Not
everyone thinks President Bush should be sorry
about faulty intelligence in regard to the possession
of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.
Kurdish Media, Iraqi Kurdistan
President Bush
Should Have No Regrets about Faulty Iraq Intelligence
"The U.S. freed a terrorized
country from the grips of one of the most dangerous men in the world. In a
matter of weeks, the U.S. Army was able to remove Saddam from power, an
operation that sent a clear signal to other dictators in the region that they,
too, could face a similar fate."
The costly decisions made in
2003 after the war in Iraq began are no longer subjects of debate. What matters
now is the Status of the Forces Agreement (SOFA), a pact between The United
States and Iraq, which restricts the powers of the U.S. military and requires
America to end its military presence in the country in 2011. But mention should
be made of the interview of the Bushes by ABC's Charles Gibson [see video
below], which touched upon the post-war situation, when President Bush stated
his regrets over the failure of intelligence in regard to Saddam's weapons of
mass destruction.
Perhaps one of the Bush
Administration's most courageous decisions was the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Despite opposition from the United Nations, the U.S. freed a terrorized country
from the grips of one of the most dangerous men in the world. In a matter of
weeks, the U.S. Army was able to remove Saddam from power, an operation that
sent a clear signal to other dictators in the region that they, too, could face
a similar fate. The intelligence was wrong, and Saddam didn't have stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction. But nevertheless, Saddam's regime needed to be
removed. He was an oppressive and brutal dictator, unwilling to cooperate with
the international community and a threat to the free world.
While for President Bush, the
failure of the war on Iraq seems hinged to the intelligence on WMDs, the real setback was post-war management, not a lack
of WMDs. When U.S.-led forces entered Baghdad, the
Iraqi government collapsed without anything to be put in its place. The lack of
a proper authority created anarchy and internal disorder. Unsealed borders with
Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia invited the infiltration of a huge influx of
al-Qaeda-minded terrorists who carried out attacks on Coalition Forces and
Iraqi citizens to further destabilize the country. The United States
established the Coalition Provisional Authority led by Ambassador L. Paul
Bremer, which not only proved incapable of leading Iraq, but it stamped the
word “invader” on Washington, despite the fact that the CPA delivered to its
promise to hand sovereignty back to Iraqis in June 2004. The CPA established a
Governing Council which proved ineffective and involved a number of
undemocratic opposition parties from the past to participate on the process of
rebuilding the state. In 2005, the people of Iraq were provided an opportunity
to elect a national government, and the majority of Iraqis voted for an
Islamist, pro-Iran government to take power in Baghdad.
British Lieutenant-General Stanley Maude enters Baghdad after
vanquishing the Turks in 1917. He then issued a statement saying,
'Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as
conquerors
or enemies, but as liberators.' Sound familiar? WATCH BBC REPORT
Those mistakes were costly,
weakened America's image around the world and comforted regional dictators.
While Saddam's regime was successfully removed, the Bush Administration's
failed post-war management handed power to theocratic, tribal, and dictatorial
parties that sponsor militia armies - some which are ideologically unfriendly
to the West.
Prior to the American
intervention, we continuously heard speeches about efforts to transform Iraq
into a model democracy at the heart of the Middle East. Without doubt,the Bush Administration worked sincerely to
democratize Iraq and its efforts cost U.S. tax-payers trillions of dollars. But
the Bush government's methods of state-building were unsuitable for this
region. Five years have elapsed since the end of major combat operations, and
yet there is precious little stability and democracy in the country.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
America's post-war management
could have been more effective and cost much less. The United States should
have trained and immediately brought in a team of independent technocrats to
fill the gap created after the collapse of Saddam's regime. A cabinet,
representative in its make-up, could have led the country far more effectively
than Ambassador Bremer - and even the undemocratic parties currently in power.
They would undoubtedly have prioritized building state institutions before
holding elections and would have paved the way for a democratic, civil and
secular government. Unfortunately, the decisions made after the war are
irreversible and can't be done over - even by President-elect Obama. Meanwhile,
contrary to pre-war speeches by Bush Administration officials, Iraq is shifting
closer toward theocracy every day.
According to the SOFA
agreement, the United States must leave Iraq in 2011. The world is doubtlessly
safer without Saddam Hussein, but Iraq has no effective government.
President-elect Obama must ensure that Iraq's parties tackle the real
challenges confronting the country, like corruption, militia armies, a new oil
law, disputed Arabized areas [parts of Kurdistan
populated by Arabs under Saddam] and regional interference. Before the United
States completely leaves, Iraq must have an effective government.
