The History of the Iraq War

In The Tempest, Act II, scene 1 Shakespeare uses the phrase, “Whereof what’s past is prologue” And “What’s past is prologue” is carved on the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

The point of this is that the past is crucial in shaping the present and an understanding of the past is crucial in understanding the present. It is also crucial in evaluating truth from lies.

In the debate on Iraq many claims have been made by this Administration to justify it’s war. Most important it relies on the Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed with bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. However, the Joint Resolution while authorizing military force did not envisage the use of such force. Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton in her House speech spoke for many when she said:

“Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

“This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

“However, this course is fraught with danger…

“If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

“So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option…

“If we get the (UN) resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

“If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

“If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want….

“I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible…

“Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

Admittedly The Senator also said, “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001“ but she was wrong in his respect as later evidence proved. (To be discussed at a later point.)

For the complete speech of Senator Clinton see: click here.

The importance of this speech is that it clearly shows that many, if not most who voted for the resolution did so to give the President bargaining leverage rather than as the basis for actual hostilities. And the resolution did serve this purpose.

Probably of greater importance were the views of the President’s father’s National Security, Advisor Brent Scowcroft, as published in the Wall Street Journal of August 15, 2002, before the invasion was launched. Mr. Scowcroft wrote:

“But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

“Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict--which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve--in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.”

For the complete Wall Street Journal article see here.

There is every reason to believe that Scowcroft’s views reflected the views of President’s Bush’s father but the President when asked if he had sought his father’s opinion indicated he looked to the heavenly father rather than his earthly one. If the President indeed thinks he has a direct line to the Almighty we are in even more trouble than anyone had thought.

But I started out by indicating that the history leading up to the conflict is important and while the above is part of that history, much more needs to be known.

First of all the President expressed his outrage at Saadam’s use of poison gas as part of his reason for the invasion, but history shows that the people now running US foreign policy were in the 1980s directly responsible for supplying Saddam Hussein with the materials as well as the diplomatic and military support necessary for him to acquire and use WMTs.

The details are as follows:

Iraq had been using chemical weapons against Iranian troops since 1982; this use of chemical weapons increased in 1983. Knowing this the NSC approved the sale to Iraq of Bell helicopters "for crop dusting" (these same helicopters were used to gas Iraqi Kurds in 1988).

In December 1983 Donald Rumsfeld -- currently US Secretary of paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy. A photo of the meeting can be found at the following link.

Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon, but State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein.

In March of 1984, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers.

The Washington Post (in an article in Dec. 1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.

In 1985 the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction." There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988. The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."

In 1988 the Reagan administration's Commerce Dept. approved exports to Iraq's SCUD missile program; it was these exports that allowed the extension of the SCUDs' range so that in 1991 they were able to reach Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

In March of 1988, the Financial Times of London reported that Saddam had recently used chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja, using US helicopters bought in 1983. In September of 1988, Reagan prevented the Senate from putting sanctions on Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons.
The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

In March 1989, the CIA director reported to Congress that Iraq was the largest chemical weapons producer in the world and the State Dept reported that Iraq continued to develop chemical and biological weapons, as well as new missiles. The Bush administration that year approved dozens of export licenses for sophisticated dual-use equipment to Iraq's weapons ministry.

In October, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee.

This loan guarantee freed up cash for Iraq to buy and develop WMDs.

For more details see here.

So for the Bush Administration to express shock and concern about Iraqi weapons that it not only knew about for years but helped build, is hypocrisy at it’s worst.

But says the Bush Administration that it was because of this knowledge and intelligence that we were convinced that Iraq had WMDs and everybody thought this. That may be true as of the time the force resolution was passed. But the amazing thing is that the force resolution did what it was intended to accomplish. Saadam allowed the weapons inspectors back into the country and they searched and searched and reported that no WMDs could be found. Whereupon the Administration responded to the effect that not only did they know that the weapons were there but they knew where they were. The inspectors asked to be given the location of the weapons and were told it was a military secret. They continued to search and found nothing.
See more here.

This made it a new ballgame. Whatever was known or thought before, this was a new reality. But the Bush Administration, which according to former Bush Treasury Secretary O’Neal had plotted to invade Iraq from the day it took office.

Instead, when Ambassador Wilson, who had served in numerous Administrations, both Democratic and Republican was sent to Niger to check on a report that Saadam had tried to buy Uranium and reported back that there was no basis to the report, his report was ignored prompting him to go public in frustration. Inconvenient facts did not interest the Administration. The response was to out his wife, a covert CIA agent. This has resulted in VP Cheney’s top aid being indicted for perjury. For the article written by Wilson see here.

In addition Bush, against the findings of his own CIA, said in his State of the Union Message: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” It was eventually determined that his conclusion was based on forged documents, and CIA director George Tenet said, “These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.” It appears that the claim was originally in the text without reference to the British government and the CIA insisted it be taken out but when the reference to the British government was inserted the CIA decided that it was correct even though they had doubts as to it’s authenticity. Later it was determined that the conclusion was in fact based on a forged document.

When Secretary of State Powell addressed the UN he made numerous assertions which were later proved to be wrong but more important had already been open to question when Powell made the assertions. As an example Powell said "most United States experts" believed aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were intended for use as centrifuge cylinders for enriching uranium for nuclear bombs but Energy Department experts and Powell's own State Department intelligence bureau had already dissented from this CIA view... No centrifuge program has been reported found. See this link.

Powell later said: “"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading, and for that I am disappointed and I regret it," Powell said in May. In other words the Administration was not only misleading Congress and the America Public but misleading it’s own Secretary of State.
See this link.

For this Administration and it’s Republican supporters in the Congress to claim that all were mistaken and no deception was practiced is as bald-faced a lie as all the other lies that preceded it.

Why they wanted so badly to have a war in Iraq is impossible to know but I offer the following suppositions:

1.) A war gives a President enormous power and the President wanted a war for that reason. It has helped him to get away with violating the laws passed by Congress and the Constitution and maybe most important, it has enabled him to push through his domestic agenda of savaging social programs while cutting taxes to such an extent that our deficit now dwarfs all the deficits which this nation incurred during its previous history.

2.) He wanted to show up his father, who wisely pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, but did not invade because he realized what a quagmire would result with a serious danger of civil war and an even greater danger of the whole region getting drawn into the conflagration.

3.) He wanted to secure the oil in the region and mistakenly thought that invading Iraq would not only secure Iraqi oil but by projecting American military might into the region would effectively gain control of the oil in the whole region. I urge the reader to read the book review and if time permits the book by Kevin Phillips, “Clear and Present Danger.” Phillips is particularly credible because he was the author of the Emerging Republican Majority and a major player in the Nixon White House. The review can be found here.

I do not believe for one moment that it had anything to do with non-existent WMDs or Democratization or terrorism.