http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsViews.htm
[Printer-friendly version]
[More ChroniclesExtra!]
April 22, 2004
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DISINGENUOUS AS USUAL
by Srdja Trifkovic
Testifying before the Armed Services Committee on the war in Iraq last
Tuesday (April 20), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz declared that
Saddam Hussein was a �brutal dictator� and that Iraq is better off without
him. In stating the case for war Dr. Wolfowitz did not mention any �weapons
of mass destruction.� This prompted an interruption from Sen. Edward
M.Kennedy, who called Wolwfowitz�s testimony �somewhat disingenuous� for
avoiding the one issue he had previously cited as the main justification for
war.
Kennedy is hardly the paragon of straightforwardness but his accusation is
just, and the evidence to support the accusation against Wolfowitz
overwhelming. It is interesting to revisit the evolution of his arguments
before and after the war he had wanted so badly.
Wolfowitz was a founding member of the Project for a New American
century(PNAC) established in 1997 on principles that included �American
global leadership� and �national leadership that accepts the United States�
global responsibilities.� PNAC began advocating the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein almost immediately. In its open January 26, 1998 letter to President
Clinton it said that, given the magnitude of the Iraqi threat, �The only
acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be
able to use, or threaten to use, weapons of mass destruction. In the near
term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is
clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his
regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign
policy.�
The letter was said to have been drafted by Wolfowitz, who was among its 18
signaturies; others included Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Richard
Armitage, and William Kristol.
Testifying to the House National Security Committee eight months later
(September 17, 1998) Wolfowitz declared that Saddam Hussein �now finds
himself free to reconstitute his prohibited weapons capabilities without
fear of intrusive inspections.� He suggested �a serious policy in Iraq� that
would �free Iraq�s neighbors from Saddam�s murderous threats.�
This theme was to be a mainstay of Wolfowitz�s public speaking and private
policy advocacy for years to come. On September 20, 2001, just nine days
after the 9/11 attacks, PNAC sent another letter, this time to President
George W, Bush, stating: �But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly
to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its
sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq.�
A year before the Iraq war, on February 17, 2002, Wolfowitz upped the ante
when he told Fox News Sunday that weapons of mass destruction possessed by
the �axis of evil,� including Iraq, were not merely a threat to Iraq�s
neighbors: they posed �a real threat to the world.� He criticized some
European leaders who had accused the United States of unnecessarily trying
to expand the war against terrorism to include Iraq.
On the eve of the war Wolfowitz treated Iraq�s possession of WMDs as a
given. On February 17, 2003, he told London�s ITN that Saddam was �more
dangerous now than he was five years ago, and he�ll be even more dangerous
if we leave him armed five years from now.� In an ABC television interview
the following week (February 28, 2003) he said, �It�s not about Saddam
Hussein dribbling out the weapons that he claimed he did�t have when he�s
caught holding them. What is needed, the only thing that would solve this,
is a full disclosure of all of his weapons of mass terror so that they can
all be destroyed.� �We�re dealing with a dictator who had weapons of mass
terror, who continues to hold on to them at great cost to his country and to
his own regime.� He added that the danger from Saddam�s weapons �only grows
the longer we wait.�
Once the war was over and it became evident that U.S. troops occupying Iraq
were unlikely to find any banned weapons, Wolfowitz calmly changed his tune
and took to calling the WMDs a �secondary issue.� Returning from a visit to
Iraq last July he thus said �I�m not concerned about weapons of mass
destruction, I�m concerned about getting Iraq on its feet.� He further
claimed that Iraqis themselves had little concern about the �historical�
issue of weapons.
Then came Wolfowitz�s now famous admission (see Vanity Fair, July 2003) that
for bureaucratic reasons �we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.� This
was a bombshell that had the refreshing quality of truthfulness. Wolfowitz�s
debonair arrogance was breathtaking, and, at the level of pragmatic
policy-making, apparently irrational: By admitting that he and his
colleagues had taken everyone for a ride he ensured that the exercise could
not be repeated as easily.
In the light of such record, Wolfowitz�s latest attempt to apply the same
sleight-of-hand to the missing WMDs in a congressional testimony was either
na�ve or arrogant. Indeed, one puzzling aspect of the story surrounding
Iraq�s �weapons of mass destruction� is not the failure to find them, as
they did not exist to start with. It is the administration�s handling of the
situation that should have been anticipated over a year ago, when the
�bureaucratic� decision was initially made to opt for the WMDs as casus
belli.
Morality and common decency apart, from the purely pragmatic point of view
Mr. Bush�s team did not do well in following up pre-war WMD lies with
convincing post-war justifications and rationalizations. The haughtiness of
its leading figures�and most notably Dr. Wolfowitz�who now have the
effrontery to pretend that the issue of WMDs did not exist, is irritating
and insulting to millions of Americans. To many it shows the extent to which
the President is a hostage of the neoconservative cabal around him. That
this realization may yet contribute to his defeat in November is clear. It
is far less certain whether Mr. Bush is able or willing to face the facts
and deal with these poeople effectively in order to change that outcome.
Serbian News Network - SNN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antic.org/
