Please be careful, folks. I’m not looking for opinions, guesses, hunches, or insults. I’m looking for the reasons that the administration used for the war, before it started. I remember Powell’s infamous “WMD” speech in front of the UN. Were WMD’s the ONLY reason actually used by Bush2v.1? I know that there were interpertations of what various Bush officals said, alleging other reasons, but it seems that they spoke so carefully that they never actually said anything they were interperted as saying.
So, what’s the Straight Dope on Iraq? Are WMD’s the only official reason for the war (pre-invasion?) Are there any statements from Bush officials that out-and-out SAY that “we’re invading because of WMD’s and…?(whatever.)”
I’m not trying to start an argument, I realised (reading another Bush related thread) that, despite the fact I tried to follow the build-up, I had no clear answers on what the administration ACTUALLY said versus what its opponents CLAIM it said.
Please help and thanks in advance, DESK
I know my own Prime Minister was very careful about his wording at the time as to why australian troops were going. As I recall, WMDs were mentioned, but the official reason was to get rid of the tyrant. From memory, the US Government told its people both reasons.
Some major points from Bush’s “48 hours” speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html):
-Lack of security council compliance
-Possession and concealment of “lethal weapons” (WMDs are hinted at)
-Harboring terrorists, including agents of al Qaeda
-U.S. national security (which is threatened by these terrorists)
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq: October 2, 2002
Fluffiness fleshed out October 2, 2002 (Rose Garden ceremony)
Iraqi Regime Danger to America is “Grave and Growing” October 5, 2002 president’s radio address
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat October 7, 2002
I’m not sure if this constitutes a reason, but I remember just before the war (literally, hours) Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam - leave, or we will attack. I don’t remember the exact wording, but the essence was that Saddam could avoid the conflict by going into voluntary exile.
Truly sorry to move this, but it just won’t fly in General Questions.
samclem
And, remember, you CAN get factual answers in Great Debates.
I’m not sure why you left out this part in what you quoted:
That is what first occured to me when I read the OP.
Prime Minister Blair moves the resolution for the UK to enter the war:
“1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December…”
So for the UK it was all about WMDs.
Interestingly the previous two paragraphs of Blair’s speech were:
"When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.
We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd."
Of course, Tony. Palpably absurd. :rolleyes:
And, by contrast, the Foreign Secretary’s resignation speech:
“None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will “shock and awe” makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.”
"We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? "
IIRC, at the time it came down to two things:
-
WMD’s.
-
A connection between Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.
Other reasons were mentioned but not given the same emphasis, although that changed after the invasion and after the above failed to be substantiated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#Publicly_stated_objectives
Well, it’s a nice enough list of grievances, a description of why we were pissed, but the actual authorization part covers the purposes for which the president could use troops; defending the national security of the United States, and enforcing security council resolutions.
I never believed WMD were the reason anyway.
Seems to me the (unspoken) reasoning went like this:
-
Because Saddam remains in power, we must keep our troops in Saudi Atabia to protect its oil fields and keep Saddam in check.
-
The presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia is a major source of irritation in the Muslim world, and a major recruiting point for al Qaeda. (Much of bin Laden’s rhetoric had to do with infidel troops in the Muslim holy land.)
-
If we remove Saddam from power and establish a stable and friendly government there, we can get our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and maybe eliminate a recruiting point for terrorists.
-
We can’t admit this is our motivation, because it will look like we are working on bin Laden’s wish list. Besides, it’s too complicated for a sound bite, and won’t sell internationally.
-
We’d better come up with something simple to sell to the public. WMD! Yeah, that’s it!
Some of you may remember that Bush was talking about “regime change” in Iraq before he started talking about “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Well, if we can read between the lines and speculate as to why we THINK we are in Iraq, my own guesses are:
- Force projection: We went there to project force in an unstable region that also just happens to hold a large percentage of the worlds oil reserves. This would show that the US COULD project decisive force in the region and perhaps serve as an object lesson to other trouble makers. I think that THIS aspect was mostly successful, though subsequent events (i.e. the whole insurgency thing) erroded the effect greatly…arguably to a point that is now worse than it was pre-invasion.
1a) Secure the resource: We wanted to basically secure the oil reserves in Iraq and remove them from the hands of a regime we found unstable and perhaps dangerous…especially with all that oil money at its command.
1b) Basing and rapid response: We wanted to have a secure base in a friendly nation (one we installed) where we could basically respond rapidly to future threats to the worlds oil supplies. In addition we as part of number 1 we wanted to pre-empt such emergencies by being in the region…basically hanging the threat of future US operations over their heads (this didn’t work out exactly as planned).
-
Regime change: We went there to basically overthrow an unstable and aggressive regime with a history of agression towards its neighbors.
-
Spread democracy: After 2 above we wanted to install a new democratic government in the region that would be a model that other nations there could look at and eventually want to emmulate (it didn’t work out quite as planned of course).
-
WMD: Yeah, its on the list. We certainly didn’t want WMD (chem/bio weapons) in the hands of such an unstable regime…especially not in a regime that happens to be located where it is, right smack in the middle of the worlds oil reserves. We also couldn’t be sure if Saddam would either use his WMD covertly against American intersts in the region…or even against America directly.
That said I have to think that WMD were more an excuse that gave us a window of opportunity to invade. I think this was a reason that was easier to explain (read spin) to the American people as THE reason to invade. Within the actual administration though I think it was more an excuse…not the core reason.
Just my guesses…
-XT
I agree with most of what you said, but I don´t think it´s… hmmm, fair to call Saddam´s regime an unstable thing, au contraire, it was quite solid; it withstood GW I of all things, and in spite of the sanctions it reminded on it´s place. The image of an unstable Saddam flipping like a pancake and handing his mythological WMDs to his sworn enemies is pure propaganda.
Well, I was saying from the perspective of the administration. Also, maybe ‘unstable’ would be better put as ‘destablizing’…as in they were a destablizing nation in the region since they pretty much made most of the other nations in the neighborhood distinctly uneasy.
I agree that Saddam most likely wouldn’t have given WMD to just anyone with a grudge against the US…but I disagree that he might not have given some to his own Fedayeen (or other home grown groups operating in Iraq) to use either against the US or against US interests abroad. The caviot being he would have only done it if he felt he could get away with it without any of the heat coming back on him.
So, yes…fairly unlikely but not completley improbable. And again, we are supposed to be looking at this from the administrations (and the intelligence community in the US) perspective…and what THEY believed and was their motivation. I’m not saying that I buy it…especially not with hindsight on my side.
-XT
Defending the US is always going to be the reason. The OP is asking what we were defending against. Some of the “whereas’s” are redundant, but those are the reasons we said we were going to war for.
If the administration was being complete and honest in February 2003, when (then) Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations, then the title of his presentation should say it all - IRAQ: FAILING TO DISARM
Yet another perfect example of the Weapons of Mass Deception used to manipulate the American populace into accepting this bloody madness.
To wit:
[quote=George Bush]
[ul]
[li]Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.[/li][li]The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.[/li][li]The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. [/li][li]Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council’s long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.[/li][li]Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. [/li][li]t is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.[/li][li]And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.”[/li][li]Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.[/li][li]The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.[/li][li]The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I mean, really, just how much more Bushit could one cram into a speech? Note as well, that even if Saddam left the country under Geogie’s ultimatum, US forces would still be invading Iraq!
Well, now, Red, let’s be generous here! Saddam adamantly refused to give up what he didn’t have. In the face of such stubborn intransigence, what else could The Leader do?
Boy, your cynicism is quite generous.
I myself don’t see the US Military giving up any of its ME bases too soon, as they are strategically located to send forces quickly to various nearby places where they might be used.
My own cynicism was based on the old Lebanon/Grenada switcheroo from the Reagan years.
-
Well, we’ve overthrown the Taliban, which louses up a really stable base of operations for Al Qaeda. It’ll be a long time before they have logistical wherewithal to try anything like THAT again.
-
This search for bin Laden, due to the nature of the region and its people, is quickly turning into an intractable miasma. We don’t know when or even if we’ll capture him, which is quickly becoming annoying to the electorate.
-
Iraq’s a buncha pussies, we can have them mowed down in a week, and everyone hates Hussein anyway.
-
We’ll de-emphasize bin Laden (remember the I-don’t-know-where-he-is-he’s-not-that-big-a-concern jazz?), emphasize Iraq, and when we have another victorious “video game war” (remember the bated breath with which the news anchors awaited “shock and awe”?) and the cheap oil starts flowing, everyone will forget bin Laden altogether, at least hopefully until he’s some other President’s problem.