Here’s what the history books might say about the U.S. war
on Iraq: About a month after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11,
2001, the Bush administration started to plan for a war against
Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
To garner the support of the American public for this
enterprise, the administration constructed a scenario including
weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist leader Osama bin
Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist network. For two years after the
invasion, the administration was able to withstand criticism of its
Iraq strategy.
On May 1, 2005, however, a memo surfaced in Britain publicizing
the fabricated threat scenario that backed up the war in Iraq.
At this point, there should have been storms of outrage
throughout the United States, Congressional hearings, and major
investigations. I pictured Michael Moore pasting copies of the memo
on the fence around the White House and Sen. John Kerry appearing
on the news with a call for re-elections.
But we all know what happened in reality: nothing.
In fact, the so-called “Downing Street Memo”
received so little coverage in the American media that most
probably don’t even know what it’s about. Here’s
the story in a nutshell.
The memo was written to record the proceedings of a meeting held
by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002 ““
that’s eight months before the invasion of Iraq. During the
meeting, the chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service
reported on talks he had with Bush administration officials.
The memo records, “Military action was now seen as
inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Hussein, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD” ““
and here’s the kicker ““ “but the intelligence and
facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Critics of the Bush administration’s pre-war dealings have
for a long time held the view that the decision to attack Iraq was
made long before former Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed
the United Nations on the issue. But this is different than mere
criticism ““ this is proof.
According to Knight Ridder Newspapers, a former U.S. official,
speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the facts of the
memo, saying it is “an absolutely accurate description of
what transpired” during the British official’s stay in
Washington.
In light of these new disclosures, the meaning and purpose of
the war in Iraq take on a totally different shape. I support the
view of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who says,
“Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there,
its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a
demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and
awe the world.”
You can call me an idealist, but I think it’s wrong to
conduct a military campaign, one that continues to this day and has
cost the lives of some 1,600 American soldiers so far, on the basis
of lies ““ excuse me, “fixed facts.”
So why exactly do neither the media, nor the opposition, nor the
American public care much about the outrageous contents of the
memo? I can think of two possible reasons.
The first is that the American public still believes in the
original scenario, in which Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction and was a direct threat to the United States. After
all, public opinion seems to be rather slow in adapting to the fact
that Bush was wrong.
Less than a year ago, a Gallup Poll found that 42 percent of
Americans still believe Hussein was somehow involved in the Sept.
11 attacks. Although even the administration has backed away from
making these kinds of claims, it is obvious this notion is deeply
rooted in people’s minds.
Another, probably more prevalent reason why the public seems to
ignore the pressing evidence of betrayal is denial. Few people want
to look the truth in the eye and admit that the war in Iraq is
based on a deception of U.S. citizens.
A Gallup Poll from last month showed that for the first time,
more citizens than not are convinced that “the Bush
administration deliberately misled the American public about
whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”.
So if you tell the pollsters that your government has screwed
you over, why don’t you protest?
It’s important that in the face of these developments, we
don’t engage in a large-scale “fact-fixing”
ourselves. It’s important to know that the war in Iraq was
not begun as a democratizing venture.
The rationale for this war has moved from War on Terrorism to
WMD threat to bringing freedom to the Middle East, as possible
scenarios have evaporated one after another.
It’s also wrong to think that the war in Iraq has made
America safer. Right now, the military is stretched so thin that it
could hardly respond if Kim Jong Il gets some bad ideas into his
head.
Also, the $192 billion that have been approved by Congress for
the war in Iraq so far could have gone a long way toward funding
all kinds of domestic security improvements, like airport security
or a system of national ID cards.
Like everybody else, I’m happy to see Iraqis vote and
Hussein in jail. But the government can’t cheat its own
people into a conflict of such proportions.
Do you like being deceived by your government? If not,
e-mail Starre at astarre@media.ucla.edu.