Bungling the Bugle Call to War in Iraq

The Clumsy Call to War
By
Frida Ghitis

The White House holds high hopes that a successful effort to remold Iraq will lead to a new era of democracy, peace and progress in the entire Middle East. But Washington’s clumsy efforts to gain international support for the campaign are making it much more difficult to turn the war against Saddam into the first step in the long road to an elusive Middle Eastern nirvana.

There might have been a time when plans to overthrow a man like Saddam Hussein would have enjoyed an enthusiastic international reception. The US, however, began working to gain international approval by dismissing everyone’s opinion in the matter. Long before Washington started trying to persuade other nations to support the endeavor, it announced that it had already made up its mind.

Last summer, as powerful arguments against a war were rapidly taking shape, the Bush administration made only feeble attempts to respond. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card dismissively offered his car salesman’s analysis, explaining, “you don’t introduce new products in August.” It was clear that Washington viewed the opinions of other nations as a secondary marketing issue, not as legitimate views deserving of serious consideration. The war, in which lives would be lost, was crudely described as a product to be sold.

Even as a matter of marketing, Washington approached it backwards. Instead of laying out the problem to the world and carving a path towards a solution, Washington slammed its solution before the world, and proceeded to try to come up with a problem. In everyone’s eyes, President Bush wanted a war with Saddam, and he was looking for a way to force an international endorsement.

Everyone had heard about “regime change,” the ultimate goal, long before the reasons why it was needed had been explained to the public. The marketing team pondered what to use as its principal justification. It could grasp for an Iraqi link with AlQaeda. It could point to Saddam’s attacks against at least three neighboring nations. It could speak of his use of chemical and biological weapons, or about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have disappeared at the hands of his internal security forces, or about a country that has become a chamber of horrors for its inhabitants. Or about a nation whose threat requires the US to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, where they are not welcome. The choices were many. The White House settled on WMD – weapons of mass destruction. Big mistake.

By making the campaign against Iraq primarily about disarming Saddam Hussein, the White House presented Saddam with a way out. If Iraq convinced the world that it was getting rid of his weapons, then there was no reason to attack. But Washington’s concern is not the weapons. It is Saddam Hussein. That is hardly classified information.

Suddenly, the Bush administration was deceiving the world. It wanted war when it claimed to want disarmament. Demonstrators began carrying pictures of president Bush sporting a Hitler mustache.

Imagine that. Suddenly Iraq, of all countries, became the nation of peace. Iraqi deputy premier Tariq Aziz, prayed for peace at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi while protesters, convinced they were doing a favor to the Iraqi people, vilified Washington’s plans.

Even before September 11th, the Bush administration’s dismissive behavior towards international agreements and world opinion had started stoking the fires of anti-Americanism that now rage in parts of the world.

With European’s thoroughly insulted and anti-Americans emboldened by Washington, men like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder exploited the overpowering anti-war sentiment – as many American politicians might have. Saddam easily painted American ambitions as colonial plans to take over Iraqi oil.

Now America, having lost the benefit of the doubt, will have to strain to disprove its critics. Every action it takes, especially after the war, will be searched for ulterior motives. Plans to install an American administrator early in the post-Saddam era are now seen as proof that the US has colonial ambitions. In the Arab world, where hatred for colonial powers still burns, America will have to work much harder to prove its goal is not simply controlling Iraqi oil.


Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs. She is the author of “The End of Revolution: a Changing World in the Age of Live Television.”