As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I find myself thinking back on how we got ourselves into this predicament. Like many who played a direct role in the issues surrounding Iraq in the years leading up to the decision to invade, I have wrestled with the demons of history, wondering about the specific impact my actions (or inaction) may have had on the course of human affairs. I’ve also wondered whether or not I have been witness to any events that, if more fully reported, might enable others to have a better understanding of the events that shape our world today, for better or for worse. As I examine where we are today and contemplate our future and those who are positioning themselves to play a role in Iraq, it seems to me that there is at least one such incident, a dinner party I attended at the home of Ahmed Chalabi in June 1998 that is worthy of a more public illumination.
During my time as a weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), I frequently traveled to Washington, D.C., for liaison purposes. The usual customers, so to speak, included the State Department, the CIA and the Department of Defense. All such meetings were conducted in accordance with instructions I had received from the executive chairman of UNSCOM (from 1991 until July 1997 this post was held by a Swede named Rolf Ekéus and after July by an Australian, Richard Butler) and as such were considered “official business.”
I strayed from the umbrella of “official business” only once during my tenure as an inspector, when, in June 1998, during a scheduled official trip to Washington, D.C., I ventured out into the shadows of back-bench domestic American politics. Bill Clinton was president then, and there was a growing undercurrent of neoconservative ideology that was gripping the nation’s capitol as the right wing of the Republican Party, frustrated by its inability to outmaneuver the president on the domestic front, chose to instead do battle on matters pertaining to foreign policy and national security. Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein was deeply entrenched in Baghdad. Economic sanctions, which served as the primary vehicle for containing the Iraqi dictator by denying him markets for his oil-based economy, were collapsing amid international concern for the humanitarian toll that such sanctions took on the people of Iraq, and in the face of old-fashioned greed. U.N. weapons inspections were floundering and the Clinton administration seemed to lack any coherent plan on how to bring order from the foreign policy chaos that was Iraq.
In early June 1998, UNSCOM weapons inspectors received a technical report from a U.S. military laboratory in Aberdeen, Md., which specialized in chemical and biological agent analysis. In March 1998, UNSCOM had retrieved from Iraq several fragments of ballistic missile warheads from a site that had been used by the Iraqis in their program of unilateral destruction of WMD in the summer of 1991. The Iraqis, in an effort to clarify glaring discrepancies in the accounting of their weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpiles, had admitted that a certain number of these warheads had been filled with chemical and biological agent, in particular nerve agent, and anthrax and botulinum toxin biological agent. In an effort to verify the Iraqi claims, UNSCOM had excavated warhead fragments from the declared destruction sites and sent them to the U.S. military laboratory in Aberdeen for analysis.
By early June 1998 the results were back, and they were, on the surface, stunning: Rather than finding evidence of the declared chemical or biological agent that the Iraqis had admitted placing in the warheads, the Aberdeen lab results showed trace evidence of the chemical degradation byproduct of stabilized VX nerve agent, one of the most deadly substances known to man. The Iraqis had admitted trying to produce VX nerve agent in the past, but denied that they had ever succeeded in stabilizing the volatile chemical (i.e., preventing the agent from deteriorating over time and becoming useless as a weapon), let alone filling any warhead with VX. The lab results from Aberdeen, if correct, dramatically contradicted the Iraqi claims and potentially turned the entire disarmament effort of UNSCOM in Iraq on its head.
Butler, the Australian diplomat who headed UNSCOM at the time, was arriving in Baghdad when the Aberdeen lab results were released. Inspectors in New York were able to transmit a copy of the report to Baghdad, and the senior UNSCOM chemical inspector in Iraq at the time was able to meet Butler at plane-side to personally brief him on the dramatic news. Butler was in Baghdad to undertake a delicate negotiation with the Iraqi government on a so-called road map that would serve as the basis upon which UNSCOM and Iraq would seek to work together to clarify outstanding issues, and seek verification for declarations made by Iraq, such as its stance on VX nerve agent, which UNSCOM was unwilling to take at face value. The Aberdeen lab report threw a monkey wrench into Butler’s tightly scripted plan, and he decided to keep the report under wraps for the time being in order to let diplomacy take its course.
The UNSCOM chemical inspectors were furious. Over the years they had uncovered one lie after another about Iraq’s VX nerve agent program. Initially, the inspectors proved that a VX program existed when Iraq claimed it did not (in order to prove that point, inspectors had to burrow down inside bombed-out buildings to recover buried documents the Iraqis thought lost). Later, the inspectors were able to force the Iraqis to admit that the VX nerve agent effort was in fact larger than the laboratory-scale research and development program they tried to peddle once their denials had been proved false. The chemists had already contradicted the Iraqis on the issue of stabilized VX, by finding traces of VX stabilizer in VX agent recovered from containers the Iraqis had thought had been thoroughly sanitized. This discovery forced the Iraqis to admit having attempted VX stabilization. But in the end, the Iraqis maintained that all of their efforts had failed, and that VX agent had never been “weaponized,” or loaded into a warhead or shell. Now, with the Aberdeen lab report, this last lie seemed to have been uncovered.
Over lunch in the U.N. cafeteria, I listened while the UNSCOM chemical weapons inspectors vented their anger and frustration. Butler was selling out, they speculated. Why else wouldn’t he make use of this material? I asked the chemists how certain they were of the lab results. One hundred percent, they said. The lab results had discovered incontrovertible proof of the existence of specific chemicals on the warhead fragments, which could be explained only as the result of the degradation over time of VX stabilizer. “What would be the ideal situation vis-à-vis this information?” I asked. Everyone at the table believed that Butler was being pressured by the Clinton administration not to provoke a major crisis with Iraq over the issue of disarmament, so as not to break the existing Security Council consensus on maintaining economic sanctions. As such, the best scenario would be to have this information made public, published in the press so that neither Butler nor the Clinton administration could ignore it. Several of the inspectors around the table had served as background sources for some of the world’s leading journalists. “Why not slip a copy of the report to one of these press contacts?” I asked. The lab report, they responded, was tightly held. If it was leaked out of New York, suspicion would automatically gravitate toward them, a situation none of the inspectors wanted to deal with. “What if,” I asked, “I could get the lab report released in Washington, D.C., with no UNSCOM fingerprints?” The chemists liked this idea, and slipped me a copy of the lab results.
I was scheduled to fly down to Washington to meet with the CIA about ongoing intelligence support programs then underway. In my desk I had a business card for Randy Scheunemann, the national security adviser to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who was at that time the Senate majority leader. Scheunemann had been part of a congressional staff delegation that had visited the United Nations earlier in 1998, and had met with Butler and some of the UNSCOM inspectors to discuss the situation in Iraq. I dialed the number listed and told Scheunemann I would like to meet with him while I was in Washington to discuss some new developments. He agreed to the meeting and threw in a twist of his own: Would I mind meeting with Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who headed an opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, or INC? Chalabi maintained offices in London and Georgetown, Va., and he shuttled back and forth between the two carrying out his various political intrigues. He was, at the time, in residence in Georgetown, and Scheunemann thought that Chalabi might be of assistance in any matter regarding Iraq.
I had previously met Chalabi in January 1998 in London, where we had discussed various matters pertaining to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and how the INC might be able to assist UNSCOM in gaining access to new sources of information about Saddam’s past proscribed programs. Butler had authorized the London meeting, so I justified any subsequent meeting organized by Scheunemann as a legitimate follow-up. Scheunemann said he would have someone meet me at the airport in Washington.
I landed at National Airport early in the morning. In the terminal I spotted a man in a black suit holding a sign with my name on it. I assumed he was a driver of a car sent to take me to the Senate offices of Scheunemann. I was partly right. The driver was for me, but my destination was not Capitol Hill. “Mr. Chalabi sends his greetings,” the driver said as he ushered me to an awaiting town car. “I will take you to meet Mr. Chalabi now.” Ahmed Chalabi’s Washington headquarters was in a posh red-brick Georgetown town house. Chalabi himself was there to greet me.
I was ushered into Chalabi’s home, where he set out an ambitious program, including briefings to senators and their staffs. The meeting went on well into the next day. I had an open return air ticket but had not planned on spending the night, and as such had not made any hotel arrangements. “Not to worry,” Chalabi said. “You are welcome to stay with me as my guest. We’ll have dinner here tonight, and you can sleep in one of my guest rooms.”
Chalabi’s driver, who turned out to be a Shiite refugee from southern Iraq, drove me to the State Department, where my meeting with the CIA was held. Afterward, I took a cab to Capitol Hill and then made my way to the Senate office building where Randy Scheunemann had his office, right across from Sen. Lott’s. Once there, I got down to business. I handed Scheunemann a copy of the Aberdeen lab report and explained the background of the document. He immediately grasped the importance of what he was holding in his hand. “What would you like me to do with this information?” he asked. I explained the desire to get this data into the public eye, which meant bypassing both Richard Butler and the White House because I and the inspectors I had met with believed that both were seeking to suppress the data. “If it could find its way into the press in a way that removed any UNSCOM fingerprints, this would be ideal. That way the data remains uncompromised, and yet politically Butler and the White House can’t ignore it.” Scheunemann was smiling. “I think we can manage that.”
I thought my mission complete, but Scheunemann picked up the phone, speaking in hushed tones to someone on the other end. Hanging up the receiver, he rose. “Please follow me. Sen. Lott would like to have a chance to speak with you.” We made our way across the hall and into the Senate majority leader’s suite. Lott was meeting with constituents but broke away and ushered me into a side conference room, where we sat around a large wooden table. Scheunemann briefed Lott on the nature of the information I had provided, but withheld any suggestion of leaking it to the press. Lott thanked me for my “service.” “I understand you will be in town for a little while, and that you’re staying at the home of a mutual friend.” Neither Scheunemann nor I had mentioned my arrangements with Chalabi to the senator. “I hope you take some time to talk with him, and some other interesting people I think you will be meeting with. Exchange ideas. See if you can help him in any way. We’re all on the same side here, and we have to start finding ways to break down some barriers others have constructed between us.” I told the senator that I had met with Chalabi previously and saw no reason why we couldn’t engage in an exchange of ideas.
Scheunemann and I left Lott’s office, and I took a cab back to Chalabi’s town house in Georgetown. Chalabi was out when I arrived, but I was met at the door by Francis Brooke, an American from Atlanta who was Chalabi’s principle adviser. Brooke was also a guest at Chalabi’s apartment. I changed out of my suit and made my way downstairs to relax while I waited for dinner. No sooner had I sat down than the doorbell rang. Brooke answered it, and in walked Dr. Max Singer, a noted independent consultant on public policy and a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute who specialized in what was known as “political warfare.” Singer was a busy man, but he had been asked by Scheunemann to prepare a paper titled “The Chalabi Factor,” which outlined the importance and viability of Chalabi and the INC as a realistic opposition to the rule of Saddam Hussein. “Ahmed asked me to drop this off for you to look at,” Singer said, handing me the document. “I will be interested in what you think of it.”
Singer left and I sat down with his paper. The document outlined a political scenario that had Chalabi and the INC exploiting the weakness of the regime of Saddam in northern Iraq (Kurdistan) and southern Iraq, among the Shiites, to install himself as a viable political alternative to the Iraqi dictator. The main thesis centered on gaining a physical foothold in southern Iraq and taking control of the oil fields surrounding Basra, enabling the INC to become economically viable, which in turn created the conditions for political viability. Chalabi, the paper held, was ideally suited for this role since he already had a large following inside Iraq and was widely recognized outside Iraq as a legitimate contender for the helm of post-Saddam Iraq. I was somewhat taken aback by the content of the Singer paper. I was on dangerous political ground here, a U.N. weapons inspector charged with the disarmament of Iraq, suddenly dabbling in the world of regime change. Far from advising me on issues of intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD, Ahmed Chalabi had turned the tables and had me advising him on how to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Within the hour Chalabi returned to his apartment, accompanied by a tall man in a gray suit, Stephen Rademaker. Rademaker was the husband of Danielle Pletka, the senior professional staff member for Near East and South Asia affairs on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Rademaker was the legal counsel for the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee and, like his wife, an unabashed member of the right wing of the Republican Party, along with being a champion of Chalabi. Rademaker joined Francis Brooke, Chalabi and me in the comfortably laid-out living room of the town house, where we discussed not arms control but regime change. I started off with the premise that the best way to achieve regime change in Iraq was to hold Saddam accountable for his requirement to disarm, and that the focus of our discussion should therefore be how to get the U.S. government to take more seriously the work of UNSCOM, and to put the weight of America behind such smoking-gun evidence as the VX nerve agent lab report from Aberdeen. Rademaker interjected at that point. “We agree. But we all know Saddam is cheating, and that his days are numbered. What we don’t have is a plan on what we are going to do once Saddam is out of office. Mr. Chalabi represents our best hopes in that regard, which is why we’re delighted that you and he are meeting like this.”
The discussion moved on to the matter of Singer’s Chalabi paper. In the kitchen, Chalabi’s driver had put on an apron and was busy putting together plates of appetizers and beginning preparations for dinner. I had spent the better part of the last three years investigating the inner workings of Saddam’s government, and how the Iraqi president shaped his internal domestic constituencies. “The premise of gaining support among the Kurds and Shi’a I can’t take issue with,” I said, “except to note that my experience with both groups is that neither represents a homogeneous movement that can be treated as a singular element. Things will be much more complicated than that. The key to me is what is missing here: any discussion of the Baath Party or the Sunni tribes. The Baath Party is the only vehicle that exists in Iraq today that unites Sunnis, Shi’a and Kurds alike. It makes modern Iraq function. How do you plan on dealing with the Baath Party in a post-Saddam environment? And what is your plan for winning over the Sunni tribes? How will you bring the tribes that represent the foundation of Saddam’s political support into the fold with your Kurdish and Shi’a supporters?”
Steve Rademaker and Francis Brooke stared blankly. Chalabi was grinning ear to ear. “We have a plan. First, we will do away completely with the Baath Party. Those minor members who were forced to join out of survival, of course, they will be allowed to retain their jobs. But anyone who profited from Baathist rule will be punished. As for the Sunni tribes, we are already in contact with their representatives. We feel that the best way to negotiate with them, however, is to make them realize that there is no future with Saddam. Once they realize that, they will come over to our side.” Chalabi’s “plan” struck me as simplistic at best, and entirely unrealistic.
“What about defeating Saddam’s military?” I asked as the hors d’oeuvres were laid out. “Not just the Iraqi army, but the security forces closest to Saddam, the Special Republican Guard and others?” Chalabi said a few words to Brooke, who got up and returned with a three-page paper entitled “The Military Plan.” Chalabi handed me the document. “This was written for me by Gen. Wayne Downing. I believe you know him from Operation Desert Storm.” Downing commanded U.S. commandos operating in western Iraq who were tasked with interdicting Iraqi Scud missile launches against Israel. I had participated in that effort.
Downing’s paper outlined a plan that had the U.S. military training and equipping a force of several thousand INC soldiers who would operate out of bases in western Iraq. These forces would be equipped with light vehicles armed with anti-tank missile launchers, which Downing believed would be more than a match for any armored force the Iraqis might muster. The plan postulated support from the local tribes in western Iraq, especially the al-Duleimi in and around Ramadi and Anbar. I thought this somewhat fanciful, since the al-Duleimi were among the tribes that provided manpower for some of Saddam’s most elite units. I said as much, but Chalabi dismissed my concerns with a flick of his wrist. “My people have already had discussions with the tribal leaders of the al-Duleimi, who are ready to join us once we get situated on the ground.”
Downing’s plan called for the presence of U.S. military advisers on the ground and U.S. warplanes overhead. “We don’t operate like that,” I said. “If we have forces on the ground, then we’ll need to have a base, with a base support element, and base security, and a quick-reaction force in case some of our boys get in trouble. The U.S. presence would have to be much greater than what you’re saying here.” Again, Chalabi smiled. “That may be so,” he said. “But we don’t have to highlight it at this time.” The “Downing Plan” was a nice bit of trickery, plotting what was ostensibly an Iraqi opposition military force with minor U.S. military involvement, but masking what was in reality a much larger U.S. military effort with a minor role played by Chalabi’s INC “army.”
There was a knock at the door, and Chalabi’s butler answered. In walked Rademaker’s wife, Danielle Pletka, accompanied by none other than James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA. They found seats around the table, and it became clear that this was where we would be eating. The discussion moved from the flawed military planning evident in Gen. Downing’s paper and onto the issue of Chalabi’s political future. Jim Woolsey was an unabashed supporter of Chalabi, something I found strange since Chalabi and the CIA were at odds over many aspects of the INC’s past operations. “This [criticism] is all bunk,” Woolsey said. “Chalabi is an Iraqi patriot and visionary who intimidates many lesser thinkers in Langley [CIA headquarters]. My friend Ahmed is a risk taker who understands the reality of Iraq, unlike the desk-bound analysts and risk-averse operators at the CIA. Chalabi scares these people, so they have created false accusations in order to denigrate him and ultimately destroy him.” Danielle Pletka chimed in. “We cannot allow this to happen. Ahmed Chalabi has many friends in Congress, and it is our goal to make sure Ahmed Chalabi gets the support he needs to not only survive as a viable opposition figure to Saddam Hussein but more importantly to prevail in Iraq.”
And so the night went. Dinner with Ahmed had turned into a political strategy session, the primary topic of interest being how to breathe new life and legitimacy into Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress so that a viable, and thus politically supportable, opposition to Saddam Hussein might be formed. According to Chalabi, this viable opposition already existed; all that was needed was funding and political support (not to mention military assistance in the form of advisers on the ground and fighter-bombers overhead). Personally, I doubted whether Chalabi could muster the forces he claimed inside Iraq. But my doubts were not shared by my dinner companions that evening, and as we sat afterward, sharing drinks and conversation, it was clear that Chalabi was being groomed for another run at power.
He had been embraced by the CIA in the early 1990s, only to be abandoned following halfhearted coup attempts the U.S. government failed to support, and accusations of financial mismanagement. But Trent Lott and the Republican Party were gunning for Bill Clinton and the Democrats, and they believed that with Iraq they had discovered a chink in Clinton’s armor. Chalabi was being resurrected before my eyes. They had picked their cause and selected their champion. Now all they needed was a springboard issue from which to launch their program. And that, apparently, was where I came in.
I rose early the next morning and went downstairs for breakfast before heading back to Capitol Hill and another round of meetings with senators that Pletka had arranged. Chalabi was already up, and we chatted a bit while I ate. “You see, Scott,” he said, “I have many friends here in Washington. With what you know about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, you can be of invaluable assistance to our cause. The VX story is but the tip of the iceberg.” I was taken aback, as I had not shared the VX lab report information with Chalabi. Clearly, one of our co-diners of the previous evening had spoken out of school. “Well, I am just a simple weapons inspector,” I replied. “In any event, it wouldn’t go over well back at the U.N. to have an UNSCOM inspector plotting regime change down in Washington, D.C.” I looked at Chalabi directly. “This is why you must be very discreet about the VX lab report. It simply won’t do for you to have your fingerprints on this information.”
Chalabi smiled and nodded. “I understand completely. As for your status as a weapons inspector, you must understand that those days are nearly gone. The inspection process has run its course. You need to think about what you are going to be doing in the future. I would like you to work for me.” I looked over at him. “How would that work? As an American citizen I can’t be working for you while planning the overthrow of Saddam. I believe there are laws against that.” Chalabi laughed. “Of course. You wouldn’t be working for me, but for the U.S. Senate. My friends would create an advisory position for you, and you would in turn advise me. It wouldn’t pay much upfront,” he said. “But don’t worry. One day I will be the president of Iraq, and will be in control of Iraq’s oil. When that day comes, I will not forget those who helped me in my time of need. Let’s just say that my friends will be given certain oil concessions that will make them very wealthy.” I remained silent.
Chalabi’s butler drove me to the Senate office buildings, where I met up with Pletka. She escorted me to the office of Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. He had been fully briefed on the VX story. He was also interested in my description of how the Clinton administration was balking at fully supporting the work of the UNSCOM inspectors. “This will not stand,” he said when I was finished. “Believe me when I say you and your colleagues have friends here in the U.S. Senate who will make sure America honors its commitments and obligations, especially when it comes to disarming a cruel tyrant such as Saddam Hussein.”
Afterward, Pletka and I met with her husband, Steve Rademaker, in the Senate office building cafeteria. Rademaker had been hard at work briefing influential congressmen, especially Ben Gillman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, about the VX lab report. “We’ve got their attention,” Rademaker said, “and I think you’ll find that serious pressure will be brought on the Clinton administration to better support your work.” Pletka then took me back to where I had started, the office of Randy Scheunemann. Once again I was ushered in to see Sen. Lott, who thanked me for my service. “This is very important, and we’re very glad you brought the lab report to our attention. Be assured that this matter will be handled with the utmost discretion.” As I got up to leave, Scheunemann brought up the issue of future collaboration. I said that my being a weapons inspector made such collaboration difficult. Lott intervened. “Well, maybe we can find a way to bring you down here working for us. That might be the most useful thing to do.” Chalabi’s schemes seemed to have some substance behind them.
Armed with that potential job offer, I left Washington and returned to New York. Richard Butler was due back at the U.N., where he was planning to announce a “major breakthrough” regarding Iraq’s approach to disarmament. There was to be no mention of the specific details of the VX lab report findings, although Butler had alluded to their existence, and the Iraqi rejection of these findings. Butler was to make a presentation to the Security Council on June 25th. However, my visit to Washington produced results that dramatically altered his planned presentation.
On June 23rd, The Washington Post published a front-page story headlined “Tests Show Nerve Gas Agent in Iraqi Weapons.” The article made the main gist of the Aberdeen lab results public. It also reported on the political work undertaken by Lott and the Republicans based on that information. According to the Post story, “The new indications of Iraqi deception also are likely to reverberate in U.S. politics, where conservative Republicans are increasingly critical of what they see as a failure by the Clinton administration to support strongly either aggressive UNSCOM inspections for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or efforts to overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.”
Senate Majority Leader Lott was quoted in the article as being “deeply disturbed” by reports that the administration had not acted on the VX information. “The latest example of a failed policy toward Iraq will not be swept under the rug,” the Post quoted him as saying. I was just about to conclude that my visit had been a tremendous success when I caught a line in the middle of the article. “The Washington Post obtained a copy of the U.S. Army lab report from officials of the Iraqi National Congress, the principal Iraqi exile opposition group.” After watching the Republicans build up Chalabi, I should have known that they could not have passed up this opportunity to interject his name into the limelight. “This is a smoking gun,” Chalabi said to The Washington Post. “It shows that Saddam is still lying, and that this whole arrangement based on his turning his weapons of terror over to the United Nations is not workable.” The Post then quoted a “Republican Senate source” who echoed Chalabi’s concern: “This report means that they have VX out there now, and can use it. They have lied from the start.”
Today, in the aftermath of the American invasion of Iraq, I think back on my visit to Washington and my dinner with Ahmed Chalabi and his friends. The ramifications of that visit were many.
Butler’s report to the Security Council, delivered in late June of 1998, was dramatically revamped in order to take into account the need to discuss the VX findings. The “major breakthrough” in disarmament work with the Iraqis was, as a matter of course, pushed to the sidelines. The Clinton administration, caught off guard, had to come out with public statements proclaiming its support for the work of UNSCOM at a time when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger were lobbying hard behind closed doors for the U.S. to pull back from blanket support of the inspection process.
The Republicans, led by Lott, had a new cause around which to rally in their effort to confront the Democrats: the failure of disarmament and the need to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Randy Scheunemann used the impetus created by the VX nerve agent scandal to draft legislation, the so-called Iraq Liberation Act, which was passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate in October 1998. This legislation solidified regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States, and certified Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress as the American choice for replacing Saddam. The Chalabi machine was on a roll, and was not to be stopped until the overthrow of Saddam in April 2003.
Ahmed Chalabi remains a controversial figure today. The U.S. case for war with Iraq was built around the notion of Iraq retaining stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Much of the case was built around so-called intelligence provided by Chalabi’s INC. All of this intelligence proved flawed. Chalabi and the INC have been singled out as the scapegoats for this failure, accused of deliberately misrepresenting data and even fabricating intelligence reports to shore up the U.S. government claim that Iraq did indeed possess proscribed weapons.
As for the Aberdeen VX lab report, the Iraqi government in the end had been telling the truth. It had not succeeded in stabilizing VX nerve agent, and it had never filled any weapons with the agent. Far from representing “incontrovertible evidence” of Iraqi duplicity, the Aberdeen lab results were flawed. Even under ideal circumstances, laboratory analysis conducted at approved facilities operating under strict protocols established in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention had an incredibly high rate of misidentification, and this occurred in known test samples. Detection of a specific chemical agent simply wasn’t a slam-dunk proposition. The Aberdeen samples were taken from metal fragments that had been subjected to explosive demolition and buried in the ground for many years. Subsequent retesting done by French and Swiss labs proved inconclusive. In the end, I was wrong to have pushed so hard to have the lab results made public.
Chalabi’s bid for the leadership of post-Saddam Iraq has stalled, but not stopped. In the aftermath of the Jan. 30, 2005, elections in Iraq, a new Iraqi government was formed, and Chalabi emerged as deputy prime minister responsible for energy policy. In this role, he was given interim responsibility for overseeing the Iraqi Ministry of Oil in April-May 2005 and December 2005-January 2006, which meant he had control over Iraq’s vast economic resources. Chalabi had told me that this had always been his goal. He also told me that he would use his access to Iraq’s riches to “take care” of those of his friends who had supported his rise to power.
Exploiting Iraq’s oil resources for his own benefit has always been a Chalabi goal. Prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Chalabi took a leading role in planning how the Iraqi oil sector would be managed in post-Saddam Iraq. He chaired a meeting of oil executives at London’s prestigious Royal Institute of International Affairs, the title of which was “Invading Iraq: Dangers and Opportunities for the Energy Sector.” Chalabi also took a leading role in advising the State Department’s Oil and Energy Working Group; in a conference of the group held in December 2002 he pushed for using a revitalized Iraqi oil industry to pay for the cost of the U.S. invasion (former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz relied heavily on Chalabi’s input when he testified to the U.S. Congress that Iraqi oil would more than offset the cost of invading Iraq). Chalabi argued that the best way forward for Iraq’s oil industry was to privatize as quickly as possible, and seek to free it of OPEC-imposed production quotas. Many of Chalabi’s policy positions are reflected in the stalled National Oil Law of Iraq, still pending ratification by the Iraqi parliament.
Chalabi no longer sits as Iraq’s oil czar. In the twists of fortune that mark the instability inherent in the disastrous American occupation of Iraq, Chalabi was compelled to step aside from the Oil Ministry in January 2006, replaced by former nuclear weapons scientist Hussein al-Shahristani. Chalabi’s political aspirations had fallen short in Iraq’s national elections, with his party failing to win even one seat in the Iraqi parliament. Down but not out, Chalabi continues to this day to operate on the fringes of Iraqi politics. In the fall of 2007 he was appointed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to be the chair of a so-called services committee, helping coordinate the provision of health care, electricity, education and other governmental services to Baghdad neighborhoods in coordination with the American military “surge.” Chalabi’s link to the ongoing “surge” is no accident, since it maintains the connection between him and those in the neoconservative establishment in American politics who have consistently advocated for him in any post-Saddam Iraq.
One of the most visible, and vocal, of these advocates was Randy Scheunemann, the former national security adviser to Trent Lott, who left his job as a Senate staffer. In 2000 he served as the foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain’s unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination. In 2001 he served a short stint as a consultant to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In November 2002, Scheunemann helped form a political advocacy group known as the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, whose membership included McCain, who was an honorary co-chair. With Scheunemann guiding him, McCain said in 2003 that Ahmed Chalabi was “a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.” Scheunemann is a key figure behind McCain’s unabashed support for staying the course in Iraq, and helped shape the “surge” strategy currently being pursued in Iraq. Today, once again, he serves as a senior foreign policy adviser to a McCain presidential campaign.
Danielle Pletka left her job with the Senate to take a position as vice president of the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, where she continues to be a vocal and unapologetic advocate of Ahmed Chalabi. In 2006, Pletka helped form AEI’s Iraq Planning Group, which authored a report released in January 2007 that advocated surging 50,000 troops into Iraq as a remedy to the ongoing impasse. This report took precedence over the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group findings, which articulated a more nuanced approach inclusive of diplomacy and reduction of forces in Iraq. She is an avid supporter of Sen. McCain’s presidential aspirations. Pletka’s husband, Stephen Rademaker, served in the Bush administration as an assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation and disarmament issues before leaving in 2006 to join the high-profile Washington, D.C., lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, where he actively operates in support of undermining the current Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki and advocating for Iraqi Kurdish oil autonomy. Another Pletka associate, former CIA Director James Woolsey, has been the pro bono counsel for Chalabi over the years. Woolsey, who openly advocated for the invasion of Iraq prior to March 2003, today is an adviser to McCain’s election campaign, with a primary focus on oil security policy.
Ahmed Chalabi no longer directly controls Iraq’s oil. But at one time he did, and it will be interesting to see how he chose to distribute this largess to his friends and allies. Even more interesting will be how Chalabi leveraged his control of Iraq’s economic wealth to support his continuing claim to the ultimate position of power in Iraq. With the Shiite fundamentalists in Baghdad stumbling in their effort to form a stable government, and with the U.S. balking at Maliki’s theocratic tendencies, rest assured there are many in Washington who continue to look upon Chalabi as the go-to guy to bring secular stability to Iraq. Whether he can accomplish this task is questionable. But, in the meantime, Chalabi is in a position to write many checks, a factor that today makes him so attractive to so many, especially those in the neoconservative establishment with whom he has maintained a relationship over time. Just how attractive will be determined once there is a better understanding of when, and to whom, Chalabi writes his checks, or, more important, who is writing the checks on his behalf.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).
© 2008 TruthDig.com
Great info Scott,
How ironic that Chalabi was using you to claim the false info that You said to him about “You don’t want your fingerprints on this” info when that is exactly what he wanted… (Both your fingerprints) He had your endorsement of the lie and now he had you cautioning him about what he wanted.
The CIA was running rings around you and using you at every meeting you had.
This is a great confession of how Wars are Really Done!
Great Scott Intell!
Thanks Jim
Great story Scott. I wonder though, if Chalabi was at the Cheney secret energy task force meetings in 2001. Surely he was, because from that week forward, to 911, to March 20th 2003, this master con has been duping his naive American supporters, and the American people have paid dearly in blood and treasure for his ambitions.
The invaluable Mr. Ritter,
Once again raising the blinds. In this instance, on a unique window into the astonishing and convoluted machinery of U.S. foreign policy, and the Republican modus operandi. A rare and enlightening view.
Thanks isn’t enough for your clear voice and courage. Profound Gratitude comes closer.
bless you, sir
egon fawlkner
“In the end, I was wrong to have pushed so hard to have the lab results made public.”
Thank you for that apology, Scott Ritter. It is such a rare thing to hear from anybody in establishment circles.
Also, thanks for reminding folks how Clinton officials — Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright — were up to their teeth in trying to figure out ways to avoid any responsibilty for the whole horror.
That’s what the Clintons do: create horrors and then deny their involvement when they yield bad PR.
I hope you take that piece and others that you know about to the Obama campaign and frame it in ways that they can use.
I remember seeing Judith Miller on Charlie Rose talking about what a fabulous host Challabi was and such a brilliant man and sparkling conversationalist.
I recall thinking that he somehow played into her vanity as this story seems to confirm. Judy Miller, girl guide, was going to play a part in the LIBERATION of Iraq and have a middle eastern head of state indebted to HER.
It’s amazing how effective Challabi’s 10-15 years of self-promotion was — no? — and he’s still a player.
I also recall footage of him, early in the invasions. He had entered Iraq with some of “his men” and had called this particular — otherwise content-free — photo op, in which he looked for all the world like a cossetted university don, always the dandy, putting on far-from-convincing military airs.
Great and important story in so many ways! Thanks again Scott.
This is the way in which the republican party operates.
With Blinders bigger than the empire state building, they sit in small rooms, with a variety of dead animals laid before them, and make deals.
It is only about themselves and what they see.
Reality can go fuck itself
“Reality can go fuck itself”
That is the motto of the Republican party. The Democrats too when you really come to think about it.
The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’”
Who’s cutting the checks - the US Taxpayer, that’s who!
A very great, detailed and honest article again by Scott Ritter. Thank you for cementing these details to history. The biggest problem with Chalabi now, is the same as with the neocons. He simply hasn’t gone away yet and still has the potential to cause a massive amount of trouble. The price of blood and treasure that the US has paid is massive and caused by a handful of greedy, nut cases.
jesus scott
i can’t even imagine living between your ears
my hat’s off to ya
Couldn’t we ‘render’ Ahmed into Jordan and have him silly-tickled until he confesses to those bank fraud charges, then he could pull 10,000 hours of duty cleaning toilets in Iraqi refuge camps for a tip of the iceberg partial karmic payoff?
Problem is that this article is about history. This is 2008. The nuking of Iran is on the table. So is WW3. George is still acting like an Emperor. Cheney and Crew are still pulling his strings.
We need to concentrate on stopping the slide towards disaster.
Don’t we?
www.dangerouscreation.com
Scott, Scott…
I think you’re missing a key piece of the puzzle. Shhh… (Whispered) You really, really need to take a look at Mike Ruppert’s work.
As usual I enjoy your insight into the backroom politics of D.C. I know you were a ‘Republican’ at one tome, but you make the distinction between regular Republicans and the neo-conservatives. By this point in time though you must be fully convinced that Washington is directed by an amalgamation of ignorant, manipulative special interest types hell bent on making as much cash as possible & using the U.S. military to achieve these ends. So have you now thoroughly rejected these pathetic bureaucrats (Republicans and to a lesser extent Democrats as well) all together? Surely the words of Ralph Nader must ring truer to your ears than ever before while the Hillary, Obama and McCain rhetoric must seem as stale as ever?
I, (an ex-marine) like yourself, have been used as a pawn to advance a corporate agenda under the guise of ‘democracy and justice for all’.
Scott “ventured out of the shadows”, but this print reads of spooks and night time politics. The full spectrum of the bizarre.
Chalabi swaggers like Mafioso, big-oil employee and CIA operative all rolled into one. The powerful and their “check writing” have relentlessly savaged Iraq, intensely in recent years.
It’s hardly fair, considering the cost of their amateurish lethal blunders. A better Democracy can be had, one that permits pigs at the American Enterprise Institute to squeal and grovel at the trough of wealth and power, but also permanently removes their lust and ability for brutality and violence of any kind.
PowerOfLove: Agreed - 1,000%.
Mike Ruppert has tied it all together - how ALL of the DCIs (Directors of Central Intelligence - #1 spook of the CIA) have come from Wall Street; how international corporations, including the oil companies and the MIC, launder trillions in drug money through the world banking system (which is why the Fed will spend hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to keep the system from falling apart), JFK, 9-11, and every other shock the rich-filth have perpetuated on the general populace for their own power/wealth grab.
I can’t imagine any poster here not knowing about Mike’s work. But if you don’t, check it out.
Scott,
Thank you again for your expertise and humanity. That is becoming a rare combination.
If you read this, please tell me what you can about the “Swiftboating” of your person a few months before the invasion began (Fall 2002). I remember using your facts and quotes as sources in front of a group and being pounced on by the thought police for mentioning your name. What the hell was that all about?
Did you ever find out who was behind it?
email: andrew.herman@neomin.org
Peace.
This was not just a precursor to the Iraq Libertion Act (October 1998) but to the massively destructive operation Desert Fox (December 1998) that used several times more cruise missiles than had been used in the 1991 war on Iraq. By this time, Butler had said that the inspectors’ job was 95 % done.
Money rules.
In her post above, Susan Parker wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“I also recall footage of him [Chalabi] early in the invasions. He had entered Iraq with some of “his men” and had called this particular — otherwise content-free — photo op, in which he looked for all the world like a cossetted university don, always the dandy, putting on far-from-convincing military airs.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I believe my wife and I saw the same footage on PBS Frontline [was it the ‘Truth, War, and Consequences’ episode aired Oct 2003?]. After watching awhile I said: “Chalabi reminds me of someone…” and she said “Yeah, me too, but I can’t put my finger on it.”
Suddenly, at the same moment, we looked at each other and said in unison “Jon Lovitz!!” and fell out laughing. Jon Lovitz’ “Pathological Liar” character from Saturday Night Live is THE perfect match for Chalabi’s shifty brand of self-important, smarmy charm.
We could just hear him explaining to the Americans… “Yeah, yeah, that’s right! There’s PLENNNTY of WMD’s around Baghdad… Suuure… the place is LOUSY with ‘em…! You take out Sadaam and capture the weapons… you’ll be welcomed as heros and… and… saaayyy… they’ll make ME their leader…! Yeah, THAT’s the ticket!!”
Now we fantasize about someone making a serious film (in the style of, say, Syriana) about the run up to the war but casting Lovitz as Chalabi. Thing is, I don’t know which I find more surreal: the actual Chalabi? Or the idea of Jon Lovitz playing him in a drama?
“One day I will be the president of Iraq, and will be in control of Iraq’s oil. When that day comes, I will not forget those who helped me in my time of need. Let’s just say that my friends will be given certain oil concessions that will make them very wealthy.”
I bet Saddam said exactly the same thing when the CIA installed HIM.
Mahalo, Scott. Yours continues to be the most important voice in the U.S. when it comes to understanding how the Neo-Cons and Republicans engineered the Iraq invasion. Sen. Clinton continues to be savaged for a vote that would not have changed a thing had she not cast it, but could have been used to end her career as New York Senator as Senator Max Cleland’s was ended. Meanwhile, the truly nefarious actions of John McCain are never discussed, and the Swiftboating of Obama begins with a vengeance. Keep the truth coming, Brother Ritter. The truth may yet bring freedom, to Iraq’s masses, at least.
Scott has his own system of WMD’s….
….words masterfully deliberated.
Amen, cranky.
I WONDER IF SCOTT RITTER would be ALIVE today had these U.S. neocon. criminals known he was going to disclose this, imo, extremely incriminating testimony, especially publicly. It’s surely ‘too late’ for them to try something like this now, but what would they have resorted to trying to do if they had known beforehand? I wonder, and I suspect either assassination or else an attempt.
After all, THERE ARE NO STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS on prosecuting war crimes, and that’s what this whole article is about, with plenty of names of these criminals right out in full public view. Getting these criminals prosecuted is a major hurdle, but that this article is strongly fitting testimony for such prosecutions, I have no doubt about.
” jjpeter March 18th, 2008 1:10 pm
… I wonder though, if Chalabi was at the Cheney secret energy task force meetings in 2001. Surely he was, because from that week forward, to 911, to March 20th 2003, this master con has been duping his naive American supporters, and the American people have paid dearly in blood and treasure for his ambitions.”
NAIVE AMERICAN SUPPORTERS, who are you talking about; not these criminals clearly identified in this excellent article and testimony, right? If they’re who are meant, then naive … definitely NOT; they fully knew what they were doing!
” egon329 March 18th, 2008 1:18 pm
The invaluable Mr. Ritter,
Once again raising the blinds. …”
I’D USE STRONGER WORDING, like, f.e., that this has to be the most critically important article on the run-up phase for war on Iraq and regime change there that’s been published over all of these years; if not ‘the’, then among the few of the very most critically important. It’s the impression that I get from what Ritter has hereby disclosed anyway.
It was not necessary, at all, for opposing war on Iraq, which was quite obviously never going to be justifiable; but we definitely need these types of testimonies, particularly with several of the top U.S. criminals involved being clearly identified, in terms of both names, as well as the roles each played back in 1998, and since.
They’re not the sole ones to be top-guilty, but know about these certainly is critically important; even if they worked for superiors.
” tj March 18th, 2008 1:36 pm
“In the end, I was wrong to have pushed so hard to have the lab results made public.”
Thank you for that apology, Scott Ritter. …”
SURE, SURE, SURE, Ritter apologizes, but I disregard this and focus on the rest. After all, Scott has ALWAYS and publicly opposed war on Iraq, throughout, thoroughly, constantly; he said right from the start that the WMD claim of the Bush administration was BS, denounced it right away. That he didn’t lay out all of these details was therefore not a wrong on his part; not as I see this anyway. So I don’t perceive him needing to apologise.
I just wouldn’t want this to be used for supporting Billary for the next U.S. presidency, for while the article paints her husband’s administration in what I consider the best light that I’ve seen, that administration still was war criminal for war of aggression on Kosovo, and was and remains guilty of genocide in Iraq and due to the economic sanctions; in addition to having sold out employment in the U.S. for U.S. citizens to U.S. corporations committing economic treason, which [is] a real form of treason, by their importation unnecessary, only replacement foreign “temps”, across various sectors of the U.S. economy or job market. And we can add NAFTA and more.
I’m glad to read that that administration was nonetheless siding with the UNSCOM weapons inspections, instead of doggedly seeking regime change in Iraq, etc. It’s about the only good thing that can be said of that administration; and Billary sided with all of this, and continues to side with it all, as well as with continued war against peace in Iraq, and other crimes of extreme scale, such as siding with the Israeli govt.
Obama is guilty of the latter two matters, so far, but there’s evidently greater hope if he’s elected in Nov. and voters then and energetically work on leading him in the right direction(s).
The upcoming elections in Nov. definitely came to mind while reading this article. And if Ritter at all is using the article for this purpose, to implicitly promote Billary for president, then it should be stated frankly, by simply saying as much.
Besides for that little thought, the article strikes me as very incriminating testimony, and as useful to know about in terms of “watching” events in Iraq.
Now, when are the new Nuremberg Trials going to happen? Going after these criminals he’s well identified might be fruitful in terms of exposing more; possibly much or many more. Many in relative terms, anyway.
OR am I misperceiving the value of this article? I don’t think to be, but perhaps there’s something I’m overlooking.
Having worked, however briefly, in advertising, I am struck by the similarity of approach to foreign policy this article indicates.
First identify a desired goal or result, then lay out a careful plan to achieve the desired result. It was my impression that we met honest need with honest effort, silly me.
Are we such a gullible people that we can be manipulated so easily?
” susan parker March 18th, 2008 1:39 pm
…
It’s amazing how effective Challabi’s 10-15 years of self-promotion was — no? — and he’s still a player.”
I’D BE CAREFUL about saying things like that, for it can mislead naive people into believing that Chalabi possibly misled these RP criminals and the U.S. CIA’s former director, etc. He did not fool them, and he would not have been allowed to freely rule in Iraq, had or should he ever become Iraqi President. Should that happen and he “steps on the wrong toes” the wrong way in the U.S. elite circle, then bye-bye Chalabi, like the U.S. covertly does with others diabolically used around the world.
He thinks en masse for himself, surely, but I believe he’s also another U.S. elites’ puppet. They would not allow themselves to be replaced by him, but can sure work it all out so that it looks like he’s a real leader.
He was part of the discretion, but he’d be very exposed once achieving Iraqi presidency. Meanwhile, and as this testimony by Scott Ritter illustrates an example of, the top elites operate even more discreetly and from behind closed doors. If he became president, then their relationship with him and past would stay hidden; they’d at most only appear as supporters and/or promoters using words that wouldn’t expose more than simply foreign political support.
Surely; or so I believe for now anyway.
” lwhunt330 March 18th, 2008 3:00 pm
… The biggest problem with Chalabi now, is the same as with the neocons. He simply hasn’t gone away yet and still has the potential to cause a massive amount of trouble.”
ONLY IN TERMS OF WHAT HE’D BE [PERMITTED] TO DO. If he crosses that line, then axe will fall on him too.
” PowerofLove March 18th, 2008 4:35 pm
Scott, Scott…
I think you’re missing a key piece of the puzzle. Shhh… (Whispered) You really, really need to take a look at Mike Ruppert’s work.”
I THINK MIKE Ruppert’s work is of value to learn about and from, but Scott Ritter’s not pretending to be God, either; and what he’s hereby provided in Nuremberg Trials-scale testimony.
And there are NO statutes of limitations when it comes to war crimes, which is what the whole article is really about, imo.
He’s presenting first-hand knowledge. Is Mike Ruppert’s information so Godly perfect that it renders Ritter’s testimony worthless? I DO NOT THINK SO.
As usual, Scott, your opaqueness and motives (as with every piece you write) are ‘convoluted’. What arose requiring this-nonsense? Someone was coming-forward regards your stay with Chalabi or dealings ‘leaking’ around Butler with Scheunemann?
Answer this. What POSSIBLE ‘relevance’ do ‘lies’ about VX-stabilization have to do with Iraq, our war-there, or ‘dealings’ with our CIA-stooge, Saddam? As an Inspector (and one with access to the Intel from Saddam’s ‘defecting-relative’) you WELL knew that regardless how well Saddam’s defense-experts succeeded with VX, it was a ‘moot point’, since after the early-90’s ALL this crap was eliminated and done-away with.
Besides, how many TONS of VX does the US stockpile, sink in our coastal-oceans, or ‘effectively-militarize’ on an on-going basis?
‘Why’ was any “past-success” on Iraqi’s part of Interest to you at-all? This stooge, who had earlier “killed his own(sic) people” by gassing Kurds/Iranians (with fresh-agents supplied for this express-purpose by OUR US Defense-contacts like Rummy/Cheney — who ALSO provided similar to the Iranians!) as encouraged-to by the US, had NO “WMD’s” [Period] after 1993.
You well-knew this Fact.
And yet, you felt the ‘need’ to confuse the American-public by ‘leaking’ this “non-News Item” about VX? Saddam wasn’t “cheating” — he was being ‘cheated-upon’ (as he was re: Kuwait, by Bush-I).
Again…”why”? [I well-know Chalabi’s motivations — but what were YOURS, and why do they continue into Today’s articles?]
Also, you well-know that Bill (the Rhodes/Oxford-trained neo-Lib, who has never been “caught off-guard” in his life) was literally “straining at the bit” to rush-into-Iraq [as per PNAC], but had to satisfy himself with the Caspian/Balkan/Euro-”Northern Pincer” and Gameplan by playing with our ‘CIA-creatures’ in Kosovo/Somalia, and himself only ably “laying up the ball” for Bush to ’spike it into the ME/Iraq’ [just as Bush-II has to ‘lay-it-up’ for Clinton’s ‘better-half to spike-it’ — elsewhere, here, and shortly].
This ‘right wing’ you discuss is FAR more ‘transparent’ and straightforward than the Interests you seem to represent of-late, Scott. And, far more ‘trustworthy’. And, the only real ‘following’ Chalabi had within-Iraq were those wanting to arrest him for ‘crimes, elsewhere’… And every-effort was made to alienate (not ‘include’, and for Cause) Sunni’s — who obviously would not readily-relinquish the many-Advantages granted them since all British Colonial-favoritism, and the simultaneous ‘Fundy-baiting’ of the Shite-majority — all Planned/foreseen before 9/11. [Could anyone care-less about ‘legitimizing’ the INC/Chalabi — post-Invasion — not Woolsey, surely?]
You weren’t really “dabbling in regime-change” then, but you are certainly ‘dabbling in something’, and since — aren’t you?
The Kurds have been abused-enough (being the largest/most-diverse ‘homeless-peoples’ on the planet, and long-suffering for it), and for quite long-enough, now, and by all-Party’s exploitive — as you, and even the ‘crypto-Turks’, should agree by-now (and, re: the Armenians&Lebanese/Syrians, as-well).
When is ‘enough enough’?
Anyway, didn’t you seek/have sufficient Involvement&Limelight in the past Decade to “satisfy you” for a lifetime? After all, Kissinger&Assoc have a ‘lock’ on their-positions/”think-tanks”, Scott… You’ll just be ‘used, and discarded’ — like so-many others (ask North?).
I think American-politics and its People could do with some ‘less-wedges’/divisional-tactics, and maybe welcome more ‘Unity’&shared-Interests — which would incidentally Honor some old-Oaths and Allegiances of yours, would it not?
MeAlsoToo_ARealist: (and a redundant one at that)
What does VX have to do with the War? Let’s see, the main selling point of the war to the American people was our fear of WMD and since VX is a powerful and scary WMD, then lying to the people about Saddam’s VX is basically lying to get us into a war. That is a heinous war crime.
Also, because it worked so well in 1998 to get a resolution of regime change in Iraq through congress, these bastards just did it again with Iran. They purposely and maliciously mistranslated Ahmadinejad’s quote about wanting nuclear weapons so that he could “wipe Israel off the map.” Again, congress passed a resolution calling for UN condemnation against Iran (regime change). Here we go again.
Lying is bad, even if you lie for peace (Michael Moore),but how much worse is lying to start a war? That’s just plain evil disregard for humanity.
This column took a lot of courage to write. I think all of us can look back and realize, at some point, that we’ve been used by someone. It’s never much of a proud moment. But if we don’t examine them we are certainly doomed to repeat them.
I think that the US has a right and yes even an obligation to be a “player” on the world stage. We are a world citizen. I think Mr. Ritter understands that sometimes time is an ally in figuring out what exactly is truth or at least accurate information. But I think the US oversteps any obligations it has when it is parlaying with a guy who is little more than a known charlatan (Chalabi). Doesn’t anyone ever ask, “Why are we in bed with THIS person?”
But don’t mistake the final message of this courageous column. The king-makers are now all on the McCain bench. Is McCain in his old age just going to be the “new stooge” seeking redemption for Vietnam in his own mind but the most easily manipulated candidate to the king-makers? Geez, didn’t we learn one darn thing from the Bush fiasco? Are we going to do it again, for longer?
Coincidentally, I’ve just watched a blurb about Greg Palast and how he believes that the fix is in for 2008. He’s persuasive. It would seem the forecast is for more of the same and I cannot even understand how that can be but it seems it will be.
The war and now occupation of Iraq:
Removing UN weapons inspectors while bringing in terrorists.
Heckuva job Georgie!
a.h…
You missed my Point, entirely (and Scott’s, as-well).
All wars are based on ‘lies’ — and “yes”, that’s a ‘bad no-no’.
I wanted to know why Mr. Ritter even thought it “Relevant” that Saddam had weaponized-VX in the past (as he most-probably never did — but that’s indeed ‘besides my point’) — considering that Mr. Ritter well-knew, while undermining these so-called ‘diplomatic-efforts’, that Saddam had absolutely ceased ALL ‘WMD’ efforts by the early-90’s — and many-years before Scott felt ‘the public had to know about once-upon-a-time-VX-that-wasn’t — and at that critical-juncture’.
It simply wasn’t “Relevant” for ANY practical/real-Purposes…
Cheney/Rummy KNEW (beyond all/any doubts) that Saddam had once had ‘WMD’ — after all, they probably still had the ‘Bills of Lading’ [we had sent him material for poison-gas/bio-toxins (with a limited shelf-life) under the Reagan-regime — when Saddam was more ‘Useful’].
But, ALL that nonsense was ‘long-gone’ while/when the Inspectors were searching (as Mr. Ritter and the CIA were perfectly knowledgeable-of — and as Chalabi also knew, AND ‘Curveball’ — and, anyone-else both Literate and Interested at-the-time).
Mr. Ritter confesses here to an ‘end-run’ around all proper-channels — without ANY notion of ‘why’ — yet lays blame (much ‘deserved’, btw) upon Lott and minions, and Chalabi/Woolsey. As an Inspector himself, Ritter ’should’/could have shown some restraint and prudence (not to mention observing ‘Non-Disclosure’ and Orders).
I’m all for supporting varied whistle-blowers IF/WHEN something ‘relevant’ comes to public-notice/Benefit, but the confusion created by this apparently-BS “antiquated VX-disclosure” helped the ‘wrong process’, as well-described…
Backing ‘Dems’ today, who can “do Iraq better” (like Kerry claimed he-would) is not necessary ‘THE Answer’ to help the involved/Real American-interests — albeit that doing so may help certain ‘International-Interests’ that are pretty-much calling most shots, here&now — as Then… Scott can help his stated-Causes (and often-does), due to his unique Exposure/experiences. But, ‘politicking against-neos’, without any nod to ‘the economic-Interests at play’ (on a fully bi-partisan basis) does little to ‘help anyone’ — American or Iraqi.
” andrew.herman March 19th, 2008 10:26 am
MeAlsoToo_ARealist: (and a redundant one at that)”
And “MeAlsoToo_ARealist March 19th, 2008 5:08 pm” makes him A RELENTLESSLY “REDUNDANT ONE AT THAT”.
There’s evidently no point in trying to get SENSE through to MAT.
Ever try having a discussion with bricks? You don’t get far, but sure can be much less frustrating.
why did he take the lab values so seriously ?
what a schmuck
way to much self interest in playing power games, my diagnosis
I never did trust Chalabi. My instincts were right as usual. It sounds like Scott unwittingly helped the cause of those clamoring for war. I wish he would have related this information back then to counter the claims of Lott and other war mongers.
Ah Scott
You total DICKHEAD! You thought it would be the right thing to share the VX information with “the public” for the “common good” and took the information straight to the Neocons, who sure did give it to the public for their version of the “common good”. But hey! If Saddam could weaponise VX than that was pretty damn god-awful for the security of Israel, wasn’t it, cos that what this is all about. This is your “confession”, No? Never mind, the problem is bigger than all of us. Israel is trapped forever by the abuses that were necessary to form it and defend it. I’m not even accusing them of anything, just noting that forceful displacement and occupation will like an ineviatable chemical reaction, always generate resentment and REACTION. The occupation of Iraq is guaranteed to end badly for everyone! There must be millions of Saddam wannabes breeding up to knifing age right now! Yehaw yankies! Lets set Iraq back a couple of hundred years and just wait for a market lead cultural city on the hill to form! Sometime in the next millenium!
Has it never occured to your whole class of smart ass pro-consuls and your world changing conversations over dinner, that a country might only be changed for the better by people seriously willing to live and give their (productive work) lives to improving the place.
The hubris is so phenomenal it looks like the “states” really does need New York city to get microwaved to knock some sense into “youall” that people lives and futures are not some damned big monopoly game where one pack of presumptuous players gets to enjoy while everyone else just suffers it!
How can it be that a “war on terror”, can become the actual thing that creates the terror it proposes to fight? and “good guys” like you, help the “bad guys” with exactly what they need? Its because you DONT actually care! Its all a game about your own careers and reputations! if you cared you would have been teaching English in some dead-end kindergarten somewhere in Mosul! You’d be doing something useful rather than grand-standing with all the other windbags who like to talk about world changing BULLSHIT and have dinner with other hot air big shots!
Those are the parties that need a cruise missile dropped on them!
World Power! Puke!
And now why scrape about sorrowfully like you want to still be a famous big shot who redeemed himself! Hey Scott none of your windbags friends even really give a damn about anything except what the other masters of the universe think about them, just like you! So you may as well just go surfing!
Its not your fault! Its the culture! Try another one!
Since the Aberdeen lab analysis was subsequently found to be inaccurate, was it a fabrication in the first place?
earthbound
Wondered when someone would suggest this possibility.
I am puzzled by something,
“One hundred percent, they said. The lab results had discovered incontrovertible proof of the existence of specific chemicals on the warhead fragments, which could be explained only as the result of the degradation over time of VX stabilizer.”
Then later in the article, Scott explains to us how difficult it is to do accurate testing.
“Far from representing “incontrovertible evidence” of Iraqi duplicity, the Aberdeen lab results were flawed. Even under ideal circumstances, laboratory analysis conducted at approved facilities operating under strict protocols established in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention had an incredibly high rate of misidentification, and this occurred in known test samples. Detection of a specific chemical agent simply wasn’t a slam-dunk proposition. The Aberdeen samples were taken from metal fragments that had been subjected to explosive demolition and buried in the ground for many years. Subsequent retesting done by French and Swiss labs proved inconclusive.”
So, the first claim was a lie?
What is a Weapons Expert? Someone that digs holes or someone that understands the value and worth of “evidence”
Great Scott!!
You write: “The Aberdeen samples were taken from metal fragments that had been subjected to explosive demolition and buried in the ground for many years. Subsequent retesting done by French and Swiss labs proved inconclusive. In the end, I was wrong to have pushed so hard to have the lab results made public.”
So the long and the short of it is that you were instrumental in carrying disclosing unreliable laboratory conclusions, against the interests of the UN and your bosses, divulging them to political interests who were planning acts of terrorism and conspiring aggression against a sovereign state on who’s cooperation your mission depended.
As you said to Chalabi. “Well, I am just a simple weapons inspector,” and then went on to clarify, not that you didn’t know that you were in a den of conspirators who were working against the interest of your employer organization. “In any event, it wouldn’t go over well back at the U.N. to have an UNSCOM inspector plotting regime change down in Washington, D.C.” No truer word was written in this article.
I’m glad you worked for Butler rather than me. I don’t know if I would just have had you fired or handed you over to Hussein’s people to have you shot for being one of the spies they always said UNSCOM was made up of. In fact it would be interesting to get your “full” clarification in this respect of your statement: “I was scheduled to fly down to Washington to meet with the CIA about ongoing intelligence support programs then underway.” So, were your inspections also providing pre-war intelligence to the CIA exactly as Hussein said?
It seems Saddam Hussein, was regularly telling the truth, about his WMD and efforts to cooperate to eliminate sanctions while the US was regularly lying and plotting “regime change”, with a convicted fraudster who was already calculating on getting his filthy hands on Iraq’s oil, and compensating you, and any one else who supported him, with the ill gotten benefits which belong entirely to the Iraqi people. And you seem to have acted as a double or perhaps even triple agent. Exactly who were you working for then and for what ends? And who do you work for now?
You are not that naïf, and neither are we. It takes a lot of people to make a war. It takes a lot to prevent one too. Although you were paid by the UN, I wonder if you have ever asked yourself the question, “which of those results did Scott’s efforts support? Or were you too mislead by “faulty intelligence”, that seems to excuse anything.
What the readers are forgetting here, but as you well know, the UN is not an adjunct of US foreign policy, it is easily done, I know, but it was supposed to be protecting Iraq and the Iraqi people too. It was made to fail and by your own report here it seems you helped in that failure, Sir.
People have to take responsibility at the time of their actions; it is not good enough, to relieve ones conscience with “sharing”, defecating events that show how one criminally erred while wrapped up in the wave of events at the time. There is no excuse. Like this article or the pathetic horrors one hears listening to the speaker participants of Winter Soldier, that which may be cathartic to the perpetrator, or a revelation to the audience, is no less a criminal once told.
Lucitanian said, “Like this article or the pathetic horrors one hears listening to the speaker participants of Winter Soldier, that which may be cathartic to the perpetrator, or a revelation to the audience, is no less a criminal once told.”
Lucitanian I guess you have been fortunate to never operate in the sphere of the morally ambiguous. I work in health care so my life has not been that sterile.
I agree when I read Scott Ritter’s article and when I listen to the statements of the Winter Soldiers, I am horrified and saddened. While the same may not be true for Ritter, the treacherous moral ambiguity that would be faced by our soldiers was entirely predictable and predicted by other veterans, often Viet Nam vets.
Just in case you think that in speaking their faults aloud that Scott Ritter or the Winter Soldiers will no longer have to shoulder the burden of their actions, let me assure you that you are wrong. They will carry them a lifetime. SOme will put them into some kind of moral framework and make some sense of them; some will never; and some will live in the world of self-justifcation using phrases like collateral damage to minimize the wreckage. But without the courage of the Winter Soldiers, the average American will remain untouched by the tragic conundrum that soldiers are forced to live out on many tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And if you want to take it one step further, all of us should examine our complicity in putting these young people into this conundrum and in allowing it to continue.
Molly J, you write: “I guess you have been fortunate to never operate in the sphere of the morally ambiguous.”
Of course I have, but that is when you have to decide and then live with it. As you say: “all of us should examine our complicity in putting these young people into this conundrum and in allowing it to continue.”
My point exactly, we must live with the consequences of our actions, big or small, positive or negative. Following orders is not an excuse, nor is, “I joined the military because there’s nothing else to do where I come from” It is no excuse for them nor is “I just pay my taxes and mind my own business” for an average American. A million Iraqis are dead and 4 million displaced, and it’s going on today.
You have a whole country of delusional sheeple, causing mayhem there and around the world and feeling righteous about it and themselves. I agree most Americans need to know what those boys did in their name, and need to see it stopped, not again BUT FOR ALWAYS. It’s all happening because they all are not thinking, of anything but themselves.
It requires a fundamental realisation of responsibility on the part of each individual, awareness, education, and a broader view than one’s immediate self interest.
Just like Tantrum above said to Scott Ritter: “if you cared you would have been teaching English in some dead-end kindergarten somewhere in Mosul! You’d be doing something useful rather than grand-standing with all the other windbags who like to talk about world changing BULLSHIT and have dinner with other hot air big shots!”
It is the smallest acts at the right times that can change the world but it requires the right thinking and the right motive.
Given that in one reality Scott Ritter might have elected to be a teacher of kindergarten versus go into the milatiry and become a Marine and then a weapon’s inspector, we and he are faced with the reality that he chose the latter. If he hadn’t, someone else would have. He certainly has acted imperfectly–aye as have all of us.
The point for Ritter, for the Winter Soldiers, for all of us is the demand that we must examine our actions and try to live better. As pitiful as it is, it is the only redemption that there may be. And yes, I think as I’ve aged I’ve gotten better at saying, “Yes, I will do that; No, I will not do that,” but I wasn’t particularly great at it when in my twenties. There is some insulation that is afforded with being in your 6th decade.
I hear you saying two things: we’ve got to do the right thing. And then you personally discount the willingess of Ritter and the Winter Soldiers to say they did the wrong thing. So are you saying that we must be born doing the right thing? That we cannot learn from our mistakes? That we as a nation have nothing to learn from what these people are saying? Yes, I understand that Ritter was perhaps brought down by his own _ego_. You’ve never battled your own ego? I personally have found that I still do frequent battle with my own ego and, newsflash, I don’t always win.
Where we are is the only place we can be.
“I’m all for supporting varied whistle-blowers IF/WHEN something ‘relevant’ comes to public-notice/Benefit, but the confusion created by this apparently-BS “antiquated VX-disclosure” helped the ‘wrong process’, as well-described…”
Scott just needs to catch-up on his reading and experience-base:
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/UL
“Friedman, Alan. Spider’s Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq. New York: Bantam Books, 1993. 455 pages.
This is the story that Bill Clinton promised to investigate if he got elected, but now (January 1994) it appears that his handlers have other plans. It’s about how the White House, with assistance from allies in London and Rome, violated the law in order to support Saddam Hussein. Then, following the invasion of Kuwait, George Bush compared him to Hitler, set up the American response, and he and Margaret Thatcher began covering up their past dealings. The story involves the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation, Iraq’s nuclear procurement program, and the CIA and Carlos Cardoen (a Chilean arms dealer). Given this ten-year history, it was not unreasonable for Saddam Hussein to assume that U.S. ambassador April Glaspie was giving him the green light to invade Kuwait. And maybe she was; perhaps Bush thought he needed a quick-fix war to try out the Pentagon’s new toys and crank up his popularity.”
And Scott, here’s why you’ll NEVER replace my fellow-Realist/Bilderberger, Kissinger:
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_KISSINGER_HENRY_A
–You just ain’t got “the Right Stuff”, guy… :]
Maybe you can switch-over to working on ‘global-warming’ with this-guy (and grow longer-hair?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_G8hkqnJBE&feature=related
–or, maybe advice a second-rate Think-Tank, or the G-7, or the Tri-Lateral?
Or, just sweep-for-mines between Bush’s and Tom Brokaw’s estates in Peru/Patagonia?!
“I hear you saying two things: we’ve got to do the right thing. And then you personally discount the willingess of Ritter and the Winter Soldiers to say they did the wrong thing. So are you saying that we must be born doing the right thing? That we cannot learn from our mistakes?”
If one ‘confesses’ only because someone else is going to ‘out you’ (and in “less-flattering terms”), then such a confession is as self-serving/aggrandizing as it is ‘prudent’. When Uncle-Milty or Greenbacks, or Atta-boy Brownie release their similar-’Confessions’ — that spin their Roles in ‘best possible light’ [while reaping payment for doing-so!] — I suspect that they are NOT “learning from their experiences” or working on their Karma [they are just learning how to “minimize the probable-consequences”].
The ‘Winter Soldiers’ are a different-matter, entirely [once, I stood with them&VVAW (and Skull-bro Kerry!) in Detroit — in 1970/71]. THEY did not personally-initiate the Events they were subsequently ‘caught up in’. They, but for the Grace of G_d, could have been “any one of us” (although, primarily, they were the young/dumb/poor — as always, and just like their Victims-elsewhere).
The idea that Saddam actually did NOT have WMDs flew in the face of over a decade of EVERYONE KNOWING he did… and ongoing lobbying by various factions to oust him for all sorts of reasons … very much a cafeteria of reasons — humanitarian, promises made to Kurd and dispossed Iraqi’s like Chalabi and Allawi —
WMD and “imminent threat” was the only “reasonable” pretext (such as it was) for a “preemptive strike” — but this came after more than a decade of “common knowledge” that Saddam was concealing “what he was really doing” from the inspectors.
Saddam himself, irrc, while incarcerated admitted that he had fostered the perception he had WMD as a deterrent … for both his neighbors and for the USA… so Scott’s impatience and annoyance that “people weren’t taking the threat of Saddam’s WMD seriously enough” back in 1998, in context, was a different matter than “building a case for war” a few years later. And, as he points out, his attempts to get the VX report out to people “in the know” was part of his own ignorance then… it was both an error in judgement and a error of “fact” (he thought the report proved something — very important — which it did not).
I suspected at the time of land invasion “we” knew Saddam did not have these weapons or had them in very small quantities… and that we obviously did not know where he had them. It was a vast relief when the invasion force reached Baghdad without a chemical or nerve gas attack regardless of how isolated and/or small, no?
Molly, you write : “I don’t always win.” Which one of you does not always win?
No, I hear people saying “I had to do the wrong thing.” Although I don’t except that line, we may have compassion for them and their circumstances then, and their suffering now, and for the rest of their life, not for a second can we deviate from the fact that what they did was criminal. They were there in that position by a series of decisions that they made KNOWING that they would meet just such decisions. Is it human to err – of course, take the consequences and live with it and do your best, to repair the damage and not let it happen again? You are right, in their way, now that they are FINALLY thinking perhaps that is what they are trying to do, as they spread the word against war.
Personally I prefer to extend the greater part of my sympathy and concern to the fatherless child, or the legless infant in Iraq, the millions now suffering because of the conscious decisions made by irrationa, delusional and irresponsible people.
I discount no one’s willingness to face their errors, publicly or privately but confession, introspection, and social catharsis, does not resurrect the dead or stop the ongoing illegal occupation. Another Jo is whacking some Iraqi at a check-point as I write, different guy same story, will we have to listen to his confession too? Just stop killing people and get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other damn place American hegemony runs. Don’t worry the carnage won’t be worse. It can’t be. That’s just another excuse from the people who brought you Chaliby, the war, the Green Zone, a Billion dollar embassy in Baghdad, and 14 permanent bases so that they can go on with their madness.
Susan Parker :
So are you trying to say that pre-emptive war is justifiable if the guy in charge in the country is bad enough, is suspected of being in conravention of international treaties and if he has caused the death of enough innocents…. ???
So when can we start dropping the bombs on Washington and Idaho??
Tell them about relief from worry in Faluja!
Some people never learn!!!
Ms. parker…
“Reasonable” simply doesn’t apply to any US-actions, Saddam, or Mr. Ritter’s in present-case. While Lott may have fallen for a ‘load of baloney’ (ergo have no-conscience re: this ‘war’), Ritter CERTAINLY was in a position to KNOW that Saddam had quit his soon-useless “WMD-Programs” [as well he might, since Israel had over 200 ‘illegal’-nukes (and we, countless-more) aimed at the Iraq of that-day — not to mention the entire West&Israel having TONS of highly-weaponized bio&nerve-toxins ‘on the ready’]. What little ‘bluff’ Saddam had attempted minor use of ‘locally’(based upon his now-failed&old supplies of watered-down WMD — supplied for his stoogeship/actions against Kurds/Shites/Iranians by a pandering/’enabling’-US under Raygun) didn’t even/ever scare the Iranians or Saud’s…much less we Superpowers-abroad, or nearby in Israel).
That ‘Hoax’ was only for the ‘great unwashed’ — and the UN’s role was just to ‘pseudo-legalize’ for the Brit’s, then ‘look the other way’ (as per-usual and as per-Plan).
Scott didn’t Cause any ‘war’ — the Plan for that-mess was ‘fixed’ long before even Bush-I (before even the Carter-administration/’Doctrine’ began this silly ‘GWoT’ — by making these ‘manufactured-terrorists’ the creatures that have been at the CIA’s/Wall-Street’s beck&call since [as in Kosovo/Somalia, before Clinton-I played his neo-Role — as learned at a Rhodesian-Oxford] — as they used to serve the ‘interests’ of MI5/6).
Scott, in fact, just ‘betrayed himself’ — and added to the ’street-cred’ of some sorry-characters hanging around Georgetown (he could have built a better Legacy for himself, but was ‘dazzled by his new-found importance’). And, I am relatively-sure he never trusted those ‘VX-results’ in the first-place, nor (even if they had been true/believed, as only ‘interesting-Historical-Insight’) would this Topic of Discussion have any actual ‘relevance’ to anything…”more prejudicial than probative”, by far.
And, don’t apologize for Scott…he’s capable of doing-so on his own [and has to live with this-and-more — much like North has-to live with his Iran/Contra…and Nicaragua&El Salvador].
“Heavy rests the head that wears the Crown”…so to speak.
Me Also Too a Realist, You say:
The ‘Winter Soldiers’ are a different-matter, entirely [once, I stood with them&VVAW (and Skull-bro Kerry!) in Detroit — in 1970/71]. THEY did not personally-initiate the Events they were subsequently ‘caught up in’.
There’s a big difference, in that this crop of trained mindless killers is a 100% volunteer military. They made a decision. They pulled the trigger. Initiation of conflict; you’ve got to be really thick not to realise that throughout American history there has always been, some reason out their to make a mortal enemies of far flung regime? Anyway, the idea that it is anything else but murder to knowingly and deliberately kill innocents, just because you got “caught up in it”, can only help perpetuate these criminal atrocities. There are no excuses. Unfortunately, they won’t face a war crimes court, but that will neither assuage their guilt nor afford them absolution.
If you don’t like killing, or following orders from fools, don’t join the military. Seems simple enough to me.
No difference at-all (and I speak as a Vet of 1968-70, who had an RA in front…).
“…you’ve got to be really thick not to realise that throughout American history there has always been, some reason out their to make a mortal enemies of far flung regime?”
Click my Name for your-History (I’ve read it all, and lived too-much of it)…and, it’s You who seems “really thick” — and you seem ’simple enough to Me’.
Immaturity probably excuses your ‘absolutism’ — but, I don’t know what forgives Ritter (nor those who actually ’caused’ all perpetrators&victims to get caught-up in Iraq OR Vietnam/Korea/WW’s/etc.). Not MeAlsoToo, for one — but the young/poor&foolish? — of these I can often “forgive”-much (depending upon ‘circumstances prevailing’, and how readily they Failed their consciences).
MeAlsoToo_ARealist : wrote…. (I’ve read it all, and lived too-much of it)…and, it’s You who seems “really thick” — and you seem ’simple enough to Me’.
Please understand that I mean “one who joins the military” (you may be included if you wish) “has got to be really thick….” In other words; “One” should know when joining the US forces that “one” will be likely to be killing far flung innocents pretty soon. Protecting your country, in fact means protecting the corporate interests of a few elite. (“You”, is a general term as apposed to one. I did not mean you personally, but you do go on the offensive easily.)
I am as relativist as the next guy and it does not help discussion to doubt my maturity but war crimes are being committed, admitted to, and accepted by an audience of sheeple who already do not know the difference and just think war is tough, and Geneva is not part of the USA so there’s no rules, and we are supposed to pity the perpetrator. Absolute rubbish. No one serves their country by committing a crime and that is an absolute fact.
Lucitanian said, “There’s a big difference, in that this crop of trained mindless killers is a 100% volunteer military. They made a decision. They pulled the trigger. Initiation of conflict; you’ve got to be really thick not to realise that throughout American history there has always been, some reason out their to make a mortal enemies of far flung regime? Anyway, the idea that it is anything else but murder to knowingly and deliberately kill innocents, just because you got “caught up in it”, can only help perpetuate these criminal atrocities. There are no excuses. Unfortunately, they won’t face a war crimes court, but that will neither assuage their guilt nor afford them absolution.”
Speaking as someone who is not raising their child to think about enlistment as an option, I have to tell you that I find your thinking pretty black and white. Frankly for many a year you could be in the guard and the reserves and not do anything but weekend warrior duty. Pretty much everyone understood Powell’s Pottery Barn rules and no one wanted to find themselves back in a vietnam again so what undertakings we did do, were short term with clear achievable goals. But many activists have said that this war would never had happened if the draft stood because kids like my own would have been involved and we would not have stood for it. (And I think that is a powerful argument but it doesn’t make me pro-draft.) What anyone, volunteer or not, should have some confidence of is that their commander in chief and their congress will not lightly ask them to go to war. And volunteer or not, when that has happened (as it has) the military needs the support of the people to right that wrong. Clearly the Congress is out-to-lunch and disengaged; they are not going to correct the nation’s course. You, Lucitanian, may have decided that all involved deserve their fate but in fact, their fate is our fate.
This blog sees considerable hand-wringing. We all look for venues of meaningful action. I guess you are waiting for a pure and holy (perhaps Christ-like) victim to step forward who will be a blameless lamb. (This being Easter week.) Whoops, checked the inventory, they’re all out.
I really believe that we need to join together, many of us, from different perspectives and backgrounds and stand together on this one point. This is not a just war; it is not achieving any helpful goals. It is destructive and tears at the fabric of our humanity. So we work that by bringing as much of the story forward as we can. Scott Ritter. The Winter Soldiers. Bill Moyers interviews people from the “right” and the “left” to point out that what is happening is dismaying people across the political spectrum. We go back and quibble some other day bur right now I think our country is in dire circumstances.
So, no, I don’t think I can dust my hands off and say, “Those volunteer soldiers knew what they were signing up for…” I think there’s a limit to that excuse and that limit is long exceeded.
Lucitanian: No I am not saying the preemptive war is ever justified … I am saying that the many factions who wanted war for many different reasons seized on “imminent threat” as a justification they thought could sell to the world community … and some countries bought it, see the “coalition of the willing”
The invasion of Iraq was and is illegal and immoral, as is the occupation, as were the sanctions and the “no fly zone” …
I guess we should consider ourselves lucky 40 years ago that the Cuban ex-patriot community only brought us the Bay of Pigs, a much much much smaller disaster …
Molly J: I think you confirmed my case. We all make our own delusions and suffer the consequences, and that is the black and white of it. If you are in the National Guard and believe you are not under orders, ask the troupers that shot the kids at Kent State. So many salute the flag and love freedom and democracy, so how was it that only 43% or 47% depending which election bothered to vote and that a proud democracy has been allowed to slide into corporate fascism to be destroyed by sociopaths, war profiteers, and bankers. I can go on but the point is we construct the prisoners of our own delusions. Reality is what we want it to be as black and white or with as many shades of gray as we need to attribute to it in order to hold up the construction of our perspective on sanity. People suffer when the house they build, to protect themselves from the elements, suddenly falls on their head, and of itself becomes the instrument of their own demise.
The house either stands or it falls, there is no greyness or vagueness about the fact. In this case there is no accident of storm or quake of the foundation, no mystery of events to hide the cause. The design and execution, the materials, were all deliberately chosen, put in place and the plan executed, a construction of lies and delusions, missing beams of reality, missing foundations of truth, falsified intelligence, half baked plans. There are no pure and blameless victims, nor culprits that are not a victim of circumstance. No, just an inextricable series of decisions made by free will spanning an entire nation and they all lie buried under the same heap. The real causes of the disaster were ignorance, arrogance, self interest and especially self delusion but each blinded the other till the result was all that could be seen.
No time for sadness, you can only start another house. This new one will stand just fine if it is made honestly and without delusion by the people, for the people, as it was supposed to be.
“Please understand that I mean “one who joins the military” (you may be included if you wish) “has got to be really thick….” In other words; “One” should know when joining the US forces that “one” will be likely to be killing far flung innocents pretty soon. Protecting your country, in fact means protecting the corporate interests of a few elite. (“You”, is a general term as apposed to one. I did not mean you personally, but you do go on the offensive easily.)”
You think I’m short-fused? Just speak like this in mixed/p