An Iraqi Example

For the Guardian I try to put the story of Bush rejecting exile options for Saddam Hussein into the broader context of his administration's approach to nuclear proliferation. Rejecting the rule-based framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Bush sought another way outside the bounds of international law:

That way, known as "counterproliferation" by its advocates, was, in essence, brute force. The US would break its non-proliferation treaty commitments by building a new generation of "bunker buster" nukes, turn a blind eye to nuclear activities by friendly states, and restrain WMD acquisition by hostile states through intimidation rather than a legitimate international process. Iraq was targeted not merely on its own terms but in order that Bush might make an example out of Saddam and send a message to the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea and other states. Cutting a deal with Saddam wasn't an option.

Unfortunately, as a result of the same thinking, neither were any number of other moves that could have improved American policy. In particular, the invasion force needed to be small enough, and the reconstruction plan fast and cheap enough, that the US could credibly threaten to do it again if other countries didn't get the message.

Read the whole thing.

White House photo by Eric Draper

Comments

In particular, the invasion force needed to be small enough, and the reconstruction plan fast and cheap enough, that the US could credibly threaten to do it again if other countries didn't get the message.

Amen. This is a point I tried to make at my semi-obscure blog back in January 2004 and recycled at Firedoglake a year ago. The lack of planning/caution wasn't an accident; it was in fact part of the plan.

Posted by Swopa | September 28, 2007 3:53 PM

I've heard this bully theory before, and I think it's plausible as one of the reasons we invaded Iraq, but if it's true it had the opposite of the intended effect. We're treating potential enemies with an in-depth clinic on using asymmetrical warfare to neutralize a superpower.

Second, on March 18, 2003, President Bush certified to Congress that "reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means" would not protect US national security against the (nonexistant) threat from Iraq or lead to the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq. If this transcript is accurate, President Bush didn't pursue all diplomatic or peaceful means. (He also rejected a proposed UN resolution by France, Germany, and Russia for beefed-up sanctions with timetables.)

Also, what WMD information was Saddam supposed to take with him? The "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities?"

Posted by croatoan | September 28, 2007 4:01 PM

Nope. Sorry. Don't buy it.

This is just another example of thinking that Bush and the neocons ACTUALLY CARE about "proliferation."

If you go back and realize that Bush and Cheney KNEW that Iraq DID NOT HAVE WMD's, and that they also NOW KNOW that Iran DOES NOT have a "nuclear weapons program", then how do you explain the notion that they wanted to do "counterproliferation"?

Face it - the war in Iraq and the upcoming war in Iran - where there is even LESS evidence of WMD's than in Iraq (because the Iranians aren't even trying to fake WMDs like Saddam did) - has nothing to do with "proliferation." That is just the cover story.

The clearest opposing example is North Korea. They HAD and HAVE nukes. They did NOT have OIL. So Bush negotiated. The neocons agitated for war, but the Pentagon made it clear to Bush that it would mean 50,000 US casualties in the first ninety days of war with North Korea. So Bush buckled. It didn't cost him anything, because there was NO OIL. So he didn't care that much.

Iraq and Iran are an entirely different story. There, oil and US and Israel hegemony are critical issues. "Proliferation" is just the cover story.

The Guardian story is what you get when you try to do too much analysis. The facts are that Bush and Cheney are war profiteers and power seekers - not honest guys looking to "stop proliferation."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 28, 2007 4:25 PM

You are recycling the Friedmanesque 'suck on this' theory.

Posted by gregor | September 28, 2007 5:40 PM

If they were really worried about counterproliferation, they wouldn't have exposed the identity of a covert CIA agent working on counterproliferation.

Posted by croatoan | September 28, 2007 7:55 PM

George W. Bush, a counter-reformers with results

Posted by beowulf | September 28, 2007 9:04 PM

Good grief Matt, you're killing me here. NP and CP are not "alternatives" to dealing with proliferation. And the idea that CP is somee neocon fantasy policy is patently absurd. They are two distinct steps in the timeline of a state's proliferation. NP is dealing with states before they start programs, to convince them not to do so. This is where the treaties and international commitments come in, trying to tie states into a web of mutually beneficial cooperation.

This does not always work. Witness North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT and Iran's withdrawal from the Additional Protocol. Some states will build programs within the boundaries of what's allowed by the treaties, until they reach a threshold and then pull out of a treaty or part of a treaty, so the rest of the states have significantly less time to respond before the state has a nuclear weapon. Also, NP involves more than just treaties - it also deals with activities like interdiction to ensure a nuclear state like NK isn't shipping nuclear material to potential proliferants. In this sense, CP and NP are often blurred. Additionally, CP is by no means always a military effort.

This system does generally work, and the Bush administration has actually strengthened efforts in this area, most notably with the Proliferation Security Initiative.

This idea that the Bush and the neocons were fixated on CP and wouldn't let Saddam go is nonsense. Did you read the part in your own column where you were talking about Saddam wanting to be allowed to bring information on WMD programs out of the country with him? How does that further our proliferation policy goals? If anything, it makes the situation worse, with Saddam wandering around with a billion dollars and the blueprints for his weapons programs ready to go to the highest bidder.

Once again, I suggest that you turn blogging into a part time activity and gain some experience in these fields you profess to know so much about based on an article you read or a class you took.

Oh, and please learn something about neoconservatism before you give us another conspiracy theory about the neocons. CP and NP are not alternatives. They are two parts of the same solution, simply depending on where in the time frame of proliferation a state is at. (The last part of the time frame is Consequence Management - dealing with the aftermath of an attack).

Posted by Alenda Lux | September 28, 2007 11:09 PM

"NP is dealing with states before they start programs, to convince them not to do so. "

I should also add "or to keep them from beginning a program, if you are unable to convince them not to."

NP can often involve military action, and CP does not always imply military action. You're way off base here Matt.

Posted by Alenda Lux | September 28, 2007 11:11 PM

Correction: Iran never withdraw from the Additonal Protocol - because the Additional Protocol was never in force.

Iran agreed to act AS IF the Additional Protocol was in force as a "confidence-building measure" while their Parliament considered ratifying the imposition of the AP.

When Bush and the Europeans blew off Iranian overtures, they stopped acting as if it were in force. Subsequently, I believe, they are either acting or intending to return to acting - and possibly ratifying - the Additional Protocol.

This may be the outcome of the current negotiations with El Baradei over the next couple months, as well as clearing up the old issues the IAEA has been trying to nail down.

Also, for what it's worth, North Korea only withdrew from the NPT once Clinton - and then Bush - reneged on the deal that Clinton had struck with NK, and Bush started babbling about the "Axis of Evil" and then invaded Iraq - which of course indicated to NK that they might be next.

Now that negotiation appears to have worked with NK - since Bush is bogged down in Iraq and planning to attack Iran at the same time, and in any event, NK has no oil to seize - the neocons are upset that negotiations conducted by El Baradei appears to be working with Iran - who doesn't even have a nuclear weapons program according to the IAEA.

Meanwhile the worst proliferater in nuclear history - Israel - is allowed a free pass and is even being considered for an EXEMPTION from the rules dealing with nuclear materials trade, while the OTHER worse proliferator in nuclear history - Pakistan - is still considered an ally of the US, despite being on very shaky ground in terms of government stability.

Also, the notion that the US could conduct NP OR CP while building new nukes pretty much puts paid to the notion that the US is at all interested in any kind of proliferation except by countries with oil under them.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 29, 2007 1:09 AM