Last night in an Iraq panel at Barnard arranged by the Working Families Party, Rep. Jerrold Nadler said that WMD was merely an "excuse" for the Bush Administration to invade Iraq. The real reason was "simple" and "psychological."
I could be wrong about this but my
suspicion is, you had a group of people–never underestimate ideology or
religion in the world, and religion is a form of ideology–you had a group of
people called the neocons, the neoconservatives, who really believed in several
propositions. 1, that Saddam Hussein is a very evil force, 2, we had the power not only to over throw that regime but to remake the Middle East and make it a nice wonderful democratic-with-a-small-d place. This was a
fantasy, but they believed it, and they had the Project for the New American
Century that said we should do that, it is our obligation, we can prevent
all the chaos and all the warfare that will ensue in the Middle East in
decades to come and end tyrannies just by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and
we will be greeted as liberators. They really believed that, and they started
saying that, they published a paper in 1988. In 1991 there was the first gulf
war, they werenât in my view in senior enough positions to be heard. People of
realpolitick, the James Bakers of the world, and Brent Skowcrofts, who werenât
going to go to Baghdad [were in power]. By the Bush 2 administration they were in much more senior positions,
people like Wolfowitz and Feith and Rumsfeld and Cheney and they had in the
president someone who was fundamentally ignorant in foreign affairs and allowed
himself to be persuaded by this. I think it was that simple, maybe thatâs too
simplistic, but that is essentially what happened, and they tried to remake
the Middle East in their image and of course thatâs an arrogance, and weâre all
paying for it⦠this kind of simplicity was absurd, number one, and the evidence
of weapons of mass destruction was weak⦠Now the view of the neocons that they could redo the Middle East in our image, in a democratic-with-a-small-d image by getting rid of Saddam Hussein,
was a view of ignorance and a view of arrogance, and an arrogance of power–we
have the power and letâs use it and never mind that we kill 2000 people for the greater good and greater glory of humanity. And anyone who comes along
with some theory, and letâs kill 2000 people because it will result in some greater
good is very dangerous, very dangerous. And 99 percent of the time theyâre wrong⦠[And later, in response to another man’s comment] Itâs as wrong to say that the road to peace in Iraq goes through Jerusalem as
it was for the neocons to say that the road to peace in Jerusalem and Israel goes through Baghdad… You should not
try and link these two things.
A few comments.
Nadler is a brilliant honest guy, who makes me proud to be a Jew (and even proud to be a Democrat, for once). He is using his analytic powers and common sense to get at the root cause of the charnel house we have made in Iraq: bad theory. Everyone hears the ring of truth here.
Nadler (a strong supporter of Israel) actually began by saying that the war was not a war for Israel, or for oil. It seems to me this is the next shoe to drop: when smart empowered people say what they also know to be true: the neocons were motivated by concern for Israel’s security. As Norman Podhoretz wrote plainly in Breaking Ranks, Dem centrists became Republican neocons in the ’70s because they didn’t like the Democrats’ isolationist foreign policy, specifically because a McGovernite foreign policy would mean the abandonment of Israel, which required a muscular America. The Pod spake 25 years ago. Before the neocons had power, and before their ideas became controversial. I.e., before the neocons started hiding their motivation, and liberal journalists assisted them in their subterfuge.
I have long said that the Jewish left will not redeem itself till it acknowledges the hateful, deluded role of the neoconservatives; is plain about (a significant component of) the neocons’ motivation, Israel’s security; and repudiates the neocons on that basis. It seems to me that Nadler’s statement is an important step toward the light. In fairness, I think Jewish intellectuals have not felt safe enough to make these statements, because they are afraid of pogroms or antisemitism or Mel Gibson were they to acknowledge that Jews were influential players in an unmitigated disaster. But those intellectuals thereby funked their mission: describing how society works. The worst of them immunized the neocons from any responsibility by resorting to the befogged argument that presidential counselors and advisers are powerless, and it is all Bush’s fault, or Cheney’s. Thereby diminishing their own powers: the power of forming ideas, including bad ones.
Nadler has shown great strength of character by telling us what he thinks, and clearing away the fog. Bravo, congressman.
