iraq relations. The week before he took office, Clinton gave a wide-ranging interview on foreign policy in which he mused that he was not “obsessed” with Saddam.

REPORTER: But you don’t take the view that there can be no normal relations with this man or with Iraq as long as he is in power?

CLINTON: Based on the evidence that we have, the people of Iraq would be better off if they had a different leader. But my job is not to pick their rulers for them. I always tell everybody, “I’m a Baptist; I believe in deathbed conversions.” If he wants a different relationship with the United States and with the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior.

It was, of course, politically trecherous for a Democrat in the White House to back-off from confronting a brutal dictator that the men and women in uniform had fought not too long ago. The administration was not on the verge of bringing in Saddam from the cold, “if for no other reason,” opined Leslie H. Gleb in New York Times, than that “they know this would mean political suicide.” Still, signs of hope continued to flicker. The Pentagon said on February 3 that the Iraqis “had changed their behavior.” In mid-February, Saddam reached out to Clinton for a reset, and went out of his way to cooperate with UN inspectors. By the end of March, Clinton was saying he wanted to “depersonalize” the conflict with Iraq. New York Times reported on March 29, 1993, that

The United States and Britain have begun to move away from their insistence that the trade embargo against Iraq cannot be lifted while President Saddam Hussein remains in power.

But these early moves towards bringing Saddam back in from the cold came to naught when a plot to kill President George H.W. Bush, allegedly masterminded by Iraqi intelligence, came to light in May. The break in diplomatic momentum towards a thaw in relations was immediate and permanent. The plot therefore marked a decisive moment in the long road to the Iraq War.

THE ALLEGED Iraqi plot against Bush was in reality a fraud perpetrated by the Kuwaitis, who had been watching the emerging thaw in US-Iraq relations with increasing panic. Kuwait had arrested 17 drunk bootleggers near the Iraqi border for smuggling whiskey; a serious crime in Kuwait but a common enough practice along the Saudi-Iraqi-Kuwaiti border.

Four days later, one of the bootleggers suddenly confessed to a conspiracy to kill President H.W. Bush during the former president’s visit to Kuwait that was underway. The confession was later retracted in court and the defendant alleged that it was extracted under duress. As a consequence of the confession, the Kuwaiti police said they were able to locate a two-hundred-pound bomb in the suspect’s vehicle that had been in their custody for four days. The Kuwaiti foreign minister alleged that the defendant was a Iraqi intelligence officer and had been ordered by Saddam to assassinate President Bush.

But the Kuwaitis were not exactly known to be reliable. Kuwait had earlier moved the UNSC alleging a territorial violation by Saddam that turned out upon investigation to have been a violent dispute between smugglers. As for the foreign minister himself: His daughter had given an eloquent testimony to Iraqi crimes involving the killing of babies during the Iraqi occupation that later turned out to be fraudulent.

Still, in light of the serious nature of the allegations, the White House tasked the FBI and the CIA to investigate the matter. While some hawks in the White House, including Sandy Berger and Martin Indyk, were claiming that there was highly reliable evidence tying Iraq to the plot against Bush, official White House policy was to wait for the investigations to reach a conclusion. “We’re still in the middle of the investigation,” said George Stephanopoulos, the White House Communications Director. President Clinton himself was skeptical of the case; as was the Attorney General, Janet Reno.

But in May and June, a number of reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times, citing anonymous officials (probably Indyk), claimed that there was strong evidence pointing to Iraqi sponsorship of the assassination attempt. By late June, the President had lost all control of the media narrative. Finally, on June 24, the FBI report came out and provided what the White House considered to be sufficient evidence of Iraqi complicity. Clinton ordered a barrage of 23 cruise missile strikes on the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence—to near-universal applause in the media. On that day, any possibility of bringing Saddam in from the cold vanished into thin air.

Seymour Hersh’s report debunking the government’s evidence appeared in the November 1, 1993 issue of the New Yorker. A big part of the forensic evidence tying the bomb to those known to have been put together by Iraqi intelligence, outlined by Madeline Albright, was that the remote-control firing device found in the Kuwaiti car bomb has the same “signature” as previously recovered Iraqi bombs. Hersh spoke to a number of forensic bomb experts.

[All seven experts] told me essentially the same thing: The remote-control devices shown in the White House photographs were mass-produced items…

 The fact that the two devices were similar is simply not that significant, I was told by Donald L. Hansen, a twenty-eight-year veteran of the bomb squad of the San Francisco Police Department, who has served as the director of the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators… and is widely considered to be one of the top forensics experts in the field. “They’re very generic devices… If these circuit boards are what they’re hanging their signature issue on, they’re really stretching the envelope.”

The FBI also concluded that the defendants were not coerced after their arrest, despite their testimony in court that they were indeed beaten and forced to confess. The only American reporter at the Kuwaiti trial, Miriam Amie, reporting for the German news agency DPA, told Hersh that the main suspect, Wali al-Ghazali, showed up on the first day of the trial with “a fresh scar on his forehead and a blackened nail on his thumb.” James E. Akins, former US Ambassador to the Saudi Arabia, told Hersh:

Either the investigators were idiots or they were lying. It boggles the imagination. There’s no way the Kuwaitis would not have tortured them. That’s the way the Kuwaitis are, as anyone who knows the Kuwaitis or the Middle East can tell you.

Meanwhile, back on May 23, 1993, Boston Globe reported that it had obtained a copy of the CIA Counter Terrorism Center’s report concluding that the alleged plot was a Kuwaiti fraud.

Kuwait, the report says, “has a clear incentive to play up the continuing Iraqi threat” to Western interests, and hence may have “cooked the books.”

To support this contention, it cites US diplomatic reports earlier this year that the Kuwaiti government was expressing “frustration” that the Western coalition was not taking a tougher line against Saddam Hussein and concern that the Clinton administration might abandon Kuwait in favor of better relations with Iraq.

Usually rabbit holes have a way of ending with Seymour Hersh’s reporting. Not this time. The FBI’s forensic investigation in the alleged Iraqi bomb plot was led by Frederic Whitehurst, a forensic chemist specializing in explosive residue analysis, described by the New York Times as the agency’s “top bomb-residue expert,” who provided expert testimony in the O.J. Simpson trial among many other high profile cases. He later became America’s first FBI whistleblower exposing extensive forensic fraud at the FBI crime lab.

During the investigation into alleged misconduct at the FBI crime lab it emerged that Whitehurst’s superior, J. Christopher Ronay, had misreported Whitehurst’s findings in the alleged Iraqi plot to kill Bush. The 1997 DOJ enquiry reported that,

Whitehurst alleges that he compared the explosive material in the main charge of the Bush device to explosive materials in known Iraqi devices and told Explosives Unit Chief J. Christopher Ronay that the explosives were different. Whitehurst claims that Ronay purposely misinterpreted these results in order to link the explosive material to Iraqi agents. Whitehurst further asserts that very possibly his results were changed to support the retaliatory missile strike by the United States.

Neil Gallagher, Chief of the FBI Counter Intelligence Section, told the DOJ that

The FBI could not connect these explosives chemically or say that they came from the same shipment, sources, or country.

Yet, the DOJ enquiry continues,

Subsequent reports on the matter tended to ignore such chemical differences. Moreover, even after the missile strike, the FBI and CIA continued to report simply that PE-4A plastic explosive had been identified in the Bush device and other Iraqi explosive devices, including those from Southeast Asia.

Thus: The FBI misreported the findings of the agency’s top bomb residue expert, mistook the congruence of mass-produced remote-control firing devices as the signature of a common Iraqi source, and took confessions extracted from suspects using torture at face value. Meanwhile, the CIA’s accurate conclusion that the plot was a Kuwaiti fraud was simply ignored. Hersh again:

When Clinton finally acted, on the afternoon of Saturday, June 26th, he was not leading the nation, as was widely assumed and reported, but merely following the path of least bureaucratic and political resistance.

Standard
World Affairs

A Decade of War

The theme of the Nov/Dec 2014 issue of the semi-official periodical Foreign Affairs published by the Council on Foreign Relations, is the lessons that the United States ought to learn from its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a supremely important exercise for America’s foreign policy elite. The result, unfortunately, is disappointing. In what follows, I will first describe what the five contributors argue. All of them, as well as the editors, agree that the wars have been unambiguous disasters. But none of them have tried to grapple with the bigger questions raised by this debacle. Why did the United States launch on such a misguided adventure in Iraq, a nightmare from which we are very far from waking? How did it come about that there was such widespread support—in the beltway and the foreign policy community—for such a fool’s errand? Why did the warnings of realists—not to speak of anti-war radicals—go completely unheeded in the rush to war? These fundamental questions are largely ignored in the issue.

cakewalk

In his essay, “More Small Wars: Counterinsurgency is here to stay,” Max Boot is still peddling his book, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Boot argues that whether it likes it or not, the United States will find itself in many more small wars or pacification campaigns in the decades to come. “Since Washington doesn’t have the luxury of simply avoiding insurgencies, then, the best strategy would be to fight them better.” He proceeds to recount the lessons that emerged from his study of the hundreds of small wars carried out by Britain and the United States over two centuries. These lessons are of the management literature type: plan for the peace, revaluate strategy, train forces for counterinsurgency missions, learn the language of the occupied, send a sufficient number of troops, have patience, and so on and so forth. One thing that he failed to consider in the book and which is also conspicuously absent in his essay is precisely how the United States stands to gain by fighting small wars at all.

Richard K. Betts is the most reasonable. His first-order lessons sit well with the present author, even though he mixes tactical questions with strategic ones:

First, the United States should fight wars less frequently but more decisively, erring, when combat is necessary, on the side of committing too many forces rather than too few. Second, the country should avoid fighting in places where victory depends on controlling the politics of chaotic countries, since local politicians will rarely do what Americans want when that differs from their own aims. And third, Washington should give priority to first-order challenges, focusing its military planning on fighting wars with great powers and focusing its diplomacy on preventing them.

Deterring aggression by other great powers is the biggest—if largely unacknowledged—achievement of US foreign policy since World War II. The United States prevented the Soviet Union from dominating Eurasia. It made sure that Germany and Japan were defanged, and threatened nobody. As China emerges as a powerful force in Asia, American protection has reassured China’s worried neighbours. On the other hand, America’s efforts to impose itself on minor powers and small states—from Indochina to the Middle East—have largely failed. This is because American power is well-suited for deterring great power adversaries and ill-suited for pacification campaigns. When Boot says the US military should focus on training for counterinsurgency operations, he is wrong. The United States cannot sacrifice combat effectiveness and divert scare resources away from preparing to fight great power adversaries. This is simply because maintaining a favourable balance of power is the United States’ primary strategic interest. As Betts puts it, “the United States needs to temper the ambitions unleashed by its post–Cold War dominance, not only in reaction to the setbacks it has experienced in small wars but also to prepare for bigger wars for bigger stakes against bigger powers.” If swatting flies in the muck is sapping the strength of the US military, the United States should simply stop patrolling the marshes.

Daniel Byman and Jeremy Shapiro (“Homeward Bound?”) are not drawing any lessons from the wars. I have no clue why their essay is included in this section. Their concern is to evaluate the risk of radicalized Westerners now fighting for the Islamic State returning home and unleashing terror. They argue that this is a manageable threat (since it is quite easy to flag the returning jihadists) and there need be no panic about it.

Rick Brennan (“Withdrawal Symptoms”) complains about the Obama administration’s failure to reach a status-of-forces agreement with Baghdad. He points out that the reason why the negotiations failed was because the administration insisted on legal immunity for all US forces in Iraq, something that was politically impossible for any Iraqi government to accept after the Blackwater massacre. Brennan claims that Iraq’s descent into its current nightmare was foreseen with “eerie accuracy” by the military. Specifically, a 2010 internal assessment concluded that in the event of a American pullout, “the central government in Baghdad would become ever more corrupt, sectarian, and acquiescent to Tehran, setting the stage for a revival of the Sunni insurgency, a resurgence of AQI, and the end of the relative stability that the United States had worked so hard to foster.” The same thing, Brennan claims, is happening now in Afghanistan where the Obama administration is planning to pull out all American troops by 2016.

Bees

Peter Tomsen reviews three new books on the “forgotten war” in Afghanistan. The most interesting of these is Carlotta Gall’s The Wrong Enemy, wherein she documents Pakistan’s double game of “public support and private official assurances that Pakistan is allied with the United States and NATO, but clandestine ISI support for radical Islamist terrorism.” Citing an “inside source,” Gall goes so far as to claim that not only was Pakistani intelligence aware of bin Laden’s whereabouts, the ISI “ran a special desk” to handle bin Laden. [More on it when I’m done reading the book.] Tomsen shows that Afghanistan is headed towards calamity, with possibly a full-scale return of the Taliban when the US departs. He argues that it is high-time to arm-twist Pakistan. Specifically, the US should do three things:

The United States should designate the Afghan Taliban as a foreign terrorist organization, which would result in financial sanctions against banks and other institutions in Pakistan that the group relies on for funding. Then, Washington should make clear that U.S. military aid to Pakistan will end if Islamabad does not shut down the ISI’s terrorist proxies. Finally, Washington should warn Islamabad that if Pakistan continues its support for extremists in Afghanistan, the United States might designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism—a move that would produce severe economic, political, and diplomatic consequences for Pakistan.

Brennan’s assessment, shared by Tomsen—that US forces ought to stay till the dependent state can manage its own affairs—reinforces the case against small wars. If the United States cannot leave until the nascent state can survive by itself, this significantly increases the ex ante cost of pacification campaigns. But whether or not the United States should fight small wars is not a question of costs alone. The most important question raised by these failures is nowhere to be found on the pages of Foreign Affairs. When should the United States fight small wars? This is not rocket science—the answer is straightforward. America should only fight small wars when it has a vital interest at stake that cannot be achieved by any means short of war. Small states are of little consequence to America’s standing in world affairs. As a rule, small wars invariably sap the strength of great powers instead of enhancing their power position. Given the high costs and dubious gains of small wars, the United States is best off undertaking them only in the most extreme of circumstances. For instance, the Islamic State is arguably a case that requires the deployment of US ground forces. The threat to American security is unambiguous. Airstrikes are incapable of doing the job. And regional players are either incapable or unwilling to destroy the Islamic State. Even though there is little appetite in America for a ground war, the alternative—a salafi jihadist state in the heart of the Middle East—is even less appetizing.   

By spilling the blood of tens of thousands of Muslims, America’s Iraq debacle inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, thereby making it a fertile recruiting ground for Islamist radicals. Thousands of American troops have returned in coffins, and tens of thousands have been crippled. The war cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars. Yet, no vital American interest in Iraq had ever been identified. Moreover, even America’s military capability has suffered as a consequence. It is no longer in a position to fight in two regional campaigns simultaneously—the gold standard of the US military. Furthermore, American prestige has suffered a lasting damage. For instance, Iran no longer fears an American invasion aimed at regime change. Iranians know that America will not be landing a large land army in Eurasia any time soon. The threat of the use of force is considerably more useful than the use of force itself.

What this issue of Foreign Affairs shows is that the mandarins at the Council on Foreign Relations have failed to consider the most important questions raised by the decade of war. If there is any soul-searching in the foreign policy community, there is no sign of it. For the most fundamental question that arises in the aftermath of Iraq is this: How did the foreign policy community fail to see the obvious? Namely, that no conceivable US interest could be secured by removing Saddam and taking up the task of pacifying Iraq. Elsewhere, I have grappled with this question. The answer that emerges is not pretty. Basically, Saddam came to play a central role in the formulation and justification of a muscular US foreign policy—the “rogue states doctrine”—in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the twelve years between the Gulf War and the Iraq War, Saddam became a litmus test for beltway insiders and foreign policy elites to prove their cred. With the neocons firmly in the saddle, the United States launched an ill-considered policy to reconfigure the Middle East by force. When Bush went after Saddam he was following the path of least resistance in the domestic political economy of US foreign policy. The foreign policy elites offered little resistance because they had long-ago lost sight of realism.

presidents

Standard