Condi Rice Tells the Truth
"But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves. Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power."
The existence of a "proximate cause" implies the existence of an "ultimate cause." Even Condi couldn't try to make the case that Saddam was the ultimate cause of all terrorism. Removing him was necessary but not sufficient, at least as far as the Administration is concerned. To "go after the root causes...meant a different kind of Middle East." Iraq was the available target, but is only a means to an end. The American people are not prepared for the full picture yet. The fighting is not nearly over. Next: Syria? Iran?
Advertisement
Glad you posted this quote from today's Meet the Press. I couldn't find it.
Rice's explanation is the latest in the ever changing rationales for the Iraq war. As each fails to catch the imagination of the audience, a new rationale is created.
In some respects this rationale makes more sense than its predecessors. But I certainly don't remember anyone making this argument between September, 2002, and March, 2003. I don't think any of the architects of the Iraq debacle saw a broad enough view to articulate such a casus belli.
Does anyone remember being told the reason we had to start the Iraq war was that it was the appropriate first step in ending the root causes of terrorism in the Middle East and thereby achieving a Middle East free from terrorism?
I thought not. . . . Dealing with root causes was for wimps.
Would such an argument have worked for Bush? I rather doubt it. Support for the war required that we be scared into it - hence, the WMD argument. I can't see the American people taking on such a grandiose objective as remaking the Middle East - even with all the hubris and excess of testosterone.
The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq of October, 2002, almost certainly would not have passed had Bush explained the administration's "bolder approach" in these words:
I think the speech I've written for Bush reflects the intent which Rice's words convey. But nothing like this was ever said. We were lied to. We are still being lied to. The administration made their own reality. . . .
October 17, 2005 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, like others, have had this sinking feeling in my stomach that the entire Middle East is fair game to the neocons. Rice's trip seems to validate my unease. The only saving grace at the present time is that our military is stretched too thin to go much further than Iraq. But wait until we withdraw. It will be like Martin Sheen on "The West Wing." What's next?
October 17, 2005 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol
Andrew J. Bacevich inThe New American Militarismsay exactly that about the neo-Cons. They believed the entire Middle East needed to be reformed and American military power was the way to do it. For some Saddem was the place to start for others he was actually to be the last item on the list.
October 17, 2005 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't seem to find it or to figure out where it was - probably the New York Times, but I don't have access to the archive now - but there was an article in November or December of 2001 that raise the issue of Iraq, and quoted Paul Wolfowitz. I don't think he put it in terms of remaking the Middle East, but it was definitely a belligerent posture towards Iraq, and there was some implication of the Neocon grand plan. Or at least, when it became clear that they did have designs on Iraq a year later, what I remembered from the article was the impression that they wanted to remake the Middle East.
So maybe Condi is finally leveling with us. Truth: the last refuge of a scoundrel, I guess.
October 17, 2005 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit I didn't catch the full implication of Rice's words until I read the quote a second time. Then, it's positively chilling. Thanks for pointing it out. This is pure, unadulterated Project for a New American Century stuff.
When you think about her comment that "there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power," you realize the story she's selling is that all deposing Saddam did was make imagining "a different kind of Middle East" possible - an ominous euphemism for planning invasions of Iran and Syria if ever I've heard one.
October 17, 2005 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Devon
Thanks for the comment.
See this letter written in 1998, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, calling for the overthrow of Saddam's regime. The link is to the the website of PNAC (Project for the New American Century).
October 17, 2005 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is every possibility that, as the political situation destabilizes in Washington, the administration will dare to use further war in the Middle East as a means to divert attention from encroaching scandal. However, considering the heavy burden of Iraq on the armed forces, their situation would have to be quite desperate for them to attempt to convince the military to carry out such orders.
This was the charge so vehemently leveled against Clinton by the right when he launched those cruise missiles against bin Laden during the Lewinsky/impeachment scandal, and it is a time-honored way of seeking to retain power and diffuse critics at home, as nothing sharpens one's attention better than being at war. In the late seventeenth century, Sir William Temple wrote that Louis XIV pursued perpetual war outside France's borders in order to silence unrest within. Plus ca change...
Since Iraq has long since drifted into a numbing equilibrium of daily carnage, attacks against Syria or Iran may indeed soon be in the offing, if the Pentagon does not balk.
October 17, 2005 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is every possibility that, as the political situation destabilizes in Washington, the administration will dare to use further war in the Middle East as a means to divert attention from encroaching scandal....Since Iraq has long since drifted into a numbing equilibrium of daily carnage, attacks against Syria or Iran may indeed soon be in the offing, if the Pentagon does not balk.
The post reports today that the US will be introducing UN resolutions against Syria next week, undoubtedly within hours of the grand jury indictments. Hold onto your hats.
October 19, 2005 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Rice's new version is what she needs as the Secretary of State.
As SOS she needs something that she can make play abroad and that doesn't totally contradict Bush. This allows her to continue to the war on terror, cover the war in Iraq and "persuade" other governments that they need to move to democracy in the interests of fighting terrorism:
..."we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power..."
For her to do her job it is a fairly smart strategy, given where this Administration put her at the outset. While I admire her creativity and finesse I do not admire a lack of integrity.
October 18, 2005 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink