Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, March 24, 2008

Unger: The Iraq War was a Conspiracy

Craig Unger's email, part of an interchange on a private discussion group, is reprinted here with permission:


[A critic, let us call him X, objected] to Jim Lobe's suggestion that Iraqi WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda had nothing to do with starting the Iraq War. But Lobe is right. X is off base when he says nothing "suggests anything other than they believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs."

As my recent book, The Fall of the House of Bush--which owes a debt to Lobe's fine reporting on the neocons) shows in great detail, Cheney and the neocons effectively created an alternative national security apparatus to circumvent, sabotage and subvert the $40 billion a year that the nation spends on intelligence and to disseminate false intelligence about Saddam that would create a basis for war.

To be specific, let's take the Niger documents that falsely asserted that Saddam had agreed to buy 500 tons of yellowcake from the Republic of Niger. Many unanswered questions remain about the origin of the documents. But no one contests that they were forgeries that were based on documents stolen from the Niger Embassy in Rome over New Year's Eve in 2000.

I traveled to Rome to investigate the fabrication and dissemination of the documents, and, as I report in my book, I found that both the documents themselves and the information in them were distributed by right wing elements of Italian intelligence and the neocons in a deliberate manner to make it appear as if there were multiple independent sources corroborating one another, when in fact the only source were the original phony documents.

When the White House wanted to use the documents to build the case for war in an October 2002 speech Bush gave in Cincinnati, the CIA intervened twice to say the information was not reliable.

As I also show in my book, these documents and/or the information in them were discredited by Western authorities(including the CIA and the State Department) on at least fourteen such occasions before Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address

But none of that stopped Bush from citing this information--or, rather, disinformation-- as a casus belli in his famous sixteen words in his 2003 SOTU Address. [ Col. Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell, told me, if he took something out of Colin Powell's UN speech 47 times, the neocons would put in 48.]

X seems to suggest that all this could have been the result of mere ineptitude. However, I cite, on the record, no fewer than nine former officials in the military and intelligence worlds who characterize the Niger document episode as black propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign that was intentionally done to mislead the American people into supporting a war.

Likewise, one has only to talk to Tyler Drumheller, the former head of European operations for the CIA, who has recounted at great length how he vetted "Curveball," the prized Iraqi exile who spun phony yarns about mobile weapons vans, and told his superiors again and again and again that Curveball could not be trusted. Yet George Tenet, under pressure from the White House and the neocons, ignored him. As a result, Colin Powell told the world about the phony mobile weapons vans.

One could go on at great length with many other examples(as I do in my book). But the point is, the neocons had deliberately gamed the system. As their policy papers show, they knew they wanted to start the war long before the administration took office and in order to do so they knew they had to control intelligence. That's why Wolfowitz, Perle, and Eliot Abrams began making semi-secret trips to Austin as early as 1998 to convince Bush that an invasion was necessary. That's why, in December 2000, they tried to put Wolfowitz in as head of the CIA. And that's why, when that didn't work, they moved him to the Pentagon where he oversaw the creation of the Office of Special Plans which was in charge of putting out phony intelligence.

Likewise, Cheney put John Bolton in at State to keep an eye on Colin Powell and to make sure that State Department analysts at INR( who had repeatedly discovered the errors in the phony neocon intelligence) were kept out of all the key meetings. As a result, Colin Powell made his presentation to the UN based on intel that came from the neocons in Cheney's office and the Pentagon--not the professionals at Langley and at [the State Department's intelligence analysis branch,] INR.

In other words, we went to war not because of intelligence failures, as X seems to think, but because of intelligence successes--successful black propaganda operations, successful disinformation operations--that were deliberately designed to mislead the American people.

As to why, again, I believe that Jim Lobe is on the right track. One has only to read the various neocon policy papers dating back to the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers(aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, David Wurmser's Tyranny's Ally in 1997, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles to see that the neocons had been hoping to start the war for roughly a decade before it actually began. According to these papers, the chief reasons for this grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security(ie, Israel) and to protect America's strategic resources(ie, oil.)

Craig Unger

Vanity Fair Magazine

Go here for information about The Fall of the House of Bush and to buy the book.

Labels:

8 Comments:

At 3:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WMD as a justification for war was for the benefit of Tony Blair, not Bush.

The al-Qaeda link was created for the US public which had already been driven into hysterics after 9/11 and wanted revenge.

The British MPs absolutely refused to back Blair unless there was either a UN cover, or an self-defence justification. The WMD scam which was created by Clinton had worked very well (to justify the sanctions) so it was seen as a reasonable way out. The al-Qaeds link was massaged in by claiming that Saddam might give a WMD How-To guide to them (presumably doing that would have made the war pointless since al-Qaeda would have received the secrets already!)

Bush publicly declared the aim to be regime-change and the American people had no problem with that. The elaborate WMD ploy was not needed there.

The British absolutely denied that it was about regime-change. Blair said days before the invasion that Saddam would be allowed to stay in power if he destroyed his WMD.

Everone knew that Iraq had destroyed its programs in 1991. The expectation was that such a regime was bound to have kept something stashed away. Certainly not enough to present a threat, but enough for the propaganda people to inflate.

The other expectation was that the invasion and Shock and Awe would tame the Iraqi people. Iraqi Oil would flood the market driving prices to $20 [ref Murdoch]. An estimated $350BN [ref Colin Powel] in hugely inflated contracts would also go to the 'liberators'. The occupation of Iraq would show the Arabs and Muslims who is boss too, and the GI would be allowed to avenge the 9/11 deaths. With all of these goodies, the publics would have been very happy, and no one would care about the initial reasons.

They were so sure of themselves that no backup plans were seen as necessary. Now they have to pile more new lies on everyday to cover the earlier ones. Enjoy.

 
At 9:40 AM, Blogger Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves said...

I linked to this dialog @ this morning's WaPo Early Warning posting by William Arkin titled: "4,000 Deaths: Is It All About the Numbers?"

No, William... It's about criminal conspiracy.

 
At 10:00 AM, Blogger Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves said...

"Wolfowitz in as head of the CIA. And that's why, when that didn't work, they moved him to the Pentagon where he oversaw the creation of the Office of Special Plans which was in charge of putting out phony intelligence."

Currently, Paul Wolfowitz is ... I believe, chairman of the State department's weapons control bureaucracy. The perfect position to spin more black propaganda about an apparently non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons program.

 
At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Lobe and Craig Unger :

' ...the chief reasons for this grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security(ie, Israel) and to protect America's strategic resources(ie, oil.) '

Barack Obama :

' ...they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country... a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. '

It is the perverse and hateful ideologies of the Neocons documented by Lobe, at work through our own hands and those of our stalwart allies like Israel that are behind the conflicts in the Middle East.

If Obama really does not know that then he is unfit to be President.

If he does know that he is a pandering, lying SOB and doubly unfit to be President.

And yes Buffalo, Wolfowitz is back in the State Department no doubt causing more trouble, stirring up new wars. If there is anyone who should know that such wars will financially destroy the US it is Wolfowitz. Don't anyone think that the well-being of the US somehow figures in Wolfowitz' or Elliot Abrams, that other Undersecretary of State's calculations.

Our enemies are not in Iraq or in Iran or anywhere on earth outside of Washington DC. They are in the seats of power of our own nation and no one in the political class is doing a thing to dislodge them.

Gravel, Nader, McKinney... work for them and work for real change.

We must turn our backs on Obama/Clinton/McCain, create an alternative to the utterly corrupt duopoly, before it truly, truly is too late.

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger nobody7 said...

ah,come on .This was an orchestraded coup from the gate.When bush was appointed, a friend said,"you just witnessed the overthrow of the United States!!

 
At 7:59 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

I was thinking about this, and a question popped into my head. Remember the NIE in 2002 on Iraq? I remembered reading somewhere that it was the most flawed intelligence estimate ever produced. Did the neo-con gang have anything to do with that? If not, then it seems then that the intelligence community cannot completely be let off the hook.

 
At 1:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think it's fair to level all the blame on Israel for the current situation

 
At 12:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Ref to: http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/unger-iraq-war-was-conspiracy.html



"... Cheney and the neocons effectively created an alternative national security apparatus to circumvent, sabotage and subvert the $40 billion a year that the nation spends on intelligence and to disseminate false intelligence about Saddam that would create a basis for war."



"... and scores of other articles to see that the neocons had been hoping to start the war for roughly a decade before it actually began. ..."



" ... that all this could have been the result of mere ineptitude."



" no ... black propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign that was intentionally done to mislead the American people into supporting a war. "



" ... the neocons had deliberately gamed the system. As their policy papers show, they knew they wanted to start the war long before the administration took office and in order to do so they knew they had to control intelligence. That's why Wolfowitz, Perle, and Eliot Abrams began making semi-secret trips to Austin as early as 1998 to convince Bush that an invasion was necessary. That's why, in December 2000, they tried to put Wolfowitz in as head of the CIA. And that's why, when that didn't work, they moved him to the Pentagon where he oversaw the creation of the Office of Special Plans which was in charge of putting out phony intelligence."



" ... we went to war not because of intelligence failures, as X seems to think, but because of intelligence successes--successful black propaganda operations, successful disinformation operations--that were deliberately designed to mislead the American people. "



"As to why, again, ..."



It is a pity that in that entire conversation, the word "Nuremberg", the word "aggression", and the words "supreme international crime" do not appear. The "why" of course in that last sentence is immaterial, not much differently than the why = quest for "Lebensraum" and why = "Eretz Yisrael" still are – just in a different piece of geography and more sophisticatedly.



In this erudite space of scholars, academics, and 'uber' intellectuals, please permit this humble interjection from a mere plebeian when the following is rehearsed for their profound memories because unfortunately, there is no Justice Robert H. Jackson today to re-assert the definition of aggressor to the spectating world that is busily chasing this and that red herring while the grotesquely dancing, trumpeting, naked elephant shits in the world's midst:



'An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the [Nuremberg] tribunal, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State. ... If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” '



Indeed, it is further pertinent to refresh one's imperial memory that the United States Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg Tribunals had gone on to establish that the overt-acts of aggression, and not the tortuous justifications behind these acts, is what hung the Nazis:



“The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes.”



And that these overt-acts of aggression, as argued by Justice Jackson, contained within them, “all the evil that follows”. That the first primal aggression was:



“the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.



All of the murderous turmoil unleashed in the world since America's “goosestep[ping] the Herrenvolk across international frontiers”, which is plainly visible for all to see that requires no speculation, and the apportioning of all the commensurate blame for the horrendous toll upon the 'wretched' nations across the “Global Zone of Percolating Violence”, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and soon Iran, Pakistan, Syria, accordingly, rests entirely with the sole superpower which constructed its own 'operation canned goods' as its “new pearl harbor” for the premeditated “supreme international crime” of “imperial mobilization”.



Indeed, if the U.S. Chief Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals Prosecutor Justice Robert H. Jackson were alive today, and he hadn't merely been handing out a 'victor's justice' to the despicable harbingers of the Third Reich when he stated the blatant obviousness of their premeditated intent to commit “supreme international crime” of aggression: “The plans of Adolf Hitler for aggression were just as secret as Mein Kampf, of which over six million copies were published in Germany”, he would blanketly also re-assert to the equally despicable harbingers of the Fourth Reich the equally blatant obviousness of their premeditated intent to re-commit the same “supreme international crime” of aggression: The plans of the aggressor for aggression were just as secret as the 'PNAC' on the 'Grand Chessboard' that were freely available for download on the Internet, and in major bookstores.



The only significant difference between the two “supreme international crime[s]”, as far as anyone can un-emotionally ascertain, and which is amply documented, is that the Nazis didn't get the opportunity to rewrite history as the present day 'ubermenschen' are busily engaged in doing, with willing connivance of their intellectuals, newspaper editorial writers, and various and sundry lower order newsmedia 'circus clowns'.



Furthermore, most obviously, this time around, the vast majority of the Jews and the handful of mastermind Judeofascists among them, are the Reich's best friends, aiders, supporters, sympathizers, and even its overarching master strategists, instead of the object of its wrath! The handful of courageous and inspiring exceptions, gadflies, and men and women of uncommon chutzpah, duly noted.



And finally, the Third Reich never enjoyed the “full spectrum dominance” and unopposed uni-polar supremacy that enables the present Reich to exert its “Primacy and Geostrategic Imperatives” unfettered and unchallenged.



Gentlemen, and gentlewomen, and whichever other species might lurk here in the shadows, the alpha and omega of the matter rests right there. If interested in further clarity on the matter, please see: http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/nuremberg/close.html



And while one is busily deflected writing books and other profound prose - Nuclear Attack on Iran appears imminent!



For once, could the genuine intellectual gadflies of America kindly try to prevent a pending fait accompli rather than always be concentrating their expertise on that which has already become one? There is hardly any kind of strategic solution-think transpiring anywhere. Almost all are fixated with ad nauseum rehearsing crime stories or merely reciting current events. How about some uber solutions that can possibly preempt “imperial mobilization” and deter the impending “supreme international crime” of nuclear holocausting Iran? Or are intellectuals “as moral agents” merely there only to rehearse histories and offer platitudes?



Where are the solutions guys? Or at least an analytical postmortem of why you can't come up with solutions? What are the impediments? For that too can possibly point to some solution-spaces. If your next pay-check depended on you proposing some 'solution', and then 'shipping' a product based on it, and you only get paid if it 'sells', how might you begin to think differently?



If your product is to derail “imperial mobilization” and you are in a startup – what's the system architecture, et. al.? That model is pretty close to when it is one's moral imperative! But it is indeed quite far when one is merely playing intellectual games. In case you are interested: Responsibility of Intellectuals - Redux



Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim

Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

http://humanbeingsfirst.org



P.S. Some text is excerpted from Wakeup to the grotesque reality of the 'Grand Chessboard'

 

Post a Comment

<< Home