Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
For some, the recent revelation, that in 1994 Dick Cheney argued against going into Baghdad, suggests the now Vice President is in command. People posit, after years of criticism for not finishing the job in Iraq, the former Secretary of Defense Cheney felt a need to right his wrong. Perhaps, this powerful proxy Commander-In-Chief saw an opportunity to finish a job. Many submit the Vice President thought September 11, 2001 offered him a chance to correct his earlier error.
Those that think this theory apt point to a 2005 interview published in The New Yorker Magazine. The words of an old friend General Brent Scowcroft help to substantiate that speculation. However, I have another premise to pose. George W. Bush may be a miracle worker. This man dubbed "W" may have the power to persuade a nation and a man that once made a rational request for a reasoned response, the 'imitable' Dick Cheney.
I acknowledge what many think reasonable. During the days of the first Persian Gulf War Brent Scowcroft, a retired Air Force General, and advisor to the father, George Herbert Walker Bush, was markedly hawkish on the Iraq question. Scowcroft thought military action against Iraq was a must. The General advocated for an attack more so than the Secretary of State, James A. Baker III, and perhaps even more so than the then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney. Scowcroft believed that if Saddam Hussein’s aggression against his neighbor nations was not addressed it would undermine the international rule of law. General Brent Scowcroft stated if America allowed the Iraqi leader to invade Kuwait the United States would appear weak.
The war began on January 16, 1991. An air campaign that lasted five weeks greatly weakened Iraq’s military capabilities. On February 24th, General Schwarzkopf, the commander of American and allied forces, unleashed a ground attack that quickly turned into a rout; the Iraqi Army collapsed, and its soldiers fled Kuwait on foot. The road to Baghdad was clear, but, on Bush’s instruction, the Americans did not take it. Although Bush had publicly compared Saddam to Hitler, the goal was never to liberate Iraq from his rule. “Our military didn’t want any part of occupying that big Arab country, and the only way to get Saddam was to go all the way to Baghdad,” James Baker told me recently.
Afterward, Bush was criticized for the decision to end the ground war at its hundredth hour. Even some officials of the Administration were unhappy at what they saw as a premature end to the fighting. In “Rise of the Vulcans,” James Mann recounts that Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby, who were then aides to Cheney, believed that a coup d’état might have occurred had the Bush Administration waited to announce that the war was over.
At the time, though, no one close to Bush expressed doubts about the ending of the war, much less about its strategic goal. “For a bunch of years, a lot of people who should know better have said that we had an alternative,” Powell told me. “We didn’t. The simple reason is we were operating under a U.N. mandate that did not provide for any such thing. We put together a strong coalition of Gulf states, and Egypt and Syria, and they signed up for a very specific issue — expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Nor did President Bush ever consider it.”
A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.
Years later, as he considered the situation, post-September 11, 2001 Brent Scowcroft thought an invasion of Iraq unwise. The former General and Bush 41 adviser said so. However, in 2001 the General had no influence in the White House. Many wonder who does. Scowcroft reflects.
Like nearly everyone else in Washington, Scowcroft believed that Saddam maintained stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, but he wrote that a strong inspections program would have kept him at bay. “There may have come a time when we would have needed to take Saddam out,” he told me. “But he wasn’t really a threat. His Army was weak, and the country hadn’t recovered from sanctions.”
Scowcroft’s colleagues told me that he would have preferred to deliver his analysis privately to the White House. But Scowcroft, the apotheosis of a Washington insider, was by then definitively on the outside, and there was no one in the White House who would listen to him. On the face of it, this is remarkable: Scowcroft’s best friend’s son is the President; his friend Dick Cheney is the Vice-President; Condoleezza Rice, who was the national-security adviser, and is now the Secretary of State, was once a Scowcroft protégée; and the current national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, is another protégé and a former principal at the Scowcroft Group.
According to friends, Scowcroft was consulted more frequently by the Clinton White House than he has been by George W. Bush’s. Clinton’s national-security adviser, Samuel Berger, told me (The New Yorker Columnist, Jeffrey Goldberg) that he valued Scowcroft’s opinions: “He knows a great deal, and I always found it useful to speak to him.” Arnold Kanter, a former Under-Secretary of State in the first Bush Administration and now a principal in the Scowcroft Group, was the one who suggested that Scowcroft set down his thoughts on Iraq. “If Brent had an ongoing dialogue and ready access and felt his views were being heard, he might not have written the op-ed,” Kanter told me. “I hadn’t heard anyone put Iraq in the strategic perspective that included the Middle East peace process and terrorism, and I thought it was important to hear.”
By publicly critiquing the Administration’s strategic priorities, Scowcroft knew that he risked offending the White House, but clearly, he was offended by its posture before the war. “All the neocons were saying, ‘Finish the job,’” he said. “In fact, the President said that. He said it before he launched the war.” Scowcroft fell silent. I asked him if he was bothered by those statements. He stayed silent, but he nodded.
Scowcroft suggested that the White House was taking the wrong advice, and listening to a severely limited circle. He singled out the Princeton Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, who was consulted by Vice-President Cheney and others after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Lewis, Scowcroft said, fed a feeling in the White House that the United States must assert itself. “It’s that idea that we’ve got to hit somebody hard,” Scowcroft said. “And Bernard Lewis says, ‘I believe that one of the things you’ve got to do to Arabs is hit them between the eyes with a big stick. They respect power.’” Cheney, in particular, Scowcroft thinks, accepted Lewis’s view of Middle East politics. “The real anomaly in the Administration is Cheney,” Scowcroft said. “I consider Cheney a good friend—I’ve known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don’t know anymore.”
As we hear in the interview above, Secretary of Defense Cheney knew what the current Vice President Cheney denies. Dick Cheney, under Bush 41, accepted if America entered Baghdad, a quagmire would ensue. America would not be able to control the vast divisions in the Persian Gulf region. Cheney had faith American casualties would be great. The young Cheney seemed to understand more death and destruction was unwarranted.
[Question:] Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
[Answer:] No.
[Question:] Why not?
[Answer:] Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years.
In the north, you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties.
Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?
Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.
We know not with certainty what Dick Cheney thinks today. We only understand what he said then, and more the words he uttered recently. For me, this 1994 interview solidifies what has long been a quandary. Who is in charge in this White House?
Is it the "elected" Commander-In-Chief, or perhaps it is his father. After all, Dad is a confidant, and a frequent visitor to the Oval Office. Might the "Bush Brain" and "Architect" Karl Rove be the "genius" within this Administration, or is it the presumed President, Richard Cheney who lurks behind the curtain.
As I assess the latest release of information, I am no more confident of who leads this country than I was days ago. I still contemplate the possibility, George W. Bush genuinely leads us all, the Vice President included. The famous Bush smirk may be as Mona Lisa's smile; it mesmerizes and paralyzes all those that observe it. It seems obvious to me, George W. Bush has immobilized the citizens of this country.
Certainly, George W. Bush has Congress under a spell. The President engages in and embraces illegal activities; Senators and Representatives know this; yet, they do nothing. Congress refuses to impeach or censure this Administration. Indeed, those that represent the people gave the President and his embattled Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales greater authority to spy on every man, woman, and child.
I think we must wonder; has George W. Bush hypnotized his Vice President. One never knows. We can only look on with interest and ponder; who is in power.
Source of scorn, secrets, and suspicions . . .
Cheney Warns of Iraq Quagmire ... in 1994 MoJo Blog. By Laura Rozen. Mother Jones. August 13, 2007
Breaking Ranks, What turned Brent Scowcroft against the Bush Administration? By Jeffrey Goldberg. The New Yorker. October 31, 2005
Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire.' Editors and Publishers. August 13, 2007
First Father: Tough Times on Sidelines, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The New York Times. August 9, 2007
pdf First Father: Tough Times on Sidelines, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The New York Times. August 9, 2007
President Cheney? By Fred Barnes. The Weekly Standard. March 7, 2005
Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President, By Charles Babington. Washington Post. Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06
The scandal sheet, By Peter Dizikes. Salon. January 18, 2005
The scandal sheet, By Peter Dizikes. Salon. January 18, 2005
Congress yields to pass Bush spying bill. Reuters. Saturday, August 4, 2007