The following warnings appeared in a 2002 Bush administration memorandum:
• "US could fail to find WMD on the ground in Iraq."
"Post-Saddam stabilization and reconstruction efforts by the United States could take not two to four years, but eight to ten years."
"Iraq could experience ethnic strife among Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia…"
The author? It was Donald Rumsfeld, former United States Secretary of Defense, in a powerful analysis of the downsides of going to war in Iraq. Why then, did one of the decade’s most important foreign policy decisions go the other way?
Douglas J. Feith, former United States Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (2001 – 2005), joins us tonight to discuss the dynamics of the first Bush term, and how we make foreign policy decisions- Ford Hall Forum
Jules Crittenden is a Boston Herald city editor and columnist who has reported on politics, crime, science, foreign affairs, and maritime and military matters in the United States, Asia, the Balkans and the Middle East.
Douglas J. Feith served as the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy for United States President George W. Bush from July 2001 until he resigned from his position effective August 8, 2005.
Feith's official responsibilities included the formulation of defense planning guidance and forces policy, United States Department of Defense (DoD) relations with foreign countries, and the DoD's role in U.S. Government inter-agency policymaking.
I read this book and found it to be a fascinating read. I have had many opinions about the events of 9/11/01 and my country's reaction to those events and I have decided to put my judgements aside until some time has passed.
I have heard all sides. The world is full of Monday Morning Quarter Backs, but unfortunately, the world's leaders often have to make decisions without information we all learn later.
This book is worth reading to learn about the confusion that existed among our intelligence community and our defense and legislative personnel. Our homeland had never been attacked before by a foreign power - Hawai'i was not a state in 1941 - and that attack was on military targets. The terrorists targeted civilians indiscriminantly - Christian civilians, Jewish civilians, Muslim Civilians, Hindu civilians - civilians all. How does one respond to that? Why do so many people give a pass to terror and claim it does not merit a massive response? No functioning WMD programs were discovered but if one reads the Duelfer Report from the Iraq study group beyond what the msm reported, one could see that the intellectua;l, scientific and planning aspects of Iraq's WMD programs were all in place, waiting for the inspection and weakening sanctions regime to end.
There is a problem here morally, that the left and anti-war anti-United States people must answer. Where were you when Iraq was gassing its own citizens? Have you asked the UN to investigate the extermination of the Kurds, Marsh Arabs and other poor, voiceless people in Iraq? Do the Mass Graves not make you angrier than the United States' attack on this totalitarian, brutal state? Read the book and you pathalogical United States haters and Bush derangement syndrome sufferers may see things differently.
Lurtz, we do not need UN support to defend our interests. The UN sits by and allows Arab nations to commit terror all over the globe with ZERO action or comment. Also, China, France and Russia would have voted no. The UN is an illegitimate, immoral organization populated by non-democratic tyrannical states looking out for their own interests, as all nations should.
I am sorry but everything this guy is saying is complete rubbish. The way George Bush reacted to 911 was unforgivable. When a super power reacts the way the USA did to that attack it only be viewed as cowardice. It is like a school yard bully, who when finally gets hit back, goes around the school yard and beats up all the smaller children. People have very short memories. Hans Blix at the time was saying that he could find no evidence of WMDs. Everybody knew, at the time just before the illegal invasion of Iraq, that there was no evidence to support these assertions. If Saddam Hussein had WMDs he would have used them at the time of the first Iraq war (Desert Storm) to have provoked Israel into the conflict in an effort to break up the fragile military alliance that existed to allow US troops to mount part of their offensive from the Saudi Arabia. The USA spearheaded this invasion without the support of the UN. That the world now tries to claim that they didn't know is completely fraudulent. You know one of the most impressive displays of strenght I've ever seen was when one guy in a pub was trying to provoke a fight with another, he swung a rather impressive punch at his perceived 'enemy' which connected right on the jaw. The recipient of this punch barely flinched, looked back at his assailant, smiled, and said 'is that all you got?' I swear, this bloke turned pale and fled. Just imagine the how the USA would be viewed today if they had behaved in a similar manner.
Yes, yes, Saddam was evil, but the USA gave him weapons in the 1980s. Donald Rumsfield is on You Tube shaking hands with him. AND as for WMDs, they didn't even find a can of RAID! Is US intelligence that crappy, or were there other motives? Also Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, NOT in Iraq! DUH!
Praise Bush now but what about thirty years from now when the children of Iraq will become men and women who remember an attack by the U.S. based on WMDs that were never found? They are going to want REVENGE for the brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who died due to collateral damage from U.S. missiles? Among the youth today will rise a man more powerful than Saddam Hussein ever was or was ever going to be.
Thirty years from now who is going to praise America's decision to having gone to war?
America is safe now. But wait 20-30 years from now when Iraq unites under a leader with vengeance in his soul.