by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 13, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

randed unpatriotic, Democratic front-runner former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has taken flack opposing the Iraq war, primarily because he believed President Bush did not make a convincing case about national security. In a post-Sept. 11 world, Bush has repeatedly said that his first priority was protecting U.S. citizens. Dean—and the West European community, especially France and Germany—were not convinced by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's Feb. 6 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, cataloging Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as a justification for war. With WMD not found, the White House and Pentagon switched gears, blaming the glitch on bad intelligence. Two unrelated events involving (a) former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and (b) a report by the Army War College raise serious doubts about national security and the justification for war.

      Calling the Iraq war “unnecessary,” “unfocused” and a “detour,” an Army War College report blasted the White House for squandering military assets on irrelevant activity, unrelated to neutralizing Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terror organization. Getting a much needed shot before the Iowa caucuses, Dean felt vindicated after criticizing the administration's rationale for war and effect on national security. Dean got blasted by fellow Democrats for saying that Saddam's capture did not improve national security. Unlike Dean, the AWC reflects a nonpartisan analysis of military tactics and strategies. Departing from the White House and Pentagon, the report stated serious reservations about Bush's war on terrorism, putting the nation “on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.”

      Filed by Strategic Studies Institute visiting researcher professor Jeffrey Record, the report criticizes the White House for deviating from its primary mission of neutralizing Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terror network—the enemy responsible for Sept. 11. Despite Pentagon speculation, no reliable evidence links Saddam's Iraq with Osama bin Laden. Record is most concerned about dissipating U.S. resources, picking fights with enemies not responsible for attacking the Pentagon and downing the World Trade Center. Record called the war “an unnecessary preventative war” that has “diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by Al Qaeda,” a one-eighty from the Bush party line that “Iraq represents the central front in the war on terror.” While ignored and discounted, Record's report presents ongoing problems for the White House.

      Presenting more challenges for White House spin-meisters, former Treasurer Secretary Paul H. O'Neill dropped a bombshell, accusing the Bush administration of going after Saddam Hussein from day-one. O'Neill, now on a nationwide book tour promoting “The Price of Loyalty” [Simon and Schuster, Jan. 2004],” told CBS' “60 Minutes” that Saddam was in Bush's crosshairs before Sept. 11. “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” said O'Neill, debunking the idea that Saddam was somehow linked to 9/11. “It was all about finding a way to do it,” said O'Neill, implying that all the White House chatter about WMD amounted to a feeble excuse for preemptive war. O'Neill's remarks were quickly dismissed as sour grapes, after getting canned due to the economy's lackluster performance.

      Combined with the Army War College Report, the White House was back on its heels trying to rationalize U.S. involvement in Iraq. O'Neill's remarks, if nothing else, give Democratic candidates—especially Dean—more ammunition with which to chip away at White House credibility. “The fact of the matter is that the international community viewed Saddam Hussein as a threat before Sept. 11 and that the threat became more even more after Sept. 11,” said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, sticking carefully to the party line. In reality, CIA Director George J. Tenet declared war on Osama bin Laden in 1998 after embassy bombings in East Africa. Yes, Saddam was viewed as a “threat,” but not one that required immediate action. That view was echoed in the AWC's report criticizing the White House for pursuing “absolute security,” rather than assessing real threats.

      Heading into the primaries, Democratic candidates—especially Dean—will pound the White House on open questions about national security and the rationale for war. Since March 20, over 500 Americans have lost lives in a war Bush calls the “central front in the war on terrorism.” “All intelligence estimates pointed to an urgent threat,” Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, VA-based think tank specializing in military issues, reciting White House talking points but not matching the security estimates of France, Germany and Russia—all believed Saddam did not present a credible threat to the United States. With O'Neill raising concerns about administration motives and with the AWC questioning the war's overall mission, Bush has some explaining to do. Before Iraq becomes a menacing liability, the White House will have to find a way out.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.