RSS 2.0 FeedThe War In Iraq Was Based False Presumptions
by Doug MataconisAn internal Pentagon report has concluded that intelligence provided by a former Undersecretary of Defense in support of the Iraq War was biased in favor of invasion and ignored evidence that didn’t support it’s predetermined conclusions:
Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon’s inspector general.
Feith’s office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith’s activities as “an alternative intelligence assessment process.”
An unclassified summary of the full document is scheduled for release today in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which Levin chairs. In that summary, a copy of which was obtained from another source by The Washington Post, the inspector general concluded that Feith’s assessment in 2002 that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a “mature symbiotic relationship” was not fully supported by available intelligence but was nonetheless used by policymakers.
At the time of Feith’s reporting, the CIA had concluded only that there was an “evolving” association, “based on sources of varying reliability.”
Along with the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003, the idea that there was any kind of strategic or tactical alliance between al Qaeda and the Baathist regime in Baghdad prior to March 2003 has been pretty much discredited. Nonetheless, the Administration and supporters of whatever the heck the strategy in Iraq is right now continue to parrot the line that the Iraq War is part and parcel of the War On Terror.
I think it’s time to call nonsense on that assertion.
Let’s think about an alternate scenario. It’s post 9/11 and, instead of invading Iraq, the United States decided to concentrate it’s resources on Afghanistan and destroying the international infrastructure of al Qaeda. Does anyone really think that the situation in Iraq would be worse than it is today ?
Let’s face it. Saddam was isolated. He had no weapons of mass destruction. He had no real army to speak of. Containment was working. The more I look at it, the more it’s clear that there was no good reason to invade Iraq.
Not sure if sending more troops was and is the answer in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, like Iraq, will be solved politically. More American troops will only increase the power of the Taliban as Afghans align against the foreign occupier. In addition, our War on Drugs is allowing the opium to be grown that fuels the warlord and terrorist violence gripping Afghanistan. Most foreign aid needs to go to building a competant Afghan army while Karzai and the Afghan government needs to work on building popular support outside of Kabul (though buiding the army would help).
We need to face that the War on Terror is now an ideological war against so-called radical Islam. We need to be combatting that instead of secular governments, like Saddam’s, and specific terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, which is mostly broken.
Comment by Kevin — February 9, 2007 @ 12:04 amKevin,
I’m not saying that more troops in Afghanistan was a good idea. I am saying that any troops in Iraq is increasingly looking like it was an entirely bad idea.
The strategy in Afghanistan never seemed to depend on more troops. Just the right deployment and strategy, which is another issue entirely.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 9, 2007 @ 12:34 am