GOV 312L 1ST EditionLecture 6Outline of last lectureI. Who are the neoconservativesII. What was their main argument about Us foreign policy during the 1990sIII. What was their effect ton US foreign policy in the first term of the George W Bush administration->Operation Iraqi FreedomOutline of Current lecture:I . The post-9/11 public argument for invading IraqInterlude: why wasn’t this done before?II. the invasion of IraqIII. The initial period of occupation of IraqCurrent Lecture:I. The post 9/11 public argument for invading IraqDiagram of the Bush 43 administration and neoconservatives in itWhite HouseWhite HouseDepartment of DefenseDepartment of DefenseNational Security AdvisorNational Security AdvisorDepartment of StateDepartment of StateNational Security CouncilNational Security CouncilWas there a link?Neoconservatives and their allies were pushing to remove Saddam Hussein from power from before the first day of the George W. Bush administration.As soon as the 9/11 attacks occurred Bush and Rumsfeld were asking about links.Two kinds of theories (both proven wrong in the 9/11 Comm. Report)I. Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks (Wolfowitz)II. Hussein was not necessarily behind the 9/11 attacks but he was working withal-Qaeda operatives and developing biological weapons and pursuing nuclearweapons (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell to some extent)Theory I.Idea: Saddam Hussein has connections, trained members of al Qaeda and was building weapons of mass destruction. Hussein proves to be a major threat, maybe today, but definitely tomorrow. Wording skewed towards making Hussein seem like a major currentthreat.The argument was posed as: is there any way al-Qaeda could have done this without help from a state? Its very unlikely, almost impossible, so Iraq must have been helping. Line of argument is not based on evidence.There is lots of skepticism in the intelligence community.Logical reasons against: Quasi- authoritarian dictator- First, Hussein was very paranoid, nothing in common with Osama Bin Laden. Second, if Hussein had biological weapons, he would not share them with a group that could use them against Iraq.Theory II (more prevalent)George W. BushAnd VP Dick CheneyGeorge W. BushAnd VP Dick CheneyDonald Rumsfeld- Paul Wolfowitz- Douglas FeithDonald Rumsfeld- Paul Wolfowitz- Douglas FeithCondoleezza RiceCondoleezza RiceColin Powell- Richard ArmitageColin Powell- Richard ArmitageNational Security Council (numerous, including Elliott Abrams)National Security Council (numerous, including Elliott Abrams)Saddam Hussein was gathering threat to the US and he would probably strike at US targets through his own means or in cooperation with non-state actors like al Qaeda.This was accompanied with powerful imager: smoking gun-> mushroom cloud.There’s just one thing: The sources for Theory II:-First source-Codename “curveball” (Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi): Iraqi defector in Germany. Seemed untrustworthy, was often drunk and hungover, seemed to be making things up in order to get the attention of the intelligence community, maybe settle an unknown score with Hussein-Second source: Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi: Libyan affiliated with al Qaed who was picked up fleeing Afghanistan after Operation Enduring Freedom. Had worked with al Qaeda, was interrogated by FBI, was treated like a criminal, consistently stated that Saddam was NOTworking with al Qaeda. Was shifted over to the Egyptian intelligence services, he is threatened with torture, is prompted to make up a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. He makes up a story in order to avoid torture. Later he recants this story.If Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (and he did not), why did Hussein not let people come and search around to prove that there wasn’t any?-Hussein was in a dangerous area, he did not want his neighbors to know that he was weak and without it.Interlude: why wasn’t this done before?Back to 2003Why hadn’t this been done before?During the 1990s Clinton had practice a policy of “dual containment” toward Iraq (shia majority by Sunni ruled) and Iran (Shia majority and shia ruled, and not a US ally)Which way would Iraq turn after Hussein?Neoconservatives expected a pro-US and maybe even pro-Israeli republic with a Sunni orShia leader who shared their priorities and ideas.Idea of having another strategic outpost in the region was a big argument in the Bush Administration. (This was their expectation). The outcome was far differentII. The invasion of IraqMar 17 2003- Ultimatum: president bush declares saddam Hussein must leave Iraq within 48 hours or face attackMar 19 2003- resident bush declares war on Iraq. Operation Iraqi freedom is launched at9:30 pm ESTApr 9 2003 US forces take Baghdad, topple Hussein statueApr 11 2003 Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld remarks on nation-wide looting” its untidy and freedom’s untidy and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad thingsMay1 2003 president bush declares an end to major combat operationsMay 12 2003 Paul bremer arrives in Baghdad, assumes control over US led administration of IraqTaking over Hussein- was easy. However, problem started to rise about how to deal with the government without Hussein. There was a lot of looting, rioting going on. At first there was no initial plan- said that free people tend to make some initial mistakes.Significance of Sunni Arab dominanceAny attempt to redistribute power within Iraq would mean prying influence from the hands of the Sunni Arabs and thereby inviting their resistance. Conversely any attempt atplacating the Sunni Arabs minority would mean relinquishing the ambition of nurturing new relationships of political equality.Path- radical transformation of Iraq, displaced Sunni Arabs, displaced the Shia Arabs.Should have been: keep Sunni in charge, keep Shia as second class citizens. There wasn’t a correct way to occupy Iraq!Bremer’s BlundersL Paul Jerry Bremmer III’s most momentous directives took place w/in two weeks of his arrival in Baghdad.Order number 1: the de-baathification of Iraqi society: Previous major party was Baath party- fired 100s thous of very influential Iraq indviduals (teachers, factor owners, workers, etc)Order number 2- dissolving the Iraqi Army (which was an estimated 700,000 strong, although most were Shia conscripts)- basically laid off a ton of trained solders that later became the bulk of the insurgency.These were the basic causes of the insurgencies