Former Dep Defense Secretary Wolfowitz Is Still Living In 2003 When It Comes To The Iraq Invasion

(Getty Images)

2023 marks the 20^th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Various media outlets commemorated the event through articles and interviews. PBS NewsHour talked with former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Johns Hopkins Professor Vali Nasr, and former deputy head of United Nations inspectors and head of the Iraq Survey Group Charles Duelfer. Wolfowitz was the defender of the Iraq war on the panel. His comments made it apparent he hadn’t moved on since 2003 repeating the same claims he made at that time.

 

Wolfowitz began with three reasons why he still supported the invasion. That was the U.S. was better off without Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq, there wasn’t a second 9/11, and that even though Baghdad didn’t have stockpiles of WMD it wanted to restart its programs sometime in the future. Here was an encapsulation of the original Bush administration justification for the war. Saddam was an evil man, he supported terrorism and his WMD posed a threat.

 

While no one would dispute how bad Iraq’s dictatorship was Wolfowitz’s other two reasons are far-fetched. Saying the war prevented another 9/11 implies that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda or other terrorists that sought to attack the continental United States. That was disproven by Saddam after he was captured and Baathist documents. Yes, Iraq did have connections to various terrorist groups and talked with Al Qaeda it had no plans to target America. Saddam didn’t even think the U.S. was a real foe as he was more worried about an internal uprising, Iran and Israel. Second, Wolfowitz’s comments about Iraq’s WMD is a hypothetical situation. Yes, Saddam said he wanted to restart his WMD programs which he ended during the 1990s due to U.N. inspections but saying he might restart them does not justify a pre-emptive war. If the Bush administration said the problem with Iraq was that it could work on its WMD again but it didn’t know when and if he would actually do it there would’ve been little public support for an invasion. Wolfowitz’s assumption is that dictators like Saddam are a threat to U.S. hegemony in the world and would therefore always seek WMD and want to use them against America. The Gulf War showed the latter half of that point of view was wrong. Wolfowitz’s comments reflect the original 2003 reasons for deposing Saddam. It shows the former deputy Defense Secretary has not moved on from that period nor reflected upon how these topics proved false.

 

Wolfowitz wasn’t finished however. He stated that it wasn’t wrong to disband the Iraqi military in 2003 because it was an instrument of terror. He continued that the foot soldiers went home after the invasion. What he thought was a problem was the American attempt to replace it with a much smaller army that wasn’t aimed at internal security when that was the main problem the country was facing. He said that the Pentagon thought the U.S. was going to create a new military to secure the country rather than set up an occupation which angered many Iraqis. He also dismissed a comment by Vali Nasr that the war turned over Iraq to Iran citing the fact that the Tehran backed Hezbollah killed over two hundred Marines in Lebanon in 1982. Wolfowitz said that was proof Saddam was not a buffer against Iranian influence.

 

Here again Wolfowitz appears to be stuck in the past. The idea that the Iraqi military was part of Saddam’s repressive state was refuted by many Iraqis. The ex-soldiers also didn’t just go home thousands protested for days outside the Green Zone because they were unemployed and didn’t get a pension either. The idea of a small military also came from Wolfowitz’s own Pentagon that didn’t want Iraq to be a threat to its neighbors. Finally, Wolfowitz appeared to be completely unaware of the power Tehran now holds in Iraq. It has allies amongst all the ruling parties which means it has influence throughout the Iraqi state. It’s militia proxies are now part of the Iraqi security forces and extending their hold into different government offices. Iran is Iraq’s major trade partner and Baghdad is now dependent upon Iranian natural gas and electricity to keep the lights on. Finally, Tehran is the major arbitrator every time a new Iraqi government is formed. Citing the Lebanon bombing from 1982 shows how out of touch Wolfowitz is.

 

Wolfowitz is not alone in his opinion. There are many other former Bush administration officials that still support the war and are still stuck on the same talking points. They are willing to admit mistakes but they largely focus upon tactics like disbanding the Iraqi military. The invasion itself however is still sacrosanct. They are able to stand by their decision because they are largely out of touch about its aftermath like Wolfowitz made apparent in his interview with PBS NewsHour.

 

SOURCES

 

PBS NewsHour, “The long-lasting impact of the U.S. invasion of Iraq,” 3/30/23