Centerfield

What If It Went Down Like This?

Maybe that Tom Clancy novel I’m reading is a bad influence. But I had a discussion with a co-worker related to Andrew Sullivan’s "fisking" of Wesley Clark, and we came to an agreement on what might well have REALLY gone down in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. So I’m wondering what anyone else thinks about this...

Our feeling is that, very soon after 9/11, the Bush admin quickly decided on their response. An invasion of Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion, with the goal of the ouster of the Taliban and the destruction of as much of Al Quaeda as possible. Here's what I said to him after reading the Sullivan article which strives to make Clark look as bad a spossible

"Yeah, it seems apparent that, having been weaned on the US Army, Clark is a master of talking out of both sides of his mouth, and has been unprepared for just how much more difficult it is to get away with this when everyone is watching all the time."

"That said, 2 points:"

"Clark still makes a good case in a variety of similar essays that the benefits of a multilateral approach are worth the sacrifice of some autonomy."

"The author, Andrew Sullivan, is a well-known pro-war zealot and reflexive defender of the Bush administration. That's probably why he quickly jumps on Clark for being "Ross Perot crazy" for suggesting that the Pentagon/admin had discussed a plan to go on a rampage of toppling ME regimes. IMO, there's little doubt that the topic was broached, how seriously no one knows. But here's the part of Sullivan's description of Clark that I don't think is crazy at all:"

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Clark said, he visited the Pentagon, where an old colleague, a three-star general, confided to him that the civilian authorities running the Pentagon--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team--planned to use the September 11th attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. "They made the decision to attack Iraq sometime soon after 9/11," Clark said. "So, rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to a problem."

"Now I'd quarrel with the use of the word "pretext" since it suggests invalid reasoning. But I have almost no doubt that this decision was made pretty promptly after 9/11 and that turning away from it was never a serious possibility. The whole UN thing was mostly done as an obligatory going through the motions. War in Iraq could only have been averted if Hussein stepped down, which no one viewed as a real possibility.

In shorthand, what I think really happened is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bush met with a small circle of advisors, and the gist of the conclusions arrived at were as follows: OK, Afghanistan is a foregone conclusion. The Taliban are done, dead men walking. But that's not enough. We need to make a serious example of someone. Saddam Hussein is the very obvious (and indeed only sensible)choice.

Anyone who is defending the adminstration is loath to admit anything close to this for obvious PR reasons, but that's how I think it went down.

And to be frank, if I were the President, I might well have done the same thing. So as I've thought about it more and more, it has troubled me less and less. But for Sullivan to call Clark crazy for suggesting it just reveals his reflexive biases as a Bush apologist on the war. I don't think less of Clark at ALL for saying it, instead I think less of Sullivan.

Do you disagree with the idea that the decision to invade Iraq got very firm very fast after 9/11, and that nothing less than Hussein stepping down could have averted it?

My co-worker was in absolute agreement. Now of course, I have no inside knowledge, but the scenario I describe seems pretty plausible, and, like I said, I have to admit I may well have chosen such a path. Thoughts, anyone?