DOMINO THEORY
In July 2003, less than six weeks after "Mission Accomplished", W's approval ratings had climbed to near 75%, regime change in Iraq had been effected with less than 300 casualties, and the still nascent "insurgency" was claiming the life of 1 allied soldier per day, when Joe Wilson's op-ed regarding the "16 words" appeared in the New York Times.
The White House initially allowed that some of the pre-war 'intelligence' was less than fully true, but the public was still patient and many confident that WMD's would be found, although questions were beginning to arise. To which the WH began to 'push-back' via the VP Cheney's office and Irving Libby's contacts with 'friendly' reporters.
Why?
1. to counteract Wilson and scare other potential 'whistleblowers'?
2. to thwart by delay the birth of a major threat to W's re-election?
3. to fight back against a perceived attack by the CIA on Administration policy?
4. to blind the CIA's Iran/nuclear weapons research?
5. all of the above?
Quite possibly so, though they may well have not realized the unintended consequences of their 'campaign' at the time. But with the arrogance accrued by such success, W, Cheney, Libby, et al. probably overestimated their ability to 'control the message'.
But what if something else was already planned?
Something that might be severely and immediately threatened by public questioning of their veracity and motives for the invasion of Iraq?Something that was a part of the plan even before the invasion of Iraq?
ATTACKING/REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN
If so, those plans, and the 'cakewalk' were dealt a severe blow in the first two hours of the plan for Iraq, because the assassination of Saddam Hussein failed. But, to the WH there was still plenty of time before the 2004 elections, to begin the de-stabilization effort against Iran, including air-assaults, if the American public supported it.
"If the American public supported it" is the key.
Due to the questions raised by Wilson, the WH's 'push-back' efforts, the media's publicity of it, the continuing failure to find the WMD's (which they knew did not exist), and the CIA's request for an FBI investigation, Bush's approval rating plummeted from 75% to 50% within four months. During which the "insurgency" in Iraq doubled it's capacity to kill the now occupying U.S. forces.
The failure of the WH's 'push-back' effort did not preclude W from being re-elected (barely) due to Libby's "sticking his neck out" by request of the Pres., and lying to the FBI and Grand Jury in 2003 and 2004 respectively. But along with the refusal to entertain offers by Iran to negotiate in 2003, the flip-flop, lie, 'going back on their word' etc. on the pre-war U.S. pledge to dismantle the anti-Iranian militia MEK based in northern Iraq, and the WH neocons continuing antagonizing rhetoric, U.S. policy did succeed in effecting regime-change in Iran. But not of the kind they had intended.
In August of 2005, the Iranian people surprisingly and overwhelmingly elected as President of Iran the candidate with the most anti-western rhetoric, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Presuming that the Bush Administration fully intended, before 17 Mar 2003, to follow it's successes in Afghanistan and (presumably) Iraq with a full-scale diplomatic, public relations and, if necessary, military effort for 'regime change' in Iran, to be conducted and concluded before the 2004 election, would seem to answer many questions.
It would explain:
1. the 'cakewalk' and 'greeted as liberators' assertions
2. the 'light-footprint' military force deployed
3. the "failure" to plan for the post-saddam administration
4. the "failure" to plan for the "insurgency"
5. the persistent 'state-of-denial' of the growing problems in iraq (post-'mission accomplished')
6. the failure to plan for future military force requirements
7. the dramatic WH response to Wilson's NYT op-ed questioning pre-war intelligence
8. the dismantling of the iraqi army
9. the rush to employ "non-traditional" methods of intelligence gathering
10. the deliberate "blinding" of u.s. intel gathering efforts on iran's nuclear program
11. the failure to equip u.s. military forces with body-armour and upgraded humvees
12. the low-balling of overall cost estimates
13. the refusal to consider tax increases or reductions in tax cuts
14. the reluctance to advocate any form of national sacrifice
The "planners" literally did not expect to have to fight in Iraq, because their entire plan (from Iraq to Iran) was predicated upon their arrogant confidence in the ability of high-tech weaponry to assassinate Saddam Hussein with the first shot. Whereby Saddam's death would be trumpeted and U.S. forces would walk into Iraq uncontested, having only minimal sporadic resistance. "Shock and Awe" was plan B.
So, literally in this case, a "war plan" did not survive the first five minutes of combat.
And every action of the Bush Admin. that followed "the end of military operations" was an "adjustment", with the goal of achieving the previously desired end, in Iran. A goal that Vice-President Cheney and the same neocons that promoted the Iraq War hold onto to this very day.
But between the summer of 2003 and today, many things have come to pass.
Approval ratings have dropped from 75% to below 30% in some polls.
Scores of "intelligence failures" revealed.
The u.s. casualty toll is now over 25,000.
Hundreds of billions of dollars expended.
Sectarian strife inside Iraq escalated to 'civil war' proportions.
Untold scores of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Waste, fraud, and graft on an unprecedented scale.
Atrocities by u.s. forces, in the field and in p.o.w. camps, revealed by the thousands, irrevocably damaging u.s. reputations worldwide.
On top of which, a federal criminal investigation now threatens the 'political viability' of the "plans" prime promoter, VP Cheney.
All of which would lead one to hope that the "mistake" of 2003 is now well on it's way to slowly being resolved, and perhaps corrected. But when one remembers how a rabid animal acts when cornered, and then combines that with the record of the Bush Administration for "steely resolve", secrecy, and determination, well methinks there may be a few more surprises before this story ends. Especially in the face of a pending economic recession and with two more years on the clock.
stephenhsmith
23feb2007
