Panetta and Iraq: To Stay or not to Stay—and more (UPDATED)
Jul 11th, 2011 | 29 responses
As 46,000 U.S. troops still remain in Iraq, as McCain (who once said that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years”) wants as many as 13,000 troops to remain in Iraq, and as our troops continue to be killed there, the new U.S. Secretary of Defense made his first trip to Iraq in that capacity.
While Obama has promised to withdraw the remaining troops from Iraq by December 31, Leon Panetta attempted to walk a fine line between conflicting political and military posturing and realities, respectively.
On the political side, in addition to McCain, there are still many conservatives and even some “senior Obama administration officials” who would be amenable to an invitation by the Iraqi government to leave some U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline. But in this topsy-turvy pre-election period there are also many Republicans who for purely political and/or fiscal reasons are now “tapping into widespread public anxiety about expensive foreign wars,” including a continued presence in Iraq. Democrats generally continue to oppose any continued involvement in the remnants of that war.
As to military realities, it is becoming more and more apparent that the Iraqi military are not quite ready yet to secure their own country, as evidenced by a recent escalation in insurgents’ attacks—attacks that also claimed the highest level of American troop casualties in two years and continue to target U.S. military installations, even in the Green Zone.
Many of the weapons used in such attacks are being supplied by Iran, according to Secretary Panetta, and are being used by Shiite militias and have become a “tremendous concern” for U.S. troops.
Finally, there are the political considerations in Iraq and by Iraqis. Considerations that keep Iraqi politicians from openly admitting that Iraq needs a continued American military presence. According to the New York Times, “The subject is particularly sensitive because the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr helped the current government come to power and has said many times that the United States should leave immediately.”
While “demurring” when asked if he would like the Iraqi government to come out and ask the U.S. to leave troops in Iraq beyond Dec. 31, Panetta certainly is making it clear that he wants the Iraqi government to make up its mind one way or another, and soon.
“I’ll encourage them to make a decision so that we know where we’re going,” he told reporters traveling with him on a tour of the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the Washington Post. “If they do make a request, we ought to seriously consider it.”
According to a “senior U.S. Defense official”:
There’s some urgency for them to make that request if they’re going to make it…Our point to the Iraqis is if you’re going to ask, you should ask us sooner because our ability to actually come through on a request is higher now than it will be in September, October, November.
Such help would be, according to U.S. officials, in the form of strengthening Iraqi air defenses, training and counterterrorism operations.
But all this, only if Iraq makes a timely, formal request.
On the other hand, McCain—as usual—is more pro-active:
The United States has got to come forth with our proposal as to what we think they need and then I believe that it’s very possible – and I emphasize possible – that the Iraqis could then decide unanimously that they want the residual US presence, which would certainly be non-combat and would certainly be largely technical.
In a continuation of this topsy-turvy season, news sources are reporting that Panetta, speaking to troops at Camp Victory in Baghdad, has suggested that U.S. troops are in Iraq because of 9/11.
His words:
The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked…And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.
This puts Panetta “at odds with President Obama, the 9/11 Commission and other independent experts, who have said there is no evidence al-Qaeda had a presence in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.”
Stay tuned
UPDATE:
An updated edition of the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes, has the following on Panetta’s earlier remarks linking Iraq to 9/11:
It has been widely reported, however, that there is no evidence Iraq was behind the 2001 attacks, and al-Qaida only flooded into this country in response to the U.S. invasion in 2003.
Panetta later clarified to reporters that he meant al-Qaida had “developed a presence here.”
He told troops it was “our responsibility” to maintain a strong forward counterterrorism presence in the region to check the spread of al-Qaida and other groups, especially during the recent turmoil.
“There’s no question we’re going to have to maintain a presence,” he said, to provide direction with continued military and special operations elements.
“We’re going to be around for a helluva long time, making sure that the world goes right.”
29 Responses to “Panetta and Iraq: To Stay or not to Stay—and more (UPDATED)”
Dorian,
I appreciate your calling attention to Panetta’s comments which are at odds with Obama’s version of events. Thank you.
A small quibble with the last paragraph:
The 9/11 Commission said there was no evidence of a “collaborative relationship” between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission did not say Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before 2003. The 9/11 Commission actually cited an instance of Al Qaeda being in Kurdistan prior to 2003; working with Iran to attack Kurds.
Note:
I do not remember that any part of the justification for invading Iraq was based upon assertion of Al Qaeda being physically located in Iraq.
9/11 Commission Report
“Responding to a presidential tasking, Richard Clarke’s office sent a memo to Condoleezza Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.[Emphasis mine]
::
Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz—not Rumsfeld—argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked. Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. “Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with,” Powell told us.“And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.” Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz’s argument “much weight.”
::
On September 20, President Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the two leaders discussed the global conflict ahead.When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem. Some members of his administration, he commented, had expressed a different view, but he was the one responsible for making the decisions.”
Source: The 9/11 Commission Report, p.334-336 04-911-01 on July 22, 2004
“Anecdotal” adj.: “like a short entertaining account of some happening, usually personal or biographical” (Not something one goes to war about)
@Dorian,
What point are you making?
I am not arguing that Al Qaeda was physically in Iraq before 2003, except as cited by the 9/11 Commission in the instance of Al Qaeda teaming up with Iran to attack Kurds.
Second, I am not arguing that Al Qaeda and Saddam had a “collaborative relationship.”
I do not see that that Panetta is arguing that Al Qaeda was, in any significant way, physically based in Iraq before 2003. I do not see that Panetta is arguing that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a “collaborative relationship.”
This is how I remember the case for war against Saddam:
1. We wrongly believed Saddam had WMD
2. We rightly believed Saddam had WMD capability
3. Saddam was an intentional troublemaker in the region: a wild card who did not abide by the Desert Storm treaty; did not cooperate with UN Resolutions; actively searched out ways to damage the U.S. and Israel; shot at our planes and cost us money and manpower to enforce a no fly zone; and (due to his own strategic calculations) bluffed as if he had WMD available for immediate use.
Our declared enemy, Al Qaeda, did not need to be in a relationship with our declared enemy, Saddam, for Saddam to be a threat to team up with Al Qaeda and to give WMD to Al Qaeda. It is not like Saddam did not know how to find Al Qaeda if he wished to speak with them. And vice verse. When government officials say: “9/11 changed everything”, they mean the U.S. government, circa 2002-2003, was not willing to tolerate that particular threat of those two avowed enemies teaming up to deploy WMD against U.S. citizens.
That is how I recall the case for war against Saddam.
Thanks Dorian, It’s nice to see “documented facts” instead of “personal opinion”… an incredibility liberal concept that constantly irritates the ‘others.’
Welcome back by the way, I tried twice to say so in your July 4th post but was locked out in one of those mysterious TMV “time warps.”
Thanks, Steve.
Good to be back, although it was absolutely exhilarating to visit beautiful Ecuador, especially its rain forest. More about this hopefully later.
@GC:
Your recall of the war noted. Thanks
More on this in today’s New York Times:
“Making his first visit to Iraq as defense secretary, Mr. Panetta also said flatly — before he and a Pentagon spokesman qualified his remarks — that United States forces were in Iraq was because of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That was part of the narrative advanced by former Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush White House, but it is now widely dismissed.
“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked, and 3,000 not just Americans, but 3,000 human beings got killed, innocent human beings, because of Al Qaeda,” Mr. Panetta told Army troops at Camp Victory, the sprawling American military base in Baghdad.
Later, Mr. Panetta told reporters that he was not speaking of the reasons for the 2003 American-led invasion but rather was referring to events afterward.
“I wasn’t saying, you know, the invasion, or going into the issues or the justification of that,” Mr. Panetta said. “It was more the fact that we really had to deal with Al Qaeda here.”
In the run-up to the 2003 war, Bush administration officials repeatedly cited ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but a government investigation found no meaningful operational link between the two. After the invasion, Al Qaeda fighters did pour into Iraq to launch attacks on the American military.”
NYT is wrong. Bush Admin officials did not “repeatedly cited ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”. NYT is promoting a falsehood.
Saddam and Al Qaeda did not need to be in a relationship in order for Saddam and Al Qaeda to be a threat to begin a relationship. After 9/11, the Bush Admin was not willing to bear the risk of Saddam giving WMD to Al Qaeda.
NYT can either agree or disagree w/Bush Admin’s strategic decision. However, NYT ought not attempt (once again) to manipulate history into conformity with their preferred fantasy narrative. This type of false reportage is the reason NYT fell off the top of the mountain, and now grovels amongst the common rabble.
The case for war simply was not predicated on an existing relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It was predicated, partially, on the potential working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. After 9/11, the Bush Admin was unwilling to bear the risk of that potential collaboration.
The remainder of the case for war was based on Saddam being a bad actor in the region who had not kept his agreements and who was actively creating as much trouble as he could for the U.S. After 9/11, the Bush Admin was unwilling to stand by and watch Saddam create that trouble.
Need I continue? O.K…
Thanks, Steve.
I (and so many others) have covered this ground so much that it just gets tiresome to regurgitate the same stuff over and over again.
See also this:
The Bush administration “used 27 rationales for war in Iraq … all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002,” according to Devon M. Lario in her 212-page senior honors thesis at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: [2]
“Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress and the Media from September 12, 2001, to October 11, 2002.”
@SteveK
Since the time, maybe a year ago, that you declared you would never again address a comment to me, you have addressed many comments to me. I have ignored them, which was easy, b/c they were always weakly reasoned bullshit. This time, you have finally hit upon some facts which deserve response.
from Dorian’s NYT quote:
I said NYT claim re “repeatedly cited ties” was false. I was wrong about that. Your citations show I was wrong about “ties”. I was sloppy, and hurried, and I conflated “ties” and “collaborative relationship” and the Bush Admin argument that Saddam was a threat to give WMD to Al Qaeda. I apologize.
I am glad this entire conversation is occurring. Look at the NYT quote. Look at the 9/11 Commission statements about “collaborative relationship” and about Al Qaeda being in Iraq and helping Iran attack Kurds. Then look at your quotations from Pres. Bush’ speeches, such as:
So far as any of us know: everything which everyone (Pres. Bush; 9/11 Commission) said is correct.
Some of it, such as 9/11 Commission’s “no collaborative relationship”, was artful language. Did 9/11 Commission refute Pres. Bush’ citation of intelligence about Saddam terror ties? They did not.
What did “no collaborative relationship” mean? Did it mean lack of ties or lack of communications? It did not. Did it mean U.S. intelligence was wrong about Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda and to terrorists? 9/11 Commission did not assert that, and likely had no way to judge the accuracy of that assertion by U.S. Intelligence.
“no collaborative relationship” was a nuanced term which was intended to give political cover – even a political cudgel – to those who opposed the invasion of Iraq. Which it did. If pressed, the 9/11 Commission did not have better intelligence than U.S. Intelligence; 9/11 Commission could not have declared that Saddam had no known ties to Al Qaeda. “No collaborative relationship” amounts to acknowledgement by the 9/11 Commission that Saddam did have ties to Al Qaeda; amounts to 9/11 Commission conceding that Pres Bush told the truth. If pressed, 9/11 Commission’s “no collaborative relationship” amounts to little more than assertion that there was no evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were actively plotting to attack the U.S.
Your quotations from Pres. Bush support the accuracy of my comment last night, and of my comment this morning at 11:20 AM: after 9/11, the Bush Admin was unwilling to bear the risk of Saddam’s potentially delivering WMD to Al Qaeda. The remainder of the case for war was based on Saddam being a bad actor in the region. After 9/11, the Bush Admin was unwilling to stand by and watch Saddam create that trouble.
It is correct that, in the run up to the Iraq invasion, Bush Admin floated many public rationales for war. I was frustrated, at the time, by Bush Admin’s failure to concisely focus on a case for war.
There were two things going on:
1) the actual case for war = the risk of Saddam delivering WMD to Al Qaeda + Saddam being a bad actor in the region
and
2) the public, political case for war … which political case for war was targeted at the American people.
Bush Admin could not have gone to war w/o sufficient support from American citizens. The 27 various cases for war were targeted at the American people; were attempts to inform/sell/market the case for war to an American people who were unaware of all aspects of Saddam’s actions in Iraq and in the surrounding region. The 27 various cases for war were educational; were salesmanship; were marketing. And maybe were necessary. If the American people were to support an invasion, then the American people first needed to educated about Saddam and the region.
When it comes to excuses and “justifications” for the Iraq War, selective memory function among it’s apologists is well known – which is consistent with what seems to be a general rightwing disdain for accountability in any form. Same old…
“The 27 various cases for war were educational; were salesmanship; were marketing. ”
Tell that to the parents, sons, daughters,brothers and sisters of the 4,000+ men and women who have thus far died in that war!
” If the American people were to support an invasion, then the American people first needed to educated about Saddam and the region.”
Wow, what a sad commentary on your opinion of the intelligence, values and spirit of the American people.
@Dorian
Wrong, on both counts.
Your first assertion is that educating/selling/marketing to the American people … equates to the invasion being unjust. Your assertion is illogical. The one thing does not equate to the other.
Your second assertion: my opinion that the American people were not well educated re Saddam’s activities in Iraq and in the region … equates to my believing the American people lack requisite intelligence, values, spirit. This second assertion is also illogical. The one thing does not equate to the other.
We American citizens are vastly busy living our lives and raising our children, et al. We elect representatives to take in-depth looks at issues, and to call our attention to matters which need our further attention. This is as it should be. And this is as it was when the Bush Admin called the American people’s attention to the matter of the threat which our avowed enemy Saddam represented; to Saddam’s troublesome activities in the region; and more.
“Democracy is worst system of government, except for every other system of government yet invented.” – Winston Churchill
The Bush/Cheney War had nothing to do with what the American people either understood or wanted. It had everything to do with what Bush, Cheney, and Co. wanted to take place. The revisionist history is nonsense.
Right. That’s why they got reelected in 2004.
Actually, they DIDN’T get reelected… They got appointed.
The willingness of some people to work in the service of sustaining a lie based solely on tribalism is truly disgusting.
The problem, zephyr: the left goes too far; creates fantasy narratives and then scorns anyone who does not genuflect to the fantasy which never happened.
GWB did not want to risk Saddam giving WMD to Al Qaeda; did not think it strategically justified to allow Saddam to continue being a bad actor in the region.
Now: those who disagree with GWB’s strategic judgements .. can and ought make their cases that GWB’s strategic judgements were wrong.
The left goes further. The left pretends GWB did not truly believe Saddam was a significant threat. This narrative: that GWB did not truly believe Saddam was a significant threat, is where you are coming from when you say “in the service of sustaining a lie.” That is too far. The left goes too far. You have gone too far. You are into the land of fantasy thinking. Or propaganda. Or both.
“no collaborative relationship” was a politically nuanced term of art which was designed to provide a cudgel to GWB’s enemies. The left took the politically nuanced phrase and ran with it … to their favorite fantasy place. And propaganda place.
GC, I think when it comes to the Iraq War, you have become a victim of your own propaganda.
It is a shame, for you, that you cannot elucidate your reasoning. Or, possibly, have not the confidence to do so.
gcotharn – In my opinion the US had Saddam contained before the war. We had the no fly zones, economic and military sanctions. He was not a threat. We had NO EVIDENCE that he had an ongoing WMD program. However, Saddam did provide a counterweight to Iran – they really hated each other.
As a result of toppling Saddam and virtually neutering the Sunni power, we have given rise to a strong Shite government that is a virtual handmaiden to Iran. This has considerably emboldened Iran and gives them an additional base to project power Iran, thru Iraq to Syria and Lebanon.
The Iraq war was a strategic mistake that cost too many lives and treasure while making our position in the mideast worse.
jdledell shows how to argue that GWB’s strategic calculations were misguided. I congratulate him.
The counterarguments are:
– re economic sanctions: Saddam had sufficiently corrupted the Oil for Food program; had bribed enough diplomats that the U.N. was about to lift economic sanctions.
– re threat: Saddam, an avowed enemy of the U.S.A., retained capability of starting up a WMD program; remained a threat to give WMD to Al Qaeda.
– re evidence of WMD: Saddam, for his own strategic reasons, bluffed as if he had WMD. U.S. intelligence believed Saddam had WMD (see: George Tenet and “It’s a slam dunk”).
– re Iran projecting power: your opinion is noted. It would have been nice if novice Candidate Obama and then Pres. Obama did not confer legitimacy upon the shaky Iranian regime via announcing he would meet with them; via actually supporting the Iranian regime during the student uprising in 2009 (b/c Obama, in a naive novice mistake, foolishly believed he could negotiate a regional solution – re Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel – with the Iranian regime).
I add, re Iran, that Iraq and Afghanistan now have Iran sandwiched on either side with nations whose citizens get to vote in legitimate democratic elections. Iranian citizens can see that. And Iranian citizens can see the Western electronics and other consumer goods which are available in Iraq, yet which are not as available in Iran. This knowledge – of democracy and goodies which are just across the border, yet which are not available to Iranian citizens, likely contributes to an unsettled Iranian citizenship which is always close to revolt. I have, from the beginning, believed that encouraging Iranian citizen revolt and Iranian citizen overthrow of the Mullahs, constitutes a huge benefit of the U.S. projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S.A.ought be covertly supplying the Iranian opposition.
With all the above counterarguments laid out for inspection, I do emphasize that I fully respect those, such as Dorian and jdledell, who disagree with GWB’s decision to invade Iraq. We have expended much life, health, and treasure on the project.
“It is a shame, for you, that you cannot elucidate your reasoning. Or, possibly, have not the confidence to do so.” – gc
Well that was just sad. Dude, this isn’t about me; this is about your own failure to grasp what actually happened. The failure is compounded when the benefit of hindsight is ignored or dismissed. The jury has been in on this a long time now and better people than me have tried to drag people like you to the truth of it. All the “elucidating” in the world doesn’t matter a whit if you’ve already locked in a position. “Reasoning” isn’t quite the same thing as bandying words around.
It’s probably worth posting again the interesting pair of facts:
1. First Gulf War, our intelligence didn’t know about Hussein’s nuclear program and its progress.
2. Second Gulf War, our intelligence didn’t know about Hussein’s nuclear stand-down, even its shutdown.
(That’s Western intelligence, not merely ours, i.e., the USA’s.)
Given what we had learned earlier, it was rational to presume progress was continuing. Same with chemical weapons, e.g., given how he had not only developed these but had used these.
Obviously, it would have been much better to have known more.
That’s a great hat Dorian is wearing in the photo, incidentally. The beard looks good, too.
Thanks, DLS.
By the way, the hat is called a “Panama Hat,” although they are made in Ecuador—in Jipijapa, to be exactly correct, and made from the Jipijapa plant.
But that’s another story for another day.