From: Simon Laub
Date: 31. maj 2004 17:51
NewsGroups: alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa, alt.politics.bush
Subject: Surely not - accomplices to evil through inaction?

Just read Bob Woodwards new book "Plan of Attack" - a brilliant account
of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq 2003!

   Historian Victor Davis Hanson has argued that leaders and nations can
"become accomplices to evil through inaction". However, if the US (or any
other country) were to go to war with every regime that told lies or behaved
badly, there would be nothing but war.
   In Bob Woodwards book we get the inside on why President Bush launched an
attack on Iraq to topple Saddam and occupy Iraq.
   And as the news from Iraq gets ever more muddy Woodwards book is a
brilliant and necessary recapitulation on why and how the invasion of Iraq
happened.

    When Bush moved into the White House CIA director Tenet had listed three
major threats to American National security: a) The Al Qaeda terror network
of Osama Bin Laden working out of Afghanistan. b) The increasing
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and finally c) the rise
of China (especially its military), but that problem was 5 to 15 years away,
whereas the others were immediate concerns.
    British secret intelligence service, MI6, passed on the results of 2001
operations in Pakistan, were it became abundantly clear that nuclear
technology were being sold to the likes of Iran, North Korea and Libya. And
obviously nukes in the hands of Al Qaeda could take out London or New York.

    Certainly, that would seem like more than enough problems to deal with
for most people. But in Woodwards account we see how Iraq enters the
equation as yet another major problem to be dealt with.
    From the highly personal level, where Bush complains that Saddam tried
to kill his dad - a reference to the 1993 plot to assassinate Bush senior on
a trip to the Middle East, which failed and ended with president Clinton
ordering a cruise missile attack on Baghdad - to the intelligence reports
that Iraq would have nuclear weapons by 2007 to 2009, Woodward takes us
through the events that led to the conclusion that Saddam had to be removed.

    Currently, there is much talk in the news about the fact that WMD was
never found in Iraq by the Hans Blix U.N. team, nor by coalition forces, but
following Woodwards account the worry was originally as least as much on
future production as on present weapons. Once the threat of war was lifted
Saddam had hundreds of millions of dollars, billions, to buy WMD. And Saddam
had a complete weapons programs, including the scientists for the job. And
worst of all, Saddam had demonstrated before that armed with WMD he didn't
hesitate to use them.
    And Bush were not alone in finding this troublesome: Elie Wiesel,
survivor of Auschwitz, came on his own initiative to see Bush and tell the
president that Iraq was a terrorist state and that the moral imperative was
for intervention. Egypts Hosni Mubarak warned on mobile labs for biological
weapons based on egyptian intelligence sources inside Iraq. Even as leaders
from Turkey, Egypt and Syria met in Jordan to prevent war we learn from
Woodward that the Jordanian king secretly is committed to support the war
effort. Even french president Chiraqs disagreement seems in Woodwards
account centered on other issues, i.e. two complaints, that the americans
were not respectful of him and that they didn't share intelligence with him.
   Democratic presidential candidate Kerry stated on March 19th 2003: "I
think Saddams WMD are a threat, and thats why I voted to hold him
accountable and to make certain that we disarm him." According to Bush
advisor Karl Rowe this meant giving the president a green light for war and
then backing off when he didn't like the aftermath or saw a political
opportunity.
   The Saudis weren't to happy with the invasion of a muslim country, but
liked getting rid of Saddam, and promised to help finetune oilprices to
avoid ripple effects of the war in the world economy. 79 year old Henry
Kissenger came to see Condoleezza Rice and tell her to invade etc.

   The only thing I find missing in Woodwards account is the concern around
the world of the "Pax Americana", where the U.N. is as meaningless as the
League of Nations were. The end of the cold war meant the dramatic spread of
liberty to many former eastern block countries. The idea of democracy and
liberty in the Middle East is probably to radical for most people to
understand - but Woodward just take this as the Bush position, and never
goes into a deeper discussion of what this actually means and why people
around the world might be sceptical.

   Certainly, Bush is now on the Al Quada hit list, but what history will
say to it all is not Woodwards business, nor Bushs. The book ends with the
Bush quote: "We won't know. We'll all be dead."

A brilliant book though.

FUT: alt.politics

-Simon

---------------------------------
Simon Laub
silanian.tripod.com