Neoconservatives, and the Manipulation of Intelligence for the Justification for the Iraq War

[adwinistrator]

I think that the neocons biggest victory was that the whole "War on Terror" went on the same tracks ahead when Obama took office. That's the real revolution, how neocons basically made it to the democratic circles, perhaps not in person, but in policy. You could see earlier in the actions of the intelligence services that top White House officials had to sign under orders to use torture as anticipated "Jail Free"-cards to the intelligence services, but nothing of that sort happened with Obama. It was just like the same, perhaps not so belligerent, but still quite belligerent (as Libya showed).

For me one of the biggest questions is just how and why the Obama administration was so close in policy when it came to the War on Terror to Bush? It was like the new norm.

I think there's a few parts as to why this was the case, where we can point to the similarities and the differences, and make some educated guesses on why that was.

First distinction that is worth noting, is the change in direction Obama oversaw in Iraq and Afghanistan. You could argue that his decisions might not have met his rhetoric on the campaign trail, and I'd probably agree, but I do think he certainly made different choices than George W. Bush would have, or John McCain as well.

In regards to Obama's policy on the general "War on Terror", Michael Hayden stated in August of 2012:

Both Bush and Obama said the country was at war. The enemy was al-Qaida. The war was global in nature. And the United States would have to take the fight to the enemy, wherever it may be, he said...

And so, we’ve seen all of these continuities between two very different human beings, President Bush and President Obama. We are at war, targeted killings have continued, in fact, if you look at the statistics, targeted killings have increased under Obama.

When Obama came became president, and began receiving briefings on our current operations, and the intelligence on the current threats that were being monitored, I would assume he gained an understanding for the overall mission of the "War on Terror".

From what I've seen, Obama came to the conclusion that targeted drone strikes were the best way to deal with terrorists. To me, this is the main change between Bush and Obama. Bush's main strategy turned in to nation building via Iraq and Afghanistan, which was somewhat forced by previous decisions in the wake of 9/11. While Bush certainly was using drones for targeted strikes, Obama moved to reduce our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and increase the drone program.

From a strategic point of view, I'm sure he was convinced it was the best choice out of a set of bad options, but I think in hindsight, the system put in place to execute these strikes, and the long term strategy of reducing the motivations of terrorist recruits, were both very bad decisions for the overall good of America. I say that knowing full well that had I been seeing the intel that Obama was presented with, I might have made the same choices as him.

In regards to the lasting policy for the "War on Terror", Obama did begin releasing the prisoners at Guantanamo that were cleared. Last count is 62 prisoners remaining, down from over 220 when he took office.

In 2013, when working to release more prisoners from Guantanamo, he stated:

We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America...

Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon...

So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them.

While I certainly have a lot of disagreements on the Obama administration's choice to utilize drone strikes against American citizens abroad who were suspected of terrorist activity, I do agree with the general concept that this should have always been handled as a "series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America", instead of a "Global War on Terror".

As far as the worst aspects of the drone program, Jeremy Scahill has done some incredible reporting on this issue, I recommend everyone who hasn't read his work to do so. Here's a link to Scahill's reporting, The Assassination Complex

[adwinistrator]

Took them a decade to get there though, the Iraq War wasn't put together overnight, the groundwork started being laid right after the first Gulf War, and the Clinton Administration was actually the ones who kept the fire burning, Cheney actually just pulled the Clinton "Regime Change" plan off the shelf and then put it in front of George W and Congress.

I'd appreciate if you could elaborate on anything I've missed in this summary. While the actions taken by the Clinton administration certainly kept Iraq in the cross-hairs for military intervention and regime change, I can't help but notice the strong lobbying pressure by our good friends, the Project for a New American Century, and the Republican controlled Congressional legislation put on his desk.

In their January 29th, 1998 letter to Bill Clinton, they urge President Clinton to "turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power".

The letter was signed by:

• Elliot Abrahms - Special Assistant to the President/National Security Council/Deputy National Security Adviser (2001-2009)
• Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State (2001-2005)
• John Bolton - Under Secretary of State (2001–2005) and UN Ambassador (2005–2006)
• Paula Dobriansky - 3rd Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs (2001-2009)
• Zalmay Khalilzad - Ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-2005), Iraq (2005-2007), and the UN (2007-2009)
• Richard Perle - Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001-2003)
• Peter Rodman - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs OUSD(P) (2001-2007)
• Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense (2001-2006)
• William J. Schneider, Jr. - Chairman of the Defense Science Board (2001–2009)
• Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005), President of the World Bank (2005-2007)
• Robert Zoellick - U.S. Trade Representative (2001–2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005–2006), President of the World Bank (2007–2012)

Clinton did not take their advice.

To continue putting pressure on the administration's foreign policy in regards to Iraq, they sent their May 29th, 1998 letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, where they state:

Mr. Speaker and Mr. Lott, during the most recent phase of this crisis, you both took strong stands, stating that the goal of U.S. policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime. And, at the time of the Annan deal, Senator Lott, you pointed out its debilitating weakness and correctly reminded both your colleagues and the nation that "We cannot afford peace at any price."

Now that the administration has failed to provide sound leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq. That responsibility is especially pressing when presidential leadership is lacking or when the administration is pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital American security interests. This is now the case. To Congress's credit, it has passed legislation providing money to help Iraq's democratic opposition and to establish a "Radio Free Iraq." But more needs to be done, and Congress should do whatever is constitutionally appropriate to establish a sound policy toward Iraq.

U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime.

...

Although the Clinton Administration's handling of the crisis with Iraq has left Saddam Hussein in a stronger position that when the crisis began, the reality is that his regime remains vulnerable to the exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable alternative to his rule exists. In short, Saddam's continued rule in Iraq is neither inevitable nor likely if we pursue the policy outlined above in a serious and sustained fashion. If we continue along the present course, however, Saddam will be stronger at home, he will become even more powerful in the region, and we will face the prospect of having to confront him at some later point when the costs to us, our armed forces, and our allies will be even higher. Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott, Congress should adopt the measures necessary to avoid this impending defeat of vital U.S. interests.

The letter was signed by the same future Bush administration staff except for Richard Armitage.

The Project for the New American Century supported the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from 16 December 1998, to 19 December 1998, by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and its interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

...

Although there was no Authorization for Use of Military Force as there was during Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom or a Declaration of War as in WWII, on 31 October 1998 Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. The new Act appropriated funds for Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democratic government. Despite the act's intention being support of opposition groups, Clinton justified his order for US action under the Act.

On January 7th, 1999, PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective. The memo questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition, which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.

Now that the dust has settled from the 70-hour aerial attack on Iraq, it has become clear that the only solution for the threat Iraq poses is to remove Saddam.

On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were:

• The Iraqi National Accord,
• The Iraqi National Congress,
• The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan,
• The Kurdistan Democratic Party,
• The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy,
• The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and
• The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

The Iraq Liberation Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002.

[C-Mag]

I feel it's important to understand how dangerous a determined, ideological group of skilled government insiders can be. The ways this group influenced the Bush administration seems to get attributed to just Dick Cheney, and that is misleading at best. It's very difficult for one person to change the course of history, but if 10 people know where the weak points in the executive decision-making chain of command are, they can have an incredible impact on the future of our country.


Part 1 - The Neoconservative Influence

I haven't read the entire thing, but I will get to it. I think it's critical to understand exactly what NeoCons are. NeoCons are the ugly step sister to progressives like Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. They have the same policies and practices. Nation Building is at the core of the policy. This idea that an elite group of enlightened Westerners can go into a given culture and modify that culture to fit their goals. This is why you see the Bush Clan basically teaming up with the Clintons and it's nearly impossible to show any real differences between their policies.

[adwinistrator]

I haven't read the entire thing, but I will get to it. I think it's critical to understand exactly what NeoCons are. NeoCons are the ugly step sister to progressives like Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. They have the same policies and practices. Nation Building is at the core of the policy. This idea that an elite group of enlightened Westerners can go into a given culture and modify that culture to fit their goals. This is why you see the Bush Clan basically teaming up with the Clintons and it's nearly impossible to show any real differences between their policies.

I agree, though I'd like to add a bit of my take on your point.

Foreign policy, hawkishness, interventionism, nation building, and "spreading democracy", are not inherently left/right political issues. It's basically a power projection worldview. "We are the sole great power, our national interest stretches to every corner of the globe. It is up to use to shape the world to our vision using all the tools at our disposal, including the military."

What I would make a left/right distinction for, is the flavor of this worldview. The left would be more likely to try and change the worst parts of the world, humanitarian crisis, civil wars, etc. The right would be more likely to try to damage our enemies, and to get rid of barriers that get in the way of our economic interests. The targets and goals are a bit different, but the rationale and mindset is based in the same worldview.

[C-Mag]

I haven't read the entire thing, but I will get to it. I think it's critical to understand exactly what NeoCons are. NeoCons are the ugly step sister to progressives like Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. They have the same policies and practices. Nation Building is at the core of the policy. This idea that an elite group of enlightened Westerners can go into a given culture and modify that culture to fit their goals. This is why you see the Bush Clan basically teaming up with the Clintons and it's nearly impossible to show any real differences between their policies.

I agree, though I'd like to add a bit of my take on your point.

Foreign policy, hawkishness, interventionism, nation building, and "spreading democracy", are not inherently left/right political issues. It's basically a power projection worldview. "We are the sole great power, our national interest stretches to every corner of the globe. It is up to use to shape the world to our vision using all the tools at our disposal, including the military."

What I would make a left/right distinction for, is the flavor of this worldview. The left would be more likely to try and change the worst parts of the world, humanitarian crisis, civil wars, etc. The right would be more likely to try to damage our enemies, and to get rid of barriers that get in the way of our economic interests. The targets and goals are a bit different, but the rationale and mindset is based in the same worldview.

Where I see this differently than you is that I see the US Foreign Policy as nearly 100% Progressive Policy based on Nation Building from 1900 to 2017. I don't see much difference between Tonkin Gulf or Yellow Cake, Banana Wars, Bay of Pigs or Reagan in Latin America. What I do think is different is the talking points Left vs Right, but the results and methods look pretty much the same.