4 ms·

The Only Man Who Could Have Stopped the Iraq War Is Dead

9 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

1cvmask 5y ago
My key takeaway from the article: Colin Powell made himself a patsy. He knew that what was about to unfold was wrong, disastrously confused complicity with resistance, and facilitated the end of an estimated 300,000 human beings. Powell, at the apex of his influence, destroyed what had been his career’s central purpose: preventing a repetition of Vietnam. Draper, who spoke with Powell recently, outlined the likely course if Powell had resigned instead. (Draper framed it in terms of the U.N. speech, but never mind that.) What if that same voice that publicly proclaimed the necessity of invading Iraq had instead told Bush privately that it was not merely an invitation to unintended consequences but a mistake, as he personally believed it to be? What if he had said no to Bush when he asked him to speak before the U.N.? Powell would almost certainly have been obligated to resign, and many if not all of his top staff members involved in the Iraq issue would also have quit; several had already considered doing so the previous summer. If the State Department’s top team had emptied out their desks, what would Powell’s close friend [British Foreign Minister Jack] Straw have done? “If Powell had decided to resign in advance of the Iraq war,” Straw told me, “I would almost certainly have done so, too.” Blair’s support in the Labour Party would have cratered — and had Blair withdrawn his support for war under pressure from Parliament or simply failed to win an authorization vote, the narrative of collapsed momentum would have dominated the news coverage for weeks. Doubters in the upper ranks of the American military — there were several — would have been empowered to speak out; intelligence would have been re-examined; Democrats, now liberated from the political pressures of the midterm elections, would most likely have joined the chorus. We can never know a counterfactual. The Iraq war was a product of multiple systemic failures and the alignment of multiple interests. We can never truly know if a refusal by Powell to be part of them would have prevented the invasion. But we do truly know that if anyone’s refusal could have prevented it, it was Powell’s, and Powell made the opposite decision. ---- Links from the article that might be of interest. On Iran Contra involvement: https://twitter.com/GregGrandin/status/1450100327160688646 https://twitter.com/GregGrandin/status/1450100327160688646 On the My Lai massacre in Vietnam: https://www.historynet.com/colin-powell-the-vietnam-war-years.htm https://www.historynet.com/colin-powell-the-vietnam-war-year...
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  ok, I get it, you're a committed peacenik who is willing to ignore any facts to push your narrative. But that doesn't mean what you wrote makes any sense from a military or geopolitical standpoint. (see my other post below.) For example, a common misconception is that only top warlords are responsible for what a country does, but in reality their population is also responsible for the outcome. In the case of Iraq, I'm sure the population cheered after Kuwait was invaded.
redis_mlc 5y ago
Sure, the White House's message to the US people was nonsense (I actually remember seeing some of it on TV and thinking how ridiculous it was, especially the "aluminum tubes." The sole Iraqi-in-exile source was also unconvincing.) But any article on the US-Iraq wars is also nonsense if it's missing the following facts: - Hussein had the 4th largest army in the world, and his stated goal was to "be the next Suleiman" and invade all of his neighbors. In fact, he did invade Kuwait, so Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid the US to expel Iraqi forces. - Hussein did make a weapon of mass destruction, chemical weapons, which were used against Iran and Kurds. You can see pictures online of intact but dead people covered in a white foam or dust. - French and German diplomats told Hussein he was untouchable (ie. the US would never invade) in order to curry favor on future contracts. - Hussein and his aides refused to negotiate with US envoys. The US sent an envoy just before the invasion buildup, who the aides refused to meet with (the aides wanted pomp and circumstance, not a direct message)
mgamache 5y ago
There were a number of people that could have stopped the war. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Saddam Hussein to name a few. Powell played a large role to be sure, but imagine Condi Rice in that role. It would have been a harder sell, but given the drum beat it would have happened. Even if Powell resigned, the spin would have labeled him a political hack or out-of-touch with the situation.

9 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

My key takeaway from the article: Colin Powell made himself a patsy. He knew that what was about to unfold was wrong, disastrously confused complicity with resistance, and facilitated the end of an estimated 300,000 human beings. Powell, at the apex of his influence, destroyed what had been his career’s central purpose: preventing a repetition of Vietnam. Draper, who spoke with Powell recently, outlined the likely course if Powell had resigned instead. (Draper framed it in terms of the U.N. speech, but never mind that.) What if that same voice that publicly proclaimed the necessity of invading Iraq had instead told Bush privately that it was not merely an invitation to unintended consequences but a mistake, as he personally believed it to be? What if he had said no to Bush when he asked him to speak before the U.N.? Powell would almost certainly have been obligated to resign, and many if not all of his top staff members involved in the Iraq issue would also have quit; several had already considered doing so the previous summer. If the State Department’s top team had emptied out their desks, what would Powell’s close friend [British Foreign Minister Jack] Straw have done? “If Powell had decided to resign in advance of the Iraq war,” Straw told me, “I would almost certainly have done so, too.” Blair’s support in the Labour Party would have cratered — and had Blair withdrawn his support for war under pressure from Parliament or simply failed to win an authorization vote, the narrative of collapsed momentum would have dominated the news coverage for weeks. Doubters in the upper ranks of the American military — there were several — would have been empowered to speak out; intelligence would have been re-examined; Democrats, now liberated from the political pressures of the midterm elections, would most likely have joined the chorus. We can never know a counterfactual. The Iraq war was a product of multiple systemic failures and the alignment of multiple interests. We can never truly know if a refusal by Powell to be part of them would have prevented the invasion. But we do truly know that if anyone’s refusal could have prevented it, it was Powell’s, and Powell made the opposite decision. ---- Links from the article that might be of interest. On Iran Contra involvement: https://twitter.com/GregGrandin/status/1450100327160688646 https://twitter.com/GregGrandin/status/1450100327160688646 On the My Lai massacre in Vietnam: https://www.historynet.com/colin-powell-the-vietnam-war-years.htm https://www.historynet.com/colin-powell-the-vietnam-war-year...

redis_mlc 5y ago
ok, I get it, you're a committed peacenik who is willing to ignore any facts to push your narrative. But that doesn't mean what you wrote makes any sense from a military or geopolitical standpoint. (see my other post below.) For example, a common misconception is that only top warlords are responsible for what a country does, but in reality their population is also responsible for the outcome. In the case of Iraq, I'm sure the population cheered after Kuwait was invaded.

redis_mlc 5y ago

Sure, the White House's message to the US people was nonsense (I actually remember seeing some of it on TV and thinking how ridiculous it was, especially the "aluminum tubes." The sole Iraqi-in-exile source was also unconvincing.) But any article on the US-Iraq wars is also nonsense if it's missing the following facts: - Hussein had the 4th largest army in the world, and his stated goal was to "be the next Suleiman" and invade all of his neighbors. In fact, he did invade Kuwait, so Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid the US to expel Iraqi forces. - Hussein did make a weapon of mass destruction, chemical weapons, which were used against Iran and Kurds. You can see pictures online of intact but dead people covered in a white foam or dust. - French and German diplomats told Hussein he was untouchable (ie. the US would never invade) in order to curry favor on future contracts. - Hussein and his aides refused to negotiate with US envoys. The US sent an envoy just before the invasion buildup, who the aides refused to meet with (the aides wanted pomp and circumstance, not a direct message)

mgamache 5y ago

There were a number of people that could have stopped the war. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Saddam Hussein to name a few. Powell played a large role to be sure, but imagine Condi Rice in that role. It would have been a harder sell, but given the drum beat it would have happened. Even if Powell resigned, the spin would have labeled him a political hack or out-of-touch with the situation.