War Timing and Opportunism

By suggesting that the insurgents in Iraq are playing US electoral politics, the Bush Administration convinces few voters, but does invoke scrutiny of its own motives. In October, the President, Vice President and press secretary Tony Snow all claimed that insurgents Iraq timed their attacks to influence the US midterm elections. While admitting he had no proof to support his claim, Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh on October 17, the argument “made sense to me”. Two weeks later he told Fox news “I think they are, very, very cognizant of our schedule, if you will.”

For Cheney, the very feel of truthiness made it correct. Ironically, using this administration’s standard of evidence, one might postulate a compelling notion that the Bush Administration itself timed the invasion of Iraq for electoral gain in 2004.

By early 2003, Administration hawks thought they could fashion and invasion of Iraq at minimal cost and maximum political benefit by the end of the year. A month before the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld estimated the war “could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

The Sunday before the invasion, Cheney declared on Meet the Press: “My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” Examples abound of administration officials promising that the invasion would require few troops and that Iraq’s oil revenue would pay for its own reconstruction.

The race to war despite global protests urging restraint, the presence of weapons inspectors in Iraq and the opportunities for practical diplomacy indicated a sense of urgency on the part of the Bush White House. The massive February 15, 2003 world-wide protests were so powerful that the New York Times dubbed global public opinion “the world’s second superpower”. Protestors in more than 700 cities on every continent (including one in McMurdo Station, Antarctica) warned this administration not to rush headlong into a reckless war of aggression. The Bush Administratoin ignored them and continued to manipulate intelligence to justify an invasion.

The time line to war would have given the administration and its Congressional allies nearly a year to crow about their triumph before the 2004 elections. Iraq liberated, our troops showered with flowers, and democracy sweeping the Middle East, would silence Democrats and doves. Indeed, they would fade into political irrelevance. Bush and his inner circle had faith in a kind of “Sunshine Doctrine” behaving as if the sun shined out of their posteriors. Once the unconvinced people saw the light, they would follow indefinitely the neocon blueprint for a social reengineering of the Middle East. Less than two months after the invasion began, President Bush, costumed in a flightsuit, landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln: major combat operations had ended, mission accomplished.

This taxpayer funded political stunt worked to provide campaign imagery for the 2004 general elections. Bush began the war as a triumphant Caesar Augustus; three years later, he has reemerged as Emperor Nero. But the Administration’s Pax Americana served its purpose. Using the image of wartime leader, Bush won reelection. The self proclaimed wartime leader with a Republican majority in Congress. Had Iraq not begun disintegrating before the November 2004 elections, the margin of electoral victory could have been even greater. White House political strategist Karl Rove would have had the “perfect storm” for an electoral blowout in 2004 with coattails long enough to usher in a stunning über-majority in Congress.

As early as 1999, Bush told his erstwhile campaign biographer Mickey Herskowitz about his father’s mistake in the first Iraq war:

“My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it….If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Circumstantially, the 2003 invasion linked to the 2004 electoral timeline, but no solid evidence has yet surfaced to show that key administration officials actually plotted it that way. But as Cheney said, it makes sense. By 2006, the Bush Administration’s toxic mix of arrogance, hubris and chutzpah poisoned US policies and reduced the administration to a global laughing stock. The neocons reached too high to in their quest for global hegemony and, like Icarus, came crashing down.

By suggesting that the insurgents in Iraq are playing electoral politics, Bush only invites scrutiny of his own political machinations. Perhaps, an investigation might be opened to determine whether White House political operatives had practiced the very manipulative techniques they now attribute to the Iraqi insurgents.

SANHO TREE is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. He can be reached at: stree@igc.org



More articles by:
March 22, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Italy, Germany and the EU’s Future
David Rosen
The Further Adventures of the President and the Porn Star
Gary Leupp
Trump, the Crown Prince and the Whole Ugly Big Picture
The Hudson Report
Modern-Day Debtors’ Prisons and Debt in Antiquity
Steve Martinot
The Properties of Property
Binoy Kampmark
Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and Surveillance Capitalism
Jeff Berg
Russian to Judgment
Gregory Barrett
POSSESSED! Europe’s American Demon Must Be Exorcised
Robby Sherwin
What Do We Do About Facebook?
Sam Husseini
Trump Spokesperson Commemorates Invading Iraq by Claiming U.S. Doesn’t Dictate to Other Countries; State Dept. Defends Invasion
Rob Okun
Students: Time is Ripe to Add Gender to Gun Debate
Michael Barker
Tory Profiteering in Russia and Putin’s Debt of Gratitude
March 21, 2018
Paul Street
Time is Running Out: Who Will Protect Our Wrecked Democracy from the American Oligarchy?
Mel Goodman
The Great Myth of the So-Called “Adults in the Room”
Chris Floyd
Stumbling Blocks: Tim Kaine and the Bipartisan Abettors of Atrocity
Eric Draitser
The Political Repression of the Radical Left in Crimea
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan Threatens Wider War Against the Kurds
John Steppling
It is Us
Thomas Knapp
Death Penalty for Drug Dealers? Be Careful What You Wish for, President Trump
Manuel García, Jr.
Why I Am a Leftist (Vietnam War)
Isaac Christiansen
A Left Critique of Russiagate
Howard Gregory
The Unemployment Rate is an Inadequate Reporter of U.S. Economic Health
Ramzy Baroud
Who Wants to Kill Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah?
Roy Morrison
Trouble Ahead: The Trump Administration at Home and Abroad
Roger Hayden
Too Many Dead Grizzlies
George Wuerthner
The Lessons of the Battle to Save the Ancient Forests of French Pete
Binoy Kampmark
Fictional Free Trade and Permanent Protectionism: Donald Trump’s Economic Orthodoxy
Rivera Sun
Think Outside the Protest Box
March 20, 2018
Jonathan Cook
US Smooths Israel’s Path to Annexing West Bank
Jeffrey St. Clair
How They Sold the Iraq War
Chris Busby
Cancer, George Monbiot and Nuclear Weapons Test Fallout
Nick Alexandrov
Washington’s Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen
David Mattson
Wyoming Plans to Slaughter Grizzly Bears
Paul Edwards
My Lai and the Bad Apples Scam
Julian Vigo
The Privatization of Water and the Impoverishment of the Global South
Mir Alikhan
Trump and Pompeo on Three Issues: Paris, Iran and North Korea
Seiji Yamada
Preparing For Nuclear War is Useless
Gary Leupp
Brennan, Venality and Turpitude
Martha Rosenberg
Why There’s a Boycott of Ben & Jerry’s on World Water Day, March 22
John Pilger
Skripal Case: a Carefully-Constructed Drama?
March 19, 2018
Henry Heller
The Moment of Trump
John Davis
Pristine Buildings, Tarnished Architect
Uri Avnery
The Fake Enemy
Patrick Cockburn
The Fall of Afrin and the Next Phase of the Syrian War
Nick Pemberton
The Democrats Can’t Save Us