Thanks to new books such as Richard Clarke's "Against AllEnemies" and Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack", as well as the publichearings of the 9/11 Commission, we are beginning to get a clearerpicture of the run up to the war in Iraq. Sadly, it is a deeplydisturbing picture. What had long been speculated to be true hasbeen confirmed by these reliable sources: Bush and hisneo-conservative advisers had always wanted a war with Iraq - longbefore most people think. And they wanted it badly. They would letnothing stand in their way.
The neo-conservatives and Bush himself did not even try topretend they were not overly eager to rush to war. In retrospect,the clues were all there. Remember the infamous "axis of evil"speech in January 2002, more than a year before the war started? Orhow about White House chief of Staff Andrew Card's comment ("From amarketing point of view, you don't introduce new products inAugust.") when asked why the administration had waited untilSeptember 2002 to make its case against Iraq. I remember thataround that time I still could not believe that there would be awar against Iraq. Not because I was a peace-loving, tree-hugging,idealistic liberal, but because it just did not make any sense tome.
There were plenty of military insiders appearing on the newsnetworks who predicted the inevitability of this war. They knewwhat Bush was up to even before the U.N. negotiations had evenstarted. And how about the pathetic charade that was Bush's attemptat diplomacy? The administration presented bogus evidence of WMD tothe Security Council (Adlai Stevenson once called it the courtroomof world opinion) on the one hand, and slurred the very countriesit was trying to convince (remember Rumsfeld's "old Europe"comment?) on the other.
The fact is that Iraq had been in their minds way before we weretold. Which makes me wonder whether the war was a well thought outplan attempting to undermine terrorism, or part of Bush's pre-Sept.11 agenda. Either way, the case for war was pushed more forcefullyand earlier than people might have imagined. Richard Clarke tellsin his book that scarcely 24 hours had passed since the terroristattacks when President Bush ordered him and his staff to "see if[Saddam] is linked in any way." It was clear that al-Qaida wasbehind these atrocities and no link between Iraq and them had everbeen found. Moreover, Woodward's book reveals that President Bushsecretly asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to startsketching a war plan against Iraq only two months after Sept.11.
The excessive urgency to attack a sovereign nation that hadnothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks can only be interpreted oneway: regime change in Iraq had been part of the administration'sagenda for a while. So they pushed it down everybody throats bylying to the public, by intimidating the opposition, and bybullying other nations. Sadly, this agenda has little to do withprotecting America from al-Qaida.
This agenda -- let us be frank about it -- is a new imperialdesign, a new form of ideological colonization, whose goal is toreshape the Middle East to America's image. Neo-conservatives thinkthey can change the status quo in the Middle East by force, andspread democracy and liberty by bombing and then occupying anation. In their minds, this will have a domino effect, forcingother countries to become liberal democracies.
Many people think this is a worthy goal. And who could argueagainst the notion that something needs to be done in the MiddleEast? It is definitely in America's national security interest toengage in the Middle East. But invading Iraq was hardly the bestoption. Furthermore, if this war was such a desirable and worthygoal, why didn't Bush level with the American people in the firstplace? Why not tell them the truth about his designs for the MiddleEast, instead of fabricating lies about weapons of massdestruction?
But now, look what we have. Bush's Iraq policy is a monumentaldisaster. Iraqis are revolting against the occupying forces, andyoung Arabs in general have a new powerfully reason to hate theU.S. and decide to join terrorist organization. Instead of winninghearts and minds, America's standing in the Arab world is worsethan ever. And there is no end in sight to the instability problemin Iraq, which means that American troops will have to stay therefor years. Otherwise, there will be a civil war and a return todespotic rule.
The American people do not deserve an administration that liesto them. Bush wanted to fight Iraq and he took advantage of thesense of insecurity in this nation to embark on a dangerous andoverly idealistic misadventure in the Middle East. This mistakewill have serious long-term implications for America's security,and its own domestic health. I can only hope that the Americanpeople realize what is going on and stopped supporting theircommander in chief blindly. Accountability, and not loyalty, is theessence of democracy.
Rodrigo De Haro is a senior majoring in InternationalRelations. He can be reached at deharo@tuftsdaily.com.
