Woodward’s
Third Evaluation of Bush’s War Presidency
By Ahmad Faruqui, PhD
Dansville, CA
Speaking to a sold-out crowd of 1,200 at the World
Affairs Council in San Francisco, Bob Woodward
thrashed George Bush’s war presidency. Woodward
rose to fame with his expose of the Watergate
wiretapping scandal that brought down the presidency
of Richard Nixon. His book, ‘All the President’s
Men,’ became a national best seller and
was followed by nine other best sellers.
His two earlier evaluations of the Bush presidency,
“Bush at War” and “Plan of Attack,”
were couched in a sympathetic tone with sections
bordering on hagiography. His third, “State
of Denial,” has a hard edge to it. It draws
on interviews with senior members of the Bush
administration, including Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, and on a reading of numerous
war-time diaries and memos.
Not surprisingly, this book has gotten a cold
reception at the White House. Perhaps anticipating
its final message, neither the president nor the
vice president agreed to be interviewed for it,
even though they had agreed to be interviewed
for the two prior ones.
The book reveals the picture of a dysfunctional
presidency. Woodward has confirmed what many had
long suspected, that the Bush administration knowingly
went to war on false pretences. It knew that Iraq
had no connection with the events of 9/11 and
that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
It knew he posed no threat to his neighbors, let
alone to the region and least of all to the United
States. They went to war hoping to make Iraq the
poster child of democracy in the Middle East.
Today, Woodward argues, senior people in the administration
know that the war in Iraq is not going well but
they won’t admit it. Their denial is political,
not real. He said the administration’s plans
for the war were fatally optimistic with Paul
Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense, believing
that the war would only last seven days.
Its post-war plans were marked by naiveté.
Woodward cites charges leveled by General Jay
Garner, the first American proconsul in Iraq,
against his successor, Paul Bremer. Garner says
that Bremer committed a double blunder by disbanding
the Iraqi army and civil service and was sufficiently
incensed by these mistakes that he raised them
with Rumsfeld. As usual, Rumsfeld was dismissive,
saying that the decisions had already been made
and could not be reversed. Discouraged by this
encounter, Garner did not bother to raise the
issue with Bush.
Since “Denial” was published, events
in Iraq have deteriorated. Woodward cited numerous
emails from American soldiers that convey a tone
of despair. In one email, a soldier says that
his job is to go out on patrol with his platoon
so that he can be blown up.
After his speech, Woodward took questions from
the audience. Not a single person argued in favor
of the Bush presidency. In fact, some felt that
Woodward had not sufficiently critiqued the Bush
presidency. One person suggested that oil was
a key driver behind the invasion of Iraq. Woodward
demurred, saying that oil was certainly a factor
but not the major factor. Another person argued
that plans for the invasion of Iraq went back
to the first Gulf War, as laid out in the charter
of the Project for the Next American Century.
Woodward demurred once again, arguing that while
several members of his administration were signatories,
Bush was not. As the hour drew to a close, a person
asked if it was not possible that Bush, with his
increased presidential powers, would postpone
the next presidential election without being questioned
by either Congress or the Supreme Court. Saying
that “I will let you have the final word
of the evening,” Woodward closed the session
to thunderous applause.
Many of the points that were brought out by Woodward
corroborated points that General Anthony Zinni,
former commander of CENTCOM, had made at the same
forum several months earlier. The day after Woodward
spoke, his points resonated with reports that
more than a hundred US servicemen serving in Iraq
had written to Congress, calling for a withdrawal
of forces. Further amplification came from the
president himself.
At a major press conference on the Iraq War, held
to improve Republican prospects in the upcoming
mid-term elections on November 7, Bush recognized
that the public was not satisfied with the war,
nor was he. He called for patience and, while
dropping his “stay the course” mantra,
continued to assert that the war could still be
won if the US does not withdraw prematurely.
Nevertheless, after conferring with his senior
military commanders, Bush has laid out a 12-18
month timetable during which time the Iraqi government
has to stabilize Iraq and take over responsibility
for Iraqi security. While this is not the same
as setting a timetable for withdrawal of American
forces, it is a step in that direction.
American public opinion has turned against the
war for many reasons. One is the rising death
toll, not just of American lives, but of Iraqi
lives. Second, there is widespread recognition
among Americans that the quality of life in Iraq
today is much worse than it was under the brutal
dictatorship of Saddam. Earlier this year, the
Senate Foreign Relations committee heard testimony
that the performance of basic utility services
such as electricity, water, and sewage is much
below pre-invasion levels. The economy, including
the oil sector, is in a shambles. The law and
order situation has deteriorated to the point
that the average Iraqi lives in dread of gangs,
militias, criminals and fanatics who, collectively,
are much more tyrannical than Saddam’s secret
police.
Third, there is the economic cost of the war,
which has been estimated by Joseph Stiglitz, the
Nobel prize-winning economist, at $2 trillion.
But what drives the point home is that the war
has failed to improve American security. The CIA’s
own assessment is that Iraq has become a “cause
celebre” for terrorists throughout the world.
Thus, two-thirds of Americans do not support the
war.
The media has played a major role in turning around
American sentiment and Woodward is playing a major
role in that turnaround. Of course, had the media
done more, such a regime of denial would not have
lasted as long as it did. Woodward conceded that
he needed to do a better job and, to much laughter,
he added that his request to be embedded within
the National Security Council had been turned
down.
Modesty is certainly a welcome attribute in a
man who has won nearly every American award in
journalism, including two Pulitzer Prizes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
