« Answering RedState On Phelps | Main | Yushchenko Fades »
The New York Times reports on leaked notes from a US-UK White House summit in January 2003 that shows both George Bush and Tony Blair determined to remove Saddam Hussein and to put an end to the twelve-year quagmire that kept Saddam in power. Like most of the Gray Lady's reporting on the war (except for the estimable John Burns), this supposed revelation rehashes what we already know, with a thin veneer of hyperbole:
In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
As usual, however, one has to read much farther into this document in order to get the context of the meeting. By January 31, Bush and Blair had already forced Saddam to allow Hans Blix back in the country for more weapons inspections, the purpose of which was to get the Iraqis to produce proof that they had destroyed their WMD stocks and equipment. That intermediate step came at the insistence of France, which wanted to delay consideration of the so-called "second resolution" wanted by Britain as political cover.
By the time Bush met Blair at the White House, Hans Blix had reported that the Iraqis would not cooperate with the inspections, only paying lip service to the inspectors. Now, thanks to captured notes of Iraqi meetings, we know that Saddam remained confident that his bribery of France and Russia (as well as their well-known economic interest in maintaining their contracts with the Saddam regime) would result in a stalemate at the Security Council over any resolution opening military force as a consequence of failure. That may be why France practically begged Blair at that moment not to pursue a "second resolution" (actually a 17th); they assured both the US and the UK that the previous sixteen resolutions gave plenty of cause for action, but that France would find it politically impossible to vote for explicit military action against Iraq.
By this time, had the US not had a plan for military action against Iraq, it would have been almost criminally neglectful. Why should it surprise anyone that two nations that faced war with Saddam Hussein would discuss the military strategy involved in that war? Nothing discussed in the meeting appears to break new ground, politically or tactically; the US planned to attack command-and-control assets quickly and reduce the Republican Guard to disorganized patrols instead of a cohesive fighting force. The one big question, protecting the oil wells, got addressed by US planning for their protection. Otherwise, this discussion could have taken place around anyone's kitchen table by January 2003.
In short, the Times presents us with a memo that shows the US and UK understanding that Saddam would not cooperate with the UN nor voluntarily disarm or step aside; history proved them correct on all those assertions. Given those as reality, the two nations prepared for war. If the Times finds this surprising, it demonstrates their cluelessness all the more.Sphere It View blog reactions
TrackBack URL for this entry is
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Telling Us What We Already Knew:
» Scandal of the week from Sister Toldjah
The NYT tells us what we knew already regarding the President’s attempt to take down Saddam Hussein. In this breathtaking example of overhype: In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2006 7:19 AM
Tracked on March 27, 2006 1:13 PM
My Other Blog!
Comment Moderation Policy - Please Read!
Skin The Site
Des Moines Register
International Herald Tribune
The Weekly Standard
The New Republic
AP News (Yahoo! Headlines)
Guardian Unlimited (UK)
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
- dave on Another National Health Care System Horror Story
- brooklyn on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- rbj on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- Robin S on Requiem For A Betrayed Hero
- Ken on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- Robin S. on Requiem For A Betrayed Hero
- RBMN on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- NoDonkey on Another National Health Care System Horror Story
- Robin Munn on Fred Thompson Interview Transcript
- filistro on When Exactly Did Art Die?
Proud Ex-Pat Member of the Bear Flag League!