Dr James J Zogby<\/p>\n
In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations to present the George W. Bush administration\u2019s case against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. His remarks were directed at two audiences: reluctant allies and unconvinced Americans.
\nHawks who wanted this war termed Powell\u2019s performance \u201ccompelling and persuasive\u201d. His calm and commanding presence, combined with a multimedia presentation of audiotapes and photographs, built a strong case for US allegations that the Baghdad regime wasn\u2019t fully complying with UN mandates and was seeking to build a nuclear warhead.
\nEven though the Secretary\u2019s \u201cevidence\u201d was cherry-picked or even fabricated, and artfully presented for maximum impact, his arguments didn\u2019t sway the majority of Americans who remained unconvinced. Most didn\u2019t want a war with Iraq. They weren\u2019t asking for proof of the Iraqi government\u2019s brutality or evil intent. They already knew that to be true. What they wanted to know was \u201cwhy a war and why now?\u201d In fact, they wanted answers to the very questions Powell had laid out years earlier in what came to be known as \u201cThe Powell Doctrine\u201d\u2014six requirements before the US should engage in any foreign military conflict:
\nWere vital US interests at stake? – Was the US willing and able to commit sufficient resources to win swiftly, decisively, and with minimal casualties? – Were the military and political objectives clearly defined and delineated? – Was there the political will to sustain the commitment needed to realise the objectives? – Did a reasonable expectation exist at the outset that the American public and Congress would support this commitment and would sustain that support? – Have all possible means of resolving the conflict been exhausted?
\nWe now know that the Bush administration wasn\u2019t truthful in making its case for war. Saddam Hussein didn\u2019t have and wasn\u2019t building a nuclear warhead, and Iraq wasn\u2019t the sponsor of the 9\/11 terrorist attacks on the US. However, the administration\u2019s more significant lies were those presented to Congress to address the public\u2019s and Congress\u2019 concerns about the war. These included: that the war would only involve a limited number of troops; that US forces would be celebrated in Iraq as liberators; that the war would be over in a few weeks; that the troops could come home after six months; that the war would cost only a few billion dollars (with remaining costs covered by Iraqi oil revenues); that extremism would be defeated; and that Iraq would emerge as a beacon of democracy to light up the whole Middle East.
\nThe war did succeed in removing Saddam Hussein from office, but it was the unintended consequences of that war that remain with us a generation later. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. The cost to the US Treasury was over seven trillion dollars. Tens of thousands of US troops suffered injuries and trauma from their service. Iraq remains unstable. With Saddam\u2019s defeat, Iran was unleashed and emboldened, finding a foothold in Iraq, and the sectarian extremism of al-Qaeda metastasised into ISIS, which spread across the Middle East and North and West Africa.
\nA thoughtful analysis of the regional situation before the war\u2019s start would have helped policymakers understand the inevitability of these unintended consequences. But because Powell himself didn\u2019t answer the very questions posed by his own doctrine, the US went blindly into Iraq, and the Iraqi people and the broader region are still living with the devastating and destabilising results.
\nThis tragic history should be considered when we assess the current US-Israel war on Iran.
\nAmericans won\u2019t argue with the president\u2019s case against Iran\u2019s domestic repression or its export of violence, though Trump has bent the truth about the nuclear issues. But no matter how problematic Americans may view the Iranian regime, a majority are opposed to this war. With the Iraq war a not-too-distant memory, Americans want to know why war is necessary. What will be its cost, terms of engagement, and expectations of success? How will it end?
\nThe result will be a costly war with no good outcome and a region in chaos for years to come. The tragedy is that this might have been avoided had the Trump administration learned the lessons of the Iraq war debacle and been attentive to the requirements of the Powell Doctrine.<\/p>\n
The writer is the President of Arab American Institute.<\/p>\n
Courtesy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dr James J Zogby In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations to present the George W. Bush administration\u2019s case against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. His remarks were directed at two audiences: reluctant allies and unconvinced Americans. Hawks who wanted this war termed Powell\u2019s performance \u201ccompelling and persuasive\u201d. His calm […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[13158],"class_list":{"0":"post-536847","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-dr-james-j-zogby"},"yoast_head":"\n