Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Op-Eds

Iraq's bitter lessons

It has been 10 years since then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. speech on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I watched the secretary's presentation intently on assignment to Fort Jackson, S.C. that day. The presentation, of course, would make the final case for war with Iraq before the world, Congress and, arguably most importantly, the American people.

Like many of my colleagues on active duty, I had been highly skeptical of this pretext for war while serving as a military planner, particularly over what many regarded as plausible exaggerations and outright distortions. The latter, by all indications — and certainly among planners on the inside of the process — took on increasing intensity in the months following 9/11. Iraq, of course, was initially implicated in the attack itself — with at least one senior administration official, Paul Wolfowitz, arguing for a regime takedown in the days immediately following the attacks, according to accounts. There soon followed stories (never confirmed) of 9/11 hijackers who met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Czechoslovakia, and later of the Iraqi agent code-named "Curveball," who first proclaimed the existence of the mobile weapons labs cited by Secretary Powell. Many Americans would wrongly come to believe Iraq was behind 9/11, and this was no accident.

Mr. Wolfowitz, known as an intellectual architect of the war as deputy secretary of defense, and others brought into government by Vice President Dick Cheney were said to have been intent on doing something about Iraq from the outset of the Bush administration, after a decade of sanctions and no-fly enforcement that were of limited effectiveness. That this intention would soon take the form of building a case for a ground war in Iraq on the heels of 9/11, and would find a receptive audience in the White House, astounded many of us, especially with military planning at the time indicating possibly five years or more of a costly, bloody ground war, probably involving several hundred thousand troops. Mr. Wolfowitz later indicated that the possibility of weapons of mass destruction was "the only thing we could all agree on" as the case for war was made. That possibility, eventually advertised as a virtual certainty, became the casus belli.

In April 2003, I was in attendance at the Army War College Annual Strategy Conference in Carlisle, Pa. On April 9, the day Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad was taken down, the keynote speaker for the conference was Richard Perle, another so-called intellectual architect of the war, as a previous assistant defense secretary and later as chairman of the Defense Policy Board (and frequent talk show guest). When, at the conclusion of his remarks (which centered on the elimination of the strategic threat posed by Hussein's WMDs), I asked him, "What's next?" he replied, "Iran or Syria — take your pick." I countered that there was a very high likelihood that the cost and duration of the Iraq war would never enable that, and that many unforeseen difficulties would soon arise. This was greeted hostilely by speaker and audience alike. The rest is history, however, and bears no repeating here.

Whatever the actual, versus the articulated, motivation for the war with Iraq, the likelihood that a misbegotten military adventure like this one — costing America over 4,000 dead, over 30,000 wounded and well in excess of a trillion dollars — will be repeated anytime soon is, thankfully, very low if not altogether non-existent. Americans have once again had to learn, the hard way, to be skeptical of the policy process, particularly where the cost to America, and ordinary Americans, can be extraordinarily high. That's the side of history where I want to stand.

 Ralph Masi, a collegiate professor at University of Maryland University College, studied the Iraq war following a career on active duty. His email is ralph.masi@faculty.umuc.edu.

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • Confronting terrorism requires force
      Confronting terrorism requires force

      Regarding Barbara Risacher's recent letter on the war on terror, the least attractive option is to fail to respond forcibly to terror — a view the writer apparently favors ("New thinking in war on terror," Feb. 26).

    • Obama ended the Iraq war, which was what voters elected him to do
      Obama ended the Iraq war, which was what voters elected him to do

      In response to reader Jay Hilgartner's letter, Bud Adams asserts that the "disaster of nation building in Iraq" occurred when President Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country in 2011, against the advice of his military advisers and at a time when the country was calm and stable...

    • New thinking in war on terror
      New thinking in war on terror

      Thank you for publishing Eve Bruce's commentary on America's failed war on terror ("America's failed war on terror," it is evident that "we the people" have been had by the fear mongers and those who are benefiting from unending war. Now is the time to stop and think. Is the world any better...

    • Obama fails to recognize Muslim terrorist threat
      Obama fails to recognize Muslim terrorist threat

      I could care less what the global war on terrorism is called ("Not a holy war," Feb. 20). But two thoughts come to mind.

    • Islam is a religion of peace
      Islam is a religion of peace

      As an Ahmad Muslim, I believe Islam condemns terrorism and that there is no room for any violence in the name of blasphemy. The Qur'an constantly exhorts people to think while also telling Muslims to ignore the ignorant and provocative, not harm them.

    • Our real Mideast problem: Support for despots
      Our real Mideast problem: Support for despots

      I agree with both presidents Obama and Bush that the U.S. is not engaged in a war against Islam and that the Islamic State, or ISIS, does not represent a legitimate interpretation of that religion ("Not a holy war," Feb. 20).

    • Obama not standing up to terrorists
      Obama not standing up to terrorists

      I am a committed U.S. citizen who loves his country, a former U.S. Marine and a participating Jew, but I am currently feeling some concern and fear. I strongly believe that when leadership loses the respect and trust of the majority, it's time to re-evaluate or step aside. I believe that we...

    • With ISIS, give peace a chance
      With ISIS, give peace a chance

      Finding a president asking Congress for permission to go to war is about as rare as finding a liberal Republican. So it was a surprise to read that President Obama has formally asked Congress to authorize military operations against the Islamic State ("Obama seeks war powers," Feb. 12).

    Comments
    Loading