Faith-based intelligence and my take on Iraq

I Heard a phrase on the radio the other day: "Faith-based intelligence". This was of course in reference the "neo-con" interpretation of pre-war Iraq data. To me, someone paying attention but with no special or deep knowledge on the subject, that phrase rings true.

It seems pretty clear that the Bush administration had decided well before 9/11/99 that they wanted to force regime change in Iraq. Possibly for honorable reasons (human rights abuses, region stability, global threat, etc.), possibly for dishonorable ones (money, re-election, more money). I won't claim to know which, (ask Chomsky), but i have to suspect a combination of the two. In any case, it is quite well-known that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have had an Iraq invasion on their wish list for a long time. Realistically speaking, when Bush was inaugurated this particular wish probably seemed like a long shot. Sure, they'd get to play tough with Iraq and force weapons inspectors into the palaces or something, but that would probably be about it. That reality shifted on 9/11 1999 when a monstrous crime was committed against humanity and a blank check was handed to the Bush administration.

Already having the political will to invade Iraq, they were presented with a transformed climate in which they might be able to accomplish this without too much resistance. In an effort to act above-board (and to keep Blair and other more internationalist elements happy), the issue was eventually brought before the United Nations. Why in the hell Bush showed his hand so early, i'll never know. He clearly sent the message that we were doing this thing with or without the blessing of the U.N., the message was: if you want this body to remain relevant, you better sign-on. Was this an appeasement to the ultra-conservative UN bashers who didn't even want to consult with the UN? Was this an early attempt to divorce our foreign policy from a legal framework? I can't believe the instant opposition these statements produced was unexpected or unintended. I don't care how "genuine", "down to earth", and "straight-shooting" our commander-in-chief purportedly is. Intended or not, it wasn't long before it became clear that we had some serious differences on the Iraq question with much of the security council. As the UN process went on, BushCo made increasingly alarming statements about the threat presented by Saddam in an effort to build support for action. We all remember specific known minimum quantities of specific WMDs, capable of launching an attach on 45 minutes notice (gosh, that sounds imminent!), Al-Qaida ties, active nuclear program, might have the bomb, etc. Chief inspector David Kaye now says "We all got it wrong". The point being made in many anti-Bush camps is that there may be a finer point to be had here. That point being that not everyone got it wrong and hardly anyone got it as wrong as our executive branch. Now i haven't actually gone back and read all available de-classified intelligence reports on the subject, so i am a bit at the mercy of the sources who have filtered particular excerpts into my ears, that being said, it very much seems the raw intelligence was off, but within somewhat reasonable margins. The bigger error may have been in the interpretation and filtering. It would seem that the administration quite possibly was involved in cherry-picking the juiciest bits supporting their case, ignored reliability issues of some of the sources, and marginalized evidence that did not match their pre-conceived notions. It does not seem that the raw data justifies many of the most alarming facts handed out by the administration (add link here). Their motivation remains in question. Were they so sure that not only regime change was right, but that Saddam and his regime were so evil that all possible justifications must exist? Did they think they were possibly exaggerating, but for a good cause? Or did they know that they were presenting false statements for the purpose of justifying an action whose true justification needed to remain hidden? Looking back at some of the nuclear claims (add link), it is hard to think that the administration did not know that they were not presenting the truth. In any case, it seems clear that at the very minimum, bias was employed in the filtering of data. Really though, how bad is this? Politicians twist facts and present one-sided arguments to present that case all the time. Is it really so surprising that a president who had decided action was necessary didn't present a balanced picture of the evidence? I suppose it is all shades of grey, but this grey is looking pretty dark.

As an aside, it is a bit surprising to me that the neo-conservatives are such strong believers in the economic free-market (most of the time), but rather than putting any trust in the free marketplace of ideas they prefer to fall back on their own faulty central planning. We don't need the facts to be discussed, iterated, improved, added to, and weighed by others in order to determine the optimal solution, we already have the solution and are so convinced as to its righteousness that we take it as a matter of faith and will now attempt to give you whatever distorted facts we think will drive you or scare you to the same conclusion. This is why i like the "faith-based intelligence" phrase. Evidence is not necessary to convince yourself of something you already believe, it is only useful in marketing your beliefs to others. As Tom Tommorrow puts it plainly:
Cheney: "We need the best intel you can give us about Saddam's WMDs..."
Bush: "as long as it confirms what we already know"

I remember a week into the war being a bit surprised that we hadn't announced the seizure of any of these WMD caches. Anytime the press would ask on this at a press conference, the answer would be: ho ho ho, it's waaay too early for that. We just got here, we're busy with other stuff. We're in the South, the weapons are in the North, or whatever... WTF! We knew exactly where some of these were, right? Weren't we just a little afraid that the chaos we were introducing into the country might trigger the movement of some of these WMDs out of Iraq? If we lost track of them, couldn't they be falling into the hands of the highest bidder? I just didn't see a strategy that really seemed to address this concern. Was this because, we knew all along that if they even had any WMDs, they weren't a big concern? I know, i'm off on a conspiracy tangent...

As crisis often due, the horrific attack of 9/11 united our country. Bi-partisanism melted. The sympathy of the entire world went out to our nation. It seemed that this might be an opportunity in disguise; a chance to start laying the ground-work and building a safe, just, and peaceful global community for the 21st century. IMO (and Al Gore's if you heard his scathing comments somewhat recently- why couldn't he show this fire in his belly in 2000!?), these opportunities have been utterly squandered. Bush promised to be "a uniter, not a divider", yet he has told the world "you are either with us, or you're against us". In case you haven't noticed, they are against us. The almost playful jealousy we once referred to as anti-Americanism has been replaced by a nearly universal distrust and dislike of our aggressive and hypocritical behavior. In the larger sense, Bush's go it alone strategies have forced our hand in terms of future defense strategy. We are the military super power of the world. Nobody even comes close. We spend and enormous percentage of our GNP on defense - much more than the industrialized countries of Europe for example. No wonder we can't afford universal health coverage. Further, we are stuck in this role until we crush all potential threats or foster an alternative arrangement (like a strong UN). It's like we are the bully on the block. We have no choice but to remain the bully, otherwise a bigger bully might come along. We can try to be a just bully, but the real solution is to foster a world where might does not make right. The easiest way to do this is by promoting a strong UN, universal human rights, and a fair world with hope and opportunity for all.

Being a possibly naive optimist, i believe that there is still hope that good things will come out of our Iraqi efforts. Of course now that we are there, we have a responsibility to see our actions through. Ten years from now, Iraq may be a shining crescent of fair, just, and prosperous self-governing democracy in the middle east. Possibly this success could spread to Iran. I truly hope this will be the case. It seems that this is more likely if the international community is involved and the UN is in charge. There is just too much resentment against our country and too many suspicions about our intent. Nonetheless, i also feel that the actions of our leaders need to be looked at closely and judged in November. It's a shame that the intelligence investigation report will not be released until after the election. The voters deserve to know the facts before they check the box.

IMO, Bush and co. have severely misused the opportunity they were presented with. I am all for a "war on terror". Terror is an emotion that provokes irrational behavior. We should beat this emotion back within ourselves at every turn. Instead, our current president has ruled by fear and has scared enough of us into thinking that we need this war to protect our shores. Next time you are listening to a W speech or interview, mark-up a score sheet. Count home many times he says terror/terrorist/terrorism. Count how many times he refers to 9/11. It matters little if these are the subjects of his interviewers questions or not, he will find a way to push America's fear buttons over and over. IMO, this is not the leadership we need. I hope that many Americans have the same conclusion in mind when it comes time to elect or next president.

Remember, regime change begins at home!

- posted by scott @ 2:47 AM (0) comments