{"id":27672,"date":"2016-07-14T06:00:10","date_gmt":"2016-07-13T20:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=27672"},"modified":"2016-07-13T13:01:42","modified_gmt":"2016-07-13T03:01:42","slug":"two-crucial-truths-chilcot-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/two-crucial-truths-chilcot-report\/","title":{"rendered":"Two crucial truths in the Chilcot report?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
The Chilcot report underlines two crucial truths that further undermine the Iraq War legacies of George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard. The first is that the invasion was unnecessary, precisely because the US-led policy of containing Saddam Hussein\u2019s regime was working. The second is that the invasion transformed Iraq from an al-Qaeda-free zone into an area where al-Qaeda and its progeny flourish. Neither point has attracted much attention in the past week.<\/span><\/p>\n Start with containment. In 26 February 2003\u2014about three weeks before \u2018shock and awe\u2019 was inflicted on the Iraqi people\u2014<\/span>Howard took to the Wall Street Journal<\/em> opinion pages<\/span><\/a> to explain why Saddam couldn\u2019t be contained. Containment worked against the Soviet Union, he said, because \u2018the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction guaranteed the maintenance of the status quo\u2019 until the internal implosion of the old Soviet empire. Such a strategy couldn\u2019t work against the Saddam Husseins\u2019 of the post-September 11 world, the Australian Prime Minister warned, because \u2018the cost of doing nothing is infinitely greater than the cost of acting\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n What Howard and other hawks failed to grasp, however, was that the Iraqi threat could\u2019ve been contained as it had been contained since the 1991 Gulf War. The Iraqi dictator, far from being bent on religious martyrdom, was a cynical calculator whose overriding priority was to hold onto power and exercise it ruthlessly over the unfortunate people of Iraq. (Besides, as the anti-war conservative and ABC Boyer lecturer Owen Harries often quipped, what did Saddam ever do to Australia other than buy our wheat?)<\/span><\/p>\n True, containment can\u2019t work against terrorists, who can run and hide. But Saddam wasn\u2019t in cahoots with Osama bin Laden and the perpetuators of 9\/11. Moreover, rogue states do have a mailing address; and it should have been clear that if Saddam smuggled weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to al-Qaeda or used banned weapons against US interests, his regime would have met \u2018national obliteration\u2019 from the US nuclear arsenal, as Bush\u2019s senior advisor Condoleezza Rice pointed out in<\/span> Foreign Affairs<\/em> in 2000<\/span><\/a>. Containment worked against nuclear-armed Joe Stalin and Mao Zedong at the height of the Cold War; it was working against Saddam Hussein, whose regime we soon discovered didn\u2019t even possess WMD.<\/span><\/p>\n Granted, the sanctions, naval blockades, and no-fly-zone lacked the political sex appeal of \u2018liberation\u2019 after 9\/11. But at least such realist strategies avoided the unintended consequences that a liberated Iraq has delivered. As a 98-year-old George Kennan, the intellectual architect of the Cold War doctrine of containment in 1947,<\/span> warned six months before the invasion<\/span><\/a>: \u2018If we went into Iraq, you know where you begin; you never know where you are going to end.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n Which brings us to the Islamic State. Few myths are as persistent as the argument that the Iraq invasion has no connection to the rise of the Sunni jihadist network. Washington neo-conservatives dismiss any links. So, too, does Howard.<\/span><\/p>\n