Courtesy of Media Whores Online

NEO-CONS: DIMMER THAN YOU THINK

Or: Didn't you see this coming?

As it becomes all the more evident that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a catastrophic miscalculation with extremely long-term consequences and no relief in sight from our allies abroad, we at the American Assembler thought it would be instructive to revisit the months preceding the Iraq war to see if there were any warnings the Bush administration could have drawn upon to foresee the potential for what can now only be described as the Iraq disaster.

Didn't anyone see this coming? Or did our leaders really believe that this would be a "cakewalk" and we would be "greeted as liberators"?

As it turns out, about the only people who did believe that spin were the spinners themselves. Warnings and grave concerns were expressed from the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, former members of previous administrations, foreign governments, and even Bush's own Secretary of State.

So what were these warnings? We can start with history. The fact is, there hasn't been a successful invasion and occupation of Baghdad in 3000 years. As ABC News pointed out in the article, Iraq: Saladin to Saddam:

For millenniums, Iraq has worn and rejected the yoke of foreign invaders, from merciless Assyrians to a British-constructed monarchy that was overthrown in 1958.

If anyone was prepared to offer some credible advice on the perils of getting bogged down in Iraq, it was the British. And as it just so happens, they did just that. From an August, 2002 article in The Independent:

Britain has strongly advised the United States against attacking Iraq,
warning that it risked intensifying the conflicts in Afghanistan, Israel
and Kashmir, senior defense and diplomatic sources say.

In a sign of deepening discord between the two allies, British ministers
and officials in Whitehall believe that a new war would "contaminate" the
other crises."These are issues the Americans appear not to have
considered," said one official.

They also have grave reservations about President George Bush's demand for
a "regime change" in Baghdad because, London believes, no alternative
regime has been identified for such a change to take place. Britain may be
lumbered with leading a massive stabilization force for "up to five years"
in an anarchic post-war Iraq, with the prospect of the country being
partitioned.

It was only later, in September of 2002, as illuminated in Peter Stothard's book, 30 Days, and clarified further by Martin Kettle for the Guardian, that Blair concluded that a US war with Iraq was inevitable so Britain had best be on board.

Then, of course, there were the many warnings from the US, most notably from senior members of the previous Bush administration. From James Baker, "we should try our best not to go it alone, and the President should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so", to Brent Scowcroft, "the fallout from a new war with Iraq could be Armageddon in the Middle East", to Senator Chuck Hagel, "hawks might be pushing the country down a dangerous path", it seemed that Bush was surrounded by nays-ayers on every front.

But by far the most compelling and precise warnings came from the Pentagon. From the Washington Post, May, 2002:

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have waged a determined behind-the-scenes campaign to persuade the Bush administration to reconsider an aggressive posture toward Iraq in which war was regarded as all but inevitable.

...In their Tank sessions, the chiefs focused on two specific concerns... the danger of becoming bogged down in bloody block-by-block urban warfare in Baghdad that could kill thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.

There were similar warnings from the British military as published by The Observer , March 17, 2002:

Britain's military leaders issued a stark warning to Tony Blair last night that any war against Iraq is doomed to fail and would lead to the loss of lives for little political gain.

As the debate over whether to commit British troops alongside American forces intensified, the leaders urged 'extreme caution' over any moves towards war, saying servicemen faced being bogged down in a perilous open-ended commitment.

These warnings now have an ominous ring as the situation in Iraq unfolds almost exactly as they predicted. They also present possibly the most compelling criticism of the Bush presidency to date: extremely bad judgment.

Much has been made of the deceptive sell preceding the war and the poor planning for the postwar. There was even a fleeting yet valid criticism of the shock and awe campaign itself and Rumsfeld's new "war on the cheap" doctrine.

But surprisingly little attention has been payed to the sheer lack of judgment in choosing this war in the first place. Stripping away for a moment any moral or ethical considerations, it is clear from the record that Bush had received many warnings from many credible sources of the perils of invading Iraq and simply chose to ignore them. This is an issue of stupidity.

One can argue that this is a just war or that it was waged with the best intentions (although you will not see that argument put forth here), but as countless warnings predicted, and the the situation clearly demonstrates, strategically, the cerebral abilities of the Bush neo-cons are highly over-rated.

Related Articles:

• Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy
• Spy agencies foresaw Iraq resistance
• Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq
• Ancient Cradle of Civilization Has Resisted Occupiers for Millenniums
• Pentagon, GOP Leaders Oppose Iraq Invasion
• Level with us, Mr. President By Edward Kennedy
• Iraq war could engulf region, Britain warns US
• Eagleburger questions possible Iraqi move
• Don't Attack Saddam by Brent Scowcroft
• Bush and father at odds over Iraq strike From Tim Reid in Washington
• Army fear over Blair war plans
• Below the Beltway: Neo-Cons vs. New York Times