from University of Illinois student newspaper...
"The study, "Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words
of the Bush Administration, Congress and the Media from September 12,
2001, to October 11, 2002," is the senior honors thesis of Devon
Largio. She and her professor, Scott Althaus, believe the study is
the first of its kind."
--
Andrea Lynn, Humanities Editor
5/10/04
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. If it seems that there have been quite a few
rationales for going to war in Iraq, that's because there have been
quite a few, 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and
Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. All but four of the rationales
originated with the administration of President George W. Bush.
The study also finds that the Bush administration switched its focus
from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein early on, only five months
after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
In addition to what it says about the shifting sands of rationales
and the unsteady path to war in Iraq, what is remarkable about the
212-page study is that its author is a student.
The study, "Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words
of the Bush Administration, Congress and the Media from September 12,
2001, to October 11, 2002," is the senior honors thesis of Devon
Largio. She and her professor, Scott Althaus, believe the study is
the first of its kind.
For her analysis of all available public statements the Bush
administration and selected members of Congress made pertaining to
war with Iraq, Largio not only identified the rationales offered for
going to war, but also established when they emerged and who promoted
them. She also charted the appearance of critical keywords such as
Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Iraq to trace the
administration's shift in interest from the al Qaeda leader to the
Iraqi despot, and the news media's response to that shift.
"The rationales that were used to justify the war with Iraq have been
a major issue in the news since last year, and Devon's study provides
an especially thorough and wide-ranging analysis of it," Althaus, a
professor of political science, said.
"It is not the last word on the subject, but I believe it is the
first to document systematically the case that the administration
made for going to war during critical periods of the public debate.
"It is first-rate research," Althaus said, "the best senior thesis I
have ever seen, thoroughly documented and elaborately detailed. Her
methodology is first-rate."
Largio mapped the road to war over three phases: Sept. 12, 2001, to
December 2001; January 2002, from Bush's State of the Union address,
to April 2002; and Sept. 12, 2002, to Oct. 11, 2002, the period from
Bush's address to the United Nations to Congress's approval of the
resolution to use force in Iraq.
She drew from statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick
Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Policy Board member and
long-time adviser Richard Perle; by U.S. senators Tom Daschle, Joe
Lieberman, Trent Lott and John McCain; and from stories in the
Congressional Record, the New York Times and The Associated Press.
She logged 1,500 statements and stories.
The rationales Largio identified include everything from the five
front-runners: war on terror, prevention of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, lack of weapons inspections, removal of
Saddam Hussein's regime, Saddam Hussein is evil, to the also-rans;
Sen. Joe Lieberman's "because Saddam Hussein hates us," Colin
Powell's "because it's a violation of international law," and Richard
Perle's "because we can make Iraq an example and gain favor within
the Middle East."
With regard to the administration's shift from bin Laden to Saddam,
Largio found that Iraq was "part of the plan for the war on terror
early in the game."
For example, in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 29, 2002,
President Bush declared that Iraq was part of the war against
terrorism because it supported terrorists and continued to "flaunt
its hostility toward America." He also claimed that Iraq allowed
weapons inspectors into the country and then threw them out, "fueling
the belief that the nation did in fact plan to develop weapons of
mass destruction," Largio wrote.
In the same speech, the president called Iraq, Iran and North Korea
an "axis of evil," a phrase that would "ignite much criticism" and
add "to the sense that the U.S. would embark on a war with the
Hussein state," Largio wrote.
"So, from February of 2002 on," Largio said, "Iraq gets more hits
than Osama bin Laden. For President Bush the switch occurs there and
the gap grows over time."
Largio also discovered that it was the media that initiated
discussions about Iraq, introducing ideas before the administration
and congressional leaders did about the intentions of that country
and its leader. The media also "brought the idea that Iraq may be
connected to the 9-11 incident to the forefront, asking questions of
the officials on the topic and printing articles about the
possibility."
The media "seemed to offer a lot of opinion and speculation, as there
had been no formal indication that Iraq would be a target in the war
on terror," Largio wrote. Oddly, though, the media didn't switch its
focus to Iraq and Saddam until July of 2002.
Yet, "Overall, the media was in tune with the major arguments of the
administration and Congress, but not with every detail that emerged
from the official sources."
"As always, hindsight is twenty-twenty," Largio wrote in the
conclusion to her thesis. "However, there are questions surrounding
nearly every major rationale for the war.
"People may wonder, why are our men and women over there? Why did we
go to war? Were we misled? In this election year, these questions
deserve answers. And though this paper cannot answer these questions
definitively, it can provide some insight into the thinking of the
powers-that-be during the earliest stages of war preparation and give
the American people a chance to answer these questions for
themselves."
Because Largio's thesis addresses questions of "great public
importance," Althaus said, and "does so in such a detailed manner,"
he arranged to have it posted on a public Web site. Largio will
graduate on May 16, and will attend law school at Vanderbilt
University.
