Not finding the weapons of mass destruction gave new impetus to the theory that the Bush Administration, riding on September 11th aftershocks and the ensuing Americans' blind faith, found the moment opportune enough to fix a twelve-year old strategic mistake: stopping the 1991 Gulf War too soon, leaving Saddam in power and the region's vast oil riches more vulnerable than ever. Whether a minor mistake or a big blunder, it had nonetheless haunted the Republicans since Bush's father lost his second-term bid. And Bush Junior wasn't going to let slip by a good opportunity to fix it.
But what might have seemed a cheap vengeful act by a son eager to restore his father's repute suddenly became a matter of compelling national security urgency.
Unmasked a foe
September 11 put Saddam on the front burner again; but it did so not because Saddam had anything to do with it, but because September 11th unexpectedly unmasked a foe exponentially more portentous and more inimical to US interests than Saddam: Al Qaida. A cover had to be found for the US to rush back to the Gulf.
Further testimony to this reasoning is found in recent revelations by General Wesley Clark, one of 10 contenders for Democratic nomination in the upcoming 2004 US presidential election. He wrote in his just-in book, Winning Modern Wars, that two months after the events of September 11th, the Bush Administration had already put in place a plan to invade Iraq.
Opinions on the real motives behind the war are divided. But, regardless of all the positing wild variances, there was a sudden change in the US attitude towards Iraq after September 11. Only seven months earlier, US Secretary of State Colin Powell had stated that Saddam "had not developed any significant capability with respect to WMD." That is why, in its run-run for the war, the Bush Administration's arguments about Saddam's WMD sounded as if the White House were making a mountain out of a molehill.
September 11 may have simply resuscitated US old demons over fossil fuel supplies. In his digging for prohibited arms, Kay may end up finding more oil or new mass graves. But this is beside the point. Supporters and opponents of the war agree on one thing: Kay's final findings not due until early next year - will have practically no bearing on what Bush will do next. Suffice it not to note the steadfastness with which Bush - and for that matter, his staunchest ally in the war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair - is sailing through the storm.
Notwithstanding all the bad news coming from Iraq - or because of the war on Iraq - Bush maintains the same face he wore when, as Commander in Chief, he first gave order to strike Iraq half a year ago - the serene look of someone lurking behind the corner, waiting for his turn to show those who oppose the war just how gullible they are in their wrongheaded assumption that Saddam had no WMD.
If history is of any counsel, the world knows of at least one man who kept harbouring the same look up until his demise: Saddam Hussain. While in power, not only did Saddam cause his people to suffer two devastating wars and 12 years of punishing sanctions, but he also failed miserably to show, unequivocally, that his country was free from weapons of mass destruction, thus circumventing, perhaps, the third war which brought him down.
The picture today, however, tells a different story: the 100,000 US troops promised a homecoming in Christmas will stay in Iraq much longer; the war, officially over on May 1 as Bush declared earlier, is taking a startling turn and, on average, US forces are losing one soldier a day to an enemy going bolder and more sophisticated; the cost of the war, by some estimates, is $15 billion over budget; and Bush is asking for another $87 billion. It looks more and more as if Bush is wading through muddy waters than sailing through to eternal glory.
Plans to fight terrorism
According to Clark's assessment, Bush also managed to compromise his own plans to fight terrorism. Clark states that the war on Iraq is dissipating the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy the US received in September 2001.
As a western diplomat put it, "too many mistakes for a first-term president whose parents lived in the White house for four years." "In the heat of the September 11 disaster, just when we expected real leadership and brinkmanship, President Bush caved in too quickly to the hawkish instincts of a few longtime dormant, even marginalised cells in his entourage [read neocons]," he added.
In so doing, Bush nearly gave the kiss of death to an already flailing United Nations and almost wrecked the careers of many of his closest allies, chief among them, the still-embattled Blair.
Things may change down the road and Kay may find weapons or may find oil, but, by then, Bush may well be resting in his ranch in Texas, fanning time away and handing out autographs to old ladies.
Mohamed Dourrachad is an Abu Dhabi-based journalist.
Gulf News
