• Home
  • About

Rural Ruminations

OpEd pieces by a retired CIA station chief.

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« U.S. Has No Good Choices for Arranging an Exit from Iraq
Pentagon Isn’t Necessarily a Better Option Than the CIA »

Maybe Neocons were right about unilateral preemption

March 5, 2005 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Valley News.]

The twin tactics of the Cold War – containment and alliances – really helped me mature politically.  The policy showed me the advantages of having real constraints on both America and the USSR from their adversaries and allies. In the end there was no hot war and the tactics did succeed: The Soviet Union failed, and America prevailed.

As one who accepts containment and alliances as the absolute best way – the only way – to deal with enemies, I have found President Bush’s implementation of the radical new foreign policy of pre-emptive unilateralism frightening, wrongheaded and doomed. Along with others who have studied the Middle East, I couldn’t have imagined a more dangerous or less promising place than Iraq to try out this strategy. The objective conditions there could not have been more hostile to this foreign policy revolution.

Those of us who believe in containment and alliances quickly took over the winning side of the argument. Everything that could have gone wrong in the aftermath of a brilliant and imaginative military invasion did. Chaos reigned. Our generals and many military, political and foreign policy writers, myself included, said we needed more troops on the ground and that establishing peace would be the problem. The primary rationale for the invasion — the threat of weapons of mass destruction ó proved to be a farce. I am among those Americans who believe the WMD rationale was duplicitously fed to us when some other darker and far less acceptable reason was probably the real reason we went to war.

As our casualties mounted and the insurgency grew, I clung to containment and became more angry at this administration and more convinced that America, as we had all predicted, had made the first truly horrendous foreign policy mistake of the 21st century. The Bush administration had violated its own injunction against nation building by now asserting that the ultimate goal of the invasion had been the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. That, administration officials argued, would introduce democracy into the area and undermine all of the repressive regimes in that part of the world. But the situation in Iraq steadily deteriorated, and I found myself watching my old predictions come true.

Recently, however, it has become increasingly clear that things are not going as badly in Iraq as I feared and, to be brutally honest, not as badly as some had hoped. Yes, some Americans clearly hope that we will fail in Iraq. However, they have been disappointed by a successful election in Afghanistan, which now seems reasonably calm. The election in Iraq has been an unexpected success and that has had an almost immediate positive impact: It is possible that Iraq may move toward a peaceful solution of its ethnic and religious issues.

And as administration officials predicted, the repressive rulers of the Muslim world are clearly concerned. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, who earlier eschewed WMD, now looks more compliant than ever. The Saudis and Egyptians are opening the door a crack to free elections. The Israelis and Palestinians are talking. Lebanon seems to have finally risen up against its Syrian yoke. Under increasing international pressure, the Syrians have just turned over Saddam’s half brother to U.S. forces in Iraq, potentially a major blow to the insurgency.

Even though these changes do not dictate that we will end up being successful, they are positive signs for America. I go to bed at night with the nagging worry that the crazy neo-con fathers may conceivably have been right in pushing pre-emptive unilateralism. Have I been stubbornly and stupidly wrong?

This is far from over. Pre-emptive unilateralism may still prove to be the curse of the 21st century. Virtually every Middle East expert I know believes that the inherent contradictions that have always existed in Iraq eventually will bring that country to civil strife. Powerful forces in the Middle East don’t want us to succeed in bringing democracy to the Muslim world. Supporters of the repressive regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Persian Gulf and Africa have the wherewithal and motivation, either because of their oil wealth or because of their simple desire to stay in power, to continue to support the Iraqi insurgency and try to disrupt any Iraqi move toward democracy. It is clearly in their own narrow self-interest to do so.

Frankly, I don’t know if this adventure with pre-emptive unilateralism has all been a horrible mistake, as it may ultimately prove to be. Certainly a successful outcome would be the best possible turn of events for the United States. But is it worth the monumental risks and costs involved? Perhaps. The conditions that support terrorism might begin to fade away with the departure of the region’s repressive rulers. The conflict between Israel and its neighbors could disappear with the creation of a Palestinian state and the resulting dissipation of Arab anger that supports terrorism. We could even withdraw our troops from the region, thus removing the last factor that supports terrorism, the stationing of “infidel” American troops on holy Islamic ground in Saudi Arabia. Success might conceivably even justify the costs. It is clearly in our national interest not to fail in Iraq.

On the other hand, I constantly ask myself if such success would embolden the Bush administration to engage in further such adventures, each time making all our military, economic, international and political problems worse and bringing the potential of further disaster. Any way you slice it, this incredibly revolutionary Bush foreign policy is a monumental gamble, with every facet of our national treasure at stake.

No one, least of all I, knows what is going to happen in Iraq. All we can do is wait and see. Only history can be the final arbiter of our success or failure. In the meantime, it does seem somewhat unseemly that so many Americans are waging their own battles against a policy that, although a long shot, could radically alter the situation in the Middle East in our favor and deal a major blow to those who would continue to try to do us harm.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Lebanon and Iran and as chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism staff. He lives in Williston, Vt.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in foreign policy |

  • Search all posts

  • Newest Posts

    • TRUMP AT WAR WITH AMERICA
    • WHERE IS THE WORLD HEADED?
    • Democratic socialism and the coming election
  • Posts by Category

    • Afghanistan (34)
    • CIA (23)
    • Democracy (7)
    • Egypt (6)
    • foreign policy (104)
    • Gulf (1)
    • Insurgency (3)
    • intelligence (22)
    • Iran (18)
    • Iraq (44)
    • ISIS (1)
    • Israel/Palestine (27)
    • Lebanon (2)
    • Libya (2)
    • Middle East (60)
    • Military Polilcy (8)
    • NATO (1)
    • Pakistan (2)
    • Revolution (2)
    • Russia (20)
    • Syria (11)
    • terrorism (53)
    • Uncategorized (25)
    • United States (88)
    • Yugoslavia (4)
  • Posts by Date

    • March 2020 (2)
    • February 2020 (1)
    • September 2019 (2)
    • August 2019 (5)
    • February 2018 (2)
    • January 2018 (1)
    • December 2017 (1)
    • October 2017 (1)
    • September 2017 (1)
    • June 2017 (1)
    • May 2017 (2)
    • April 2017 (1)
    • March 2017 (2)
    • February 2017 (3)
    • January 2017 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (1)
    • June 2016 (4)
    • February 2016 (1)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • October 2015 (1)
    • September 2015 (1)
    • August 2015 (4)
    • May 2015 (1)
    • March 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (1)
    • November 2014 (1)
    • August 2014 (1)
    • June 2014 (1)
    • May 2014 (1)
    • February 2014 (1)
    • December 2013 (1)
    • November 2013 (1)
    • August 2013 (3)
    • July 2013 (1)
    • June 2013 (1)
    • May 2013 (1)
    • March 2013 (4)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (2)
    • December 2012 (2)
    • November 2012 (1)
    • October 2012 (1)
    • September 2012 (2)
    • August 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (1)
    • June 2012 (1)
    • May 2012 (1)
    • March 2012 (4)
    • February 2012 (1)
    • January 2012 (1)
    • December 2011 (1)
    • November 2011 (3)
    • October 2011 (3)
    • September 2011 (2)
    • August 2011 (2)
    • July 2011 (2)
    • June 2011 (3)
    • May 2011 (3)
    • April 2011 (4)
    • March 2011 (3)
    • February 2011 (2)
    • January 2011 (4)
    • December 2010 (3)
    • November 2010 (3)
    • October 2010 (2)
    • September 2010 (4)
    • August 2010 (3)
    • July 2010 (4)
    • June 2010 (4)
    • May 2010 (3)
    • April 2010 (2)
    • March 2010 (4)
    • February 2010 (3)
    • January 2010 (6)
    • December 2009 (4)
    • November 2009 (3)
    • October 2009 (3)
    • September 2009 (3)
    • August 2009 (1)
    • July 2009 (4)
    • June 2009 (4)
    • May 2009 (3)
    • April 2009 (3)
    • March 2009 (4)
    • February 2009 (4)
    • January 2009 (6)
    • December 2008 (4)
    • November 2008 (2)
    • October 2008 (3)
    • September 2008 (6)
    • August 2008 (5)
    • July 2008 (7)
    • June 2008 (2)
    • May 2008 (5)
    • April 2008 (2)
    • March 2008 (3)
    • January 2008 (1)
    • December 2007 (1)
    • November 2007 (3)
    • September 2007 (2)
    • August 2007 (2)
    • July 2007 (2)
    • June 2007 (2)
    • May 2007 (1)
    • April 2007 (1)
    • March 2007 (2)
    • February 2007 (1)
    • January 2007 (1)
    • December 2006 (1)
    • November 2006 (1)
    • September 2006 (1)
    • August 2006 (1)
    • July 2006 (2)
    • June 2006 (1)
    • May 2006 (3)
    • April 2006 (1)
    • February 2006 (1)
    • January 2006 (1)
    • November 2005 (1)
    • September 2005 (1)
    • August 2005 (1)
    • June 2005 (1)
    • April 2005 (1)
    • March 2005 (1)
    • January 2005 (2)
    • December 2004 (1)
    • November 2004 (1)
    • September 2004 (1)
    • August 2004 (1)
    • May 2004 (1)
    • April 2004 (2)
    • November 2003 (1)
    • October 2003 (1)
    • August 2003 (1)
    • June 2003 (1)
    • February 2003 (1)
    • January 2003 (2)
    • December 2002 (1)
    • January 2002 (1)
    • November 2001 (1)
    • September 2001 (1)
    • August 2000 (1)
    • January 2000 (1)
    • August 1999 (1)
    • May 1999 (1)
    • August 1998 (1)
    • April 1997 (1)
    • August 1996 (1)
    • July 1995 (1)
    • January 1995 (1)
    • September 1994 (1)
    • March 1994 (1)
    • October 1992 (1)
    • July 1992 (1)
    • February 1992 (1)
    • August 1991 (1)
    • February 1991 (1)
  • Videos

    • Haviland Smith: VPT Profile
    • The Impact of the U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
  • RSS

    • RSS - Posts
  • Blog Counter

    • 6,723 pages viewed

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Rural Ruminations
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Rural Ruminations
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: