Vanity Fair On 'The Path To War'

After reading The Path To War, in the May 2004 issue of Vanity Fair, I discovered near the front of the magazine this "Editor's Letter" written by Graydon Carter, the magazine's Editor.  I post a condensation of it here (leaving out technical details about who took the photos that accompany the article, etc.)  Carter asks some searching questions such as, "How did George Bush get us into this war without end in the first place?  How did he, in just a few short years, tarnish America's great and good name...?"   For answers to the former he suggests we read "The Path To War" and for answers to the latter to start reading something other than the standard U.S. newspapers (or looking to TV and/or radio for our "news" he might have added).  For solutions to both he says, "...be sure to vote on November 2."  Needless to say, I endorse all of these.  In addition to The Path To War, and Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies: Inside America's War On Terror, I also suggest reading John Dean's Worse Than Watergate, Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, based on the experiences of Bush's original Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, and Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire, for a start.  I also note two books due to be published very shortly that should be worth a look.  One by former Ambassador Joe Wilson - I haven't seen the name of the book yet - in which he says he will reveal the names of the Bush administration "high officials" who leaked the name of his wife, Valerie Plame as being a CIA operative, and the other by John Prados to be titled, "Hoodwinked:  The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us A War"  which I understand will provide "a paper trail of official deception."   --  Bryce

.

Neoconned: The Path To War

By Graydon Carter - Editor, Vanity Fair

....  The Path To War is, at 22,000 words,... the longest article we've ever run (and) tells the story of how we got from September 11, 2001, to March 19, 2003, the first day of the war in Iraq....  Times Change.  The war on terror dissolved into the invasion of Iraq.... Tony Blair's reputation is not what it once was.  And (Ahmad) Chalabi , it turns out, had basically duped the White House, the Pentagon, The New York Times, and Vanity Fair with his Scheherazade-like tales of Baghdad's nuclear program and biological weapons factories.  It should be pointed out, however, that unlike the White House and the Pentagon, the Times and Vanity Fair did not use Chalabi's information to take the American people into an unwanted and unnecessary invasion of Iraq, a decision that has cost more than 550 U.S. lives and $100 billion as of early 2004, not to mention our country's good reputation with the rest of the world.

(The U.S. is really bad at handling fear.)  For Americans, September 11 was most certainly the defining single-day tragedy of age.  But to put it in perspective, it was, however devastating, the only attack by a foreign element on U.S. soil in more than half a century.  The toll from terrorism, in this country, in the two and a half yeas since, is zero.  European, African, and Middle Eastern countries have grown wearily accustomed to death tolls by terrorism that are registered on an almost weekly basis, month in, month out, year in, year out. 

While the U.S. mourned its dead after September 11, the administration reacted reasonably and proportunately.  It launched a full-out, all points bulletin for the leaders of al-Qaeda that stretched to the four corners of the earth.  But in the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center the Bush White House also found arguments it could use to sell the American public on an invasion of Iraq.

You would think that if we were to lash out at anybody it would have been against the Saudis, given that 15 of the 19 terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia.  The Saudis are friends, though.  Not necessarily friends of ours -- but friends of the Bush's (family).  Indeed in Bush's three post-September 11 State of the Union addresses, he has not once even mentioned Saudi Arabia's role as an incubator of terrorists.  Not once.

Make no mistake about it.  Iraq was always the G-spot for the Bush administration.  Its calculus for invading the country: 1. Iraq = terrorism.  2. Iraq = biological weapons.  3. Iraq = in the president's words, "the smoking gun... a mushroom cloud."

Except that:  1. Saddam Hussein's regime was a secular one and al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist terror group dedicated in part to the overthrow of secular leaderships.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam ever funneled money to the terrorist organization.  And, as the Europeans know but this administration has yet to figure out, the invasion of Iraq was not a blow against terrorism, but rather a growth hormone for more of it.  2. (Weapons) Inspectors, including Scott Ritter, Hans Blix and most recently David Kay, all say that Saddam hadn't had the capability to produce biological weapons in the last five years, if not much longer.  3. There was no "smoking gun" in the way of weapons of mass destruction, not even "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld predicted that American troops would be welcomed as liberators.  He sold the U.S. on images of the liberation of Paris after World War II.  Except there was a big difference between Paris in 1945 and Baghdad in 2003.  France was occupied by Germany, a foreign power, whereas Iraq was in the grip of a native Iraqi.  Not a very nice one, mind you.  But an Iraqi nevertheless -- which if you live in the country being occupied is a big difference.  Foreigners dominating your country versus one of your own dominating country?  People of pride choose the latter any day.  And the Iraqis are nothing if not a proud people.

You've got to hand  it to the Bush administration -- they're focused.  When they want to go to war, they go to war come hell or high water.  In no particular order, in its rush to invade Iraq, the Bush White House did the following:  1. It co-opted the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies.  Mel Goodman, a 24-year veteran of the agenccy, told the V.F. teamthat C.I.A. and Defense Intelligence Agency analysts were being called into their superior's offices and told their careers would be on the line if they didn't produce findings backing up the administration's desires on Iraq.  2. It cherry-picked intelligence favorable to its philosophy and its goals.  3. It deceived Congress (a felony, by the way).  4. It deceived the American people (not a felony, but it should be).  5.  It deceived the United Nations.  Not only that, it asked Britain to bug six Security Council members during the 2002-2003 debate over enforcing Resolution 1441.  Tony Blair's government may even have bugged the offices of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.  How contemptuous were Bush and his allies of the U.N.? Shortly after the invasion began, (Richard) Perle dismissed it as "the looming chatterbox on the Hudson."  (Note: the U.N. headquarters overlook the East River.)  6. It strong-armed some traditional allies into going along with us and trashed the ones who wouldn't.

Furthermore, when it wanted to go to war, the Bush administration pushed the weapons inspectors to the wall, pressuring them to find the loot and find it fast.  (Later, on at least two occasions, Bush publicly claimed that Saddam had refused to allow the inspectors into the country! - BB)  The White House said that time was running out.  Then when it wanted to justify the war once "maajor combat operations" were over, the administration told the world not to rush the inspection process, that the inspectors needed more time to find the root reason given for the invasion -- weapons of mass destruction.

And when all the manufactured justifications for going to war crumbled on a bloody bone pile of deception and dissolution, the White House threw its weight behind another rationale for the war:  Saddam had to be toppled for the good of the Iraqi people and stability in the Middle East.  Epilogue:  Morale at the C.I.A. is at an all time low.  The Iraqis hate us. The war was an al-Qaeda recruitment officer's dream.  And the Middle East is as unstable as it was before 9/11. (If not more so. - BB)

"The Path to War" is, I believe, one of many first drafts of a history that will not serve the Bush administration well in the years to come.  I also recommend Thomas Powers's excellent "The Vanishing Case for War" in the December 4. 2003. New York Review of Books, and Robert Greenwald's compelling documentary, Uncovered.  Greenwald has another one out, called Unprecedented.  It's just as powerful as Uncovered, but it's about the 2000 photo finish in Florida, in which the Republicans essentially hijacked America's decision as to who should hold the highest post in the land.

None of this should have happened.  How did George W. Bush get us into this war without end in the first place?  How did he, in just a few short years, tarnish America's great and good name, which stood for liberty and leadership -- a legacy that took two centuries to establish?  For answers to the former, begin reading (The Path to War).  For answers to the latter, perhaps it's time to pick up some foreign dailies in addition to the American newspapers you've been reading.  And for solutions to both, be sure to vote on November 2.

****************