[ world_security_ws_news ]
A Pre Iraq War Memo: Too Little Too Late?
John Stith
Staff Writer
2005-06-13
 Insider Reports RSS Feed
A July 2002, prewar memorandum from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office said a political decision had not been made by the U.S. to invade Iraq and that the U.S. has no real plans for post war occupation.
The White House maintains that the United State made no plans to go to war with Iraq until after then Secretary of State Colin Powell made his presentation to the United Nations on February 5, 2003. Other information would suggest otherwise.
Information from the website newamericancentury.org states quite emphatically the United States should remove Saddam Hussein from power. These states come in May of 1998.
A letter to then Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich called for swift action against Saddam Hussein. The letter suggested President Clinton's handling of Hussein was inept and ineffective.
"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place."
We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;
-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;
-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power
The letter was signed by a number of individuals, not the least of which was current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, WTO chief Paul Wolfowitz, current U.N. nominee John Bolton and Richard Perle.
The British Knew of Problems
One of the biggest issues raised in the document is the lack of postwar planning and the apparent lack of foresight on the part of the U.S. in how things would shape up afterwards.
The Sunday Times of London had gotten ahold of the memo and the Washington Post reprinted portions of it. In a section pulled from the Post article:
The British memos said that, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add: "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
The Post also pointed out that when then Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz made his pitch to Congress, he said over $30 billion had been invested in containing Hussein and no one wanted to pay that again. Congress has approved an Iraq War budget of over $208 billion.
These types of documents continue to surface as the White House and Downing Street continue to play them down. Another document surface back in May, dated 23 July, 2002, in the Times and it suggested Bush had already decided to use military action against Iraq and had already begun deciding strategy on the matter.
All this information continues to come out during a time when President Bush's approval ratings continue to drop and the support for the Iraq War is going even lower.
About the Author:
John is a staff writer for SecurityProNews covering cyber security.
More world_security_ws_news Articles
Insider Reports RSS Feed
|
|
iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Archive
