In January 2004, President Bush gave his State of the Union
speech. Part of the address was about the war on Iraq. Afterward, many pointed
out that Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) was
seated in the gallery right behind First Lady Laura Bush. Commentators took
that as an endorsement by the White House. In fact, despite many in the
administration being fans of the INC, the President felt the exact opposite.
Bush did not believe that Chalabi should be the next ruler of Iraq.
Ahmed Chalabi at the 2004 State of the Union standing in the back left next to Foreign
Minister Zebari back right, front row center First Lady Bush, front row right
Iraqi President Pachachi (White House)
Originally, Ahmad Chalabi was not supposed to attend the
State of the Union. When he found out that the Adnan Pachachi, who was then the
president of the Iraqi Governing Council, was going, Chalabi added himself to the entourage. At the event, Chalabi was seated next to Iraq’s Foreign
Minister Hoshyar Zebari, and right behind First Lady Laura Bush. During the
speech, the President said, “And tonight we are honored to welcome one of
Iraq’s most respectable leaders, the current president of the Iraqi Governing
Council, Adnan Pachachi.” One TV cameraman then confused Chalabi for Pachachi,
and gave the former a close-up. The next day, at a meeting of the National
Security Council, the President asked Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage how Chalabi got into the speech. Armitage said he didn’t know, and
neither did anyone else at the meeting. Bush was perturbed, because he did not
like Chalabi, and did not think that he should have been there.
The press immediately seized upon Chalabi’s appearance. Five
months later for instance, Ray Suarez of PBS’ Newshour said, “As recently as
January, Ahmad Chalabi held a place of honor at President Bush’s State of the
Union address. The former Iraqi exile was seated just behind the first lady.” This fed upon all the stories that had already come out about members of
the administration promoting Chalabi to take over Iraq after the fall of Saddam
Hussein. At the top of that list was Vice President Dick Cheney. Others included Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense
for Policy Douglas Feith, chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle,
and Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis Scooter Libby. Since the late-1990s,
Chalabi had been courting members of the Republican Party, and when
President Bush was elected it seemed like that work paid off. He had several
high-level members of the new administration supporting him, and he believed
that was a means to gaining power in Iraq. These feelings were widely known
throughout the media, which was why they all took Chalabi sitting behind the
First Lady as just another example of how the White House backed the INC.
The truth of the matter was far different. Rather than being
a supporter of Ahmed Chalabi, the President was consistently critical of him. In
January 2003 for instance, Bush said that Iraqi exiles would not rule Iraq after the invasion. In March at a meeting of the National Security Council
the President reiterated that point by saying, “The people in Iraq have
suffered under Saddam Hussein, and they will have some resentment towards those
Iraqis that were outside the country during Saddam’s rule.” Bush later
stated that he was not going to pick the new leader of Iraq. That same month,
Bush complained about American support for Chalabi. He told Rumsfeld that the
U.S. assistance to the INC should be stopped. After the invasion, people like
Feith would blame the State Department and Perle the CIA for not supporting Chalabi, and claimed that was a reason why things went so bad immediately
after the fall of Saddam. They never acknowledged that Chalabi lacked the
approval of the most important person, the President of the United States.
Rather than being a sign of support, Ahmad Chalabi’s
appearance at the January 2004 State of the Union speech was an act of
opportunity. Chalabi attached himself to Adnan Pachachi's delegation, and by
accident was shown on American TV. Because so many prominent members of the
Bush administration were advocates for Chalabi, the press thought that he was
supposed to be at the event. Instead, the President was a constant critic of
the Iraqi National Congress, and did not want him to take power after the 2003
invasion. Very few seemed to notice that fact even to this day. That’s why
those for and against Chalabi still accuse each other for the problems with
Iraq. They overplay the role of the INC, and oddly overlook the centrality of
the President in decision-making.
SOURCES
Gordon, Michael and Trainor, General Bernard, The Endgame, The Inside Story Of The
Struggle For Iraq, From George W. Bush To Barack Obama, New York, Pantheon,
2012
Isikoff, Michael and Corn, David, Hubris, New York: Crown, 2006
Landay, Jonathan and Strobel, Warren, “No real planning for
postwar Iraq,” Knight Ridder Newspapers, 9/11/03
Packer, George, The
Assassins’ Gate, America In Iraq, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005
PBS Frontline, “Interview Gen. Jay Garner,” Truth, War and
Consequences, 10/9/03
- “Interview Richard Perle,” Truth, War and Consequences,
10/9/03
- “INTERVIEWS Elisabeth Bumiller,” Bush’s War, 3/24/08
PBS Newshour, “Former Friend: Ahmad Chalabi,” 6/2/04
Roston, Aram, The Man
Who Pushed America To War, The Extraordinary Life, Adventures, and Obsessions
of Ahmad Chalabi, New York: Nation Books, 2008
Strobel, Warren and Walcott, John, “Post-war planning
non-existent,” Knight Ridder Newspapers, 10/17/04
Suskind, Ron, The One
Percent Doctrine, Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11,
Simon & Schuster: New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, 2006
Woodward, Bob, Plan of
Attack, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney: Simon & Schuster, 2004
- State of Denial,
Bush At War, Part III, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney: Simon &
Schuster, 2006
4 comments:
Why hasn't more been looked into the relationship between Chalabi and Winston Partners or Huda Foruki?
why wasn't Huda Foruki ever looked into through out this and Anham Group?
If I'm not mistaken Foruki is Jordanian and Anhma is a company in Saudi Arabia. Why would the U.S. look to either for post war Iraqi governance?
Joel Wing, Anham is NOT a Saudi company it is Jordanian do some research on this. Huda is partners with Anham. Foruki also owns Nour USA and the there is a relationship with Winston Partners.
Post a Comment