The Achilles Trap
I just finished reading “The Achilles Trap: Saddam Hussein, the C.I.A., and the Origins of America’s Invasion of Iraq” by Steve Coll. By the onset of the US invasion and military occupation, I was convinced that (a) Iraq had no WMDs or active WMD programs, and (b) there was no collusion between Saddam and al Qaeda.
The idea that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were allies was facially absurd. Bin Laden was a religious zealot and Hussein was a secular dictator. They were enemies, not allies. And after years of searching, there was not an atom of evidence for Iraqi WMDs or WMD programs after the year 2000. Yet to the Clinton and Bush administrations, absence of evidence simply proved Saddam was hiding them.
Coll confirms this, of course, and brings the receipts. So why did I read this book? Mostly to gain insight into Saddam Hussein and his behavior. To cut to the chase, Hussein was smart but paranoid and insular. After his failed invasion of Kuwait, he destroyed his WMD programs but wanted the world to believe he still had them. Well, everyone but the US. Saddam was convinced that the CIA knew he didn’t have WMDs and so he didn’t believe he was concealing anything from the Clinton and Bush administrations.
On the American side, political considerations drove the endless probing for phantom weapons. In particular, GW Bush came to office committed to deposing Saddam, and just needed the right excuse. With 9/11, he found it. Sadly, of course, the subsequent disbanding of the Iraqi military led directly to the monstrosity that was ISIS/Daesh, as well as the deaths, maiming and dislocation of millions of Iraqis.
Could Saddam have been managed without the US invasion and military occupation? Coll demures on that counterfactual, but the reader can clearly see that the Bush administration was lying about its evidence at the time. Coll is clear about Saddam’s brutality to his fellow Iraqis, particularly the Iraqi Kurds. But in the end, the Bush administration was tolerating similar brutality in Syria and North Korea. He invaded Iraq because he could. It didn’t hurt that he knew he could eventually find Saddam, while bin Laden eluded him, and that the US could control Iraqi oil.
If you’re ambivalent about the (second) Iraq war and unclear about the causes, this is a well-written, informed and unsparing account. Even though it confirmed everything I already knew, I still found this a good read and deep dive into recent history.
Back in the days of Slate’s Fray (where I met Bill), during the time period you’re discussing, I posted, re WMD, “What if there aren’t any?” and was roasted and ridiculed by many Fraysters. Later? Crickets.
Jack:
Yeah, I remember the roasters. I was naive then and just learning. I took everything they said as true or almost true. One way to harden you. All I can say, try me now.
Bill and Jack…I too remember those days on The Fray. I spent a lot of time on Saddameter blasting the warmongers. Those were the days when conservatives would call democrats weak on defense during every election cycle and it worked, most of the Democratic leadership bought into the lies….
woolly:
Good to see you. It was unfortunate to be plagued by the Bushs. The second Bush was little more than a knucklehead. The US disrupted a region for BS as Joel points out. History defines what took place and the US false pretense for attacking Iraq.
@woolley,
Yep, only the history goes back much further, to Kennedy and the “missile gap” and Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War. The Democrats [my party] seem to “have learned nothing and forgotten nothing,” in the immortal words of the Chevalier de Panat, referring to a different regime. Sadly, today’s Democratic Party is the Conservative Party, the GOP is the right-wing Trump cult, and there is no credible liberal party.