Mayhaps this horse already lies dead in the dust. But since the “Cut ‘n Run” crowd on the left insists on claiming we had no business invading Iraq in the first place, a few more swipes with the old whip might just be in order.
The internet is such a wonderful tool for the purpose of research and knowledge. For instance, just in the interest of research, I did a Google search, typing in “Clinton policy toward Iraq.”
Needless to say, the list of hits was long, but number one right at the top was a piece for the
Middle East Intelligence Bulletin by Laurie Mylroie that was published in January of 2001.
Now, what we need to keep in mind about this article is, Mylroie was an advisor to Bill Clinton on the subject of Iraq during the 1992 campaign, and therefore in a position to know the inner workings of what was and was NOT known and done concerning the subject of Saddam Hussein.
Secondly, of course, keep in mind that this article was published before President George W Bush had even set foot in office. It is instructive to look back on history, to say the least.
She begins her piece by pointing out that ten years after the end of the Gulf War, the sanctions against Saddam Hussein were not working. He was in fact regaining his power, inspections had been stopped, and he was working to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction. (Here, I realize, I will lose any libs that might accidentally run across this post.)
The author contrasted the approaches that the first Bush administration took toward Saddam Hussein:
The Bush administration's basic goal after the Gulf War was to overthrow Saddam. Post-war constraints, like sanctions and the no-fly zones, were not meant to last forever (although UNSCOM was). Rather, they aimed at keeping the regime weak to promote Saddam's overthrow. Indeed, John Bolton, then Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, commented on his principal engagement in that effort, through U.S. diplomacy at the United Nations. Bolton explained, "Everything the U.S. did on Iraq in New York aimed at squeezing Saddam."4
With that approach adopted by the Clinton Administration:
But that was decidedly not the judgment of the Clinton administration. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton was tougher on Saddam than Bush, criticizing Bush for leaving Saddam in power. This author was, in fact, the advisor on Iraq to the Clinton campaign. But as President-elect, shortly before assuming office, Clinton told the New York Times' Thomas Friedman that there were circumstances under which he was prepared to come to terms with Saddam--if he complied with the U.N. resolutions.12 The Bush administration had rejected that option, having concluded that any Iraqi compliance would be reversed once sanctions were lifted. Thus, Clinton told Friedman he was not "obsessed" with Saddam. As a Baptist, he believed in "death-bed conversions." Clinton explained that if Saddam were sitting next to him, he would advise him to observe the U.N. resolutions and change his behavior.
Immediately candidate Clinton changed his story, denying that he had ever suggested coming to term with Saddam. His administration would adopt a tough stance against the Hussein regime. He, in fact claimed to support the previous administration’s policy regarding regime change.
Martin Indyk, Clintons NSC advisor on the Middle East made this statement:
We seek Iraq's full compliance with all UN resolutions. The regime of Saddam Hussein must never again pose a threat to Iraq's neighborhood. And we are also committed to ensuring Iraq's compliance with UN Resolution 688, which calls upon the regime to end its repression of the Iraqi people . . . We are also providing stronger backing for the Iraqi National Congress as a democratic alternative to the Saddam Hussein regime.15
In fact, the Clinton administration adopted a revised Theodore Roosevelt strategy of, “Talk tough, and forget to carry a stick.” Clinton continued to support sanctions, but little else. Clinton purported to support the INC, but in fact allowed Hussein to overrun their forces in the North, murdering thousands.
Then, when Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamil defected in 1995, revealing secrets about his WMDs,
it was learned that much of Iraq's proscribed weapons capabilities--chemical, biological, and nuclear, as well as missiles--had survived the conflict. Iraq had succeeded in concealing that from UNSCOM, while systematically turning over the least important elements of those proscribed programs.16 Instead of being little threat, Iraq was now recognized to be a considerable threat.
The Clinton administration used this stunning new information to maintain sanctions, even though Kamil made it clear that sanctions were not working.
Yet the Clinton administration regarded this information as a "godsend."17 That may seem strange, but its goal was to maintain sanctions--not to neutralize the Iraqi threat. And the new information suddenly made it very easy to maintain sanctions. At that point, Iraq fell off the nation's agenda.
As revisionist as the former President has become in recent years, it is clear that President Clinton had NO intention of confronting the Iraqi regime. The US economy was humming along, and he had NO desire to upset the apple cart with foreign affairs. (He had affairs of his own to consider!)
Finally, confronted by the duals crises of UNSCOM’s being kicked out of Iraq by Hussein, and the impeachment vote in the US House of Representatives, Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, four nights of bombings in December of 1998. Who could ever forget the compelling case for action made by the President at that time:
Without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to regain and again to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs . . . Mark my words [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them.19
Well, okay, a few people: Algore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy…etc. MIGHT have forgotten those inspiring words, but let us remind them again and again.
The author goes on to point out:
But the administration did virtually nothing to reestablish a viable weapons inspection regime subsequently. It took a year to get a new U.N. resolution reestablishing a much-weakened organization and when Iraq rejected the resolution, the U.S. did not respond. After all, its primary goal was to maintain sanctions.
The article goes on to analyze why the Clinton administration took no action against Hussein, pointing out that in times of peace, issues of foreign affairs become irrelevant. She uses extensive quotes by Paul Wolfowitz, among others to point out that there was little interest in foreign affairs in the US during the Clinton administration. During the 1996 Presidential debate there was, in fact, only one question on foreign affairs brought up, and that was regarding trade with Japan. Iraq was not even on the radar as far as the American public was concerned, so President Clinton saw no reason to put it there.
The author’s conclusions in this January 2001 article are telling:
The new Bush administration will inherit not so much a policy on Iraq, as eight years of neglect. If the new administration continues on the path Clinton has laid, it will find that the threat posed by Saddam will increase significantly during its term in office.
The alternative is to resolve, at the outset, on adopting a vigorous policy toward Iraq. That would entail reestablishing the goal of the administration that fought the Gulf War: ousting Saddam. If the new administration were to make a serious and credible commitment to that goal, it would have support from a significant number of states in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt.
Looking back now, through the prism of historical events, the left maintains the fiction that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States, that the Iraqi front in the GWOT was a mistake, and that we had no business deposing that regime.
As long as the internet exists, and pieces such as this are readily available, I believe the left will continue to find themselves on the outside looking in, on the wrong side of history. They can attempt to revise history all they want, but the facts remain out there…and we need to take out our whips and beat them with those facts every chance we get!
Can Reconciliation Bring Peace to Iraq?
