Paul Krugman: Yes He Would

As America prepares to invade Iran, this brutally honest column makes for some fine reading. Can you really imagine a second war – one that’s guaranteed to be bloodier and more devastating than that other needless war we’re caught up in, and that would serve no purpose except to help get Bush out of his political mess (at least temporarily)?

Yes He Would
Published: April 10, 2006

“But he wouldn’t do that.” That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn’t want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.

Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran — and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

“But he wouldn’t do that,” say people who think they’re being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn’t sensible. It’s wishful thinking.

As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of evidence that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war we’re already in.

First, it’s clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion between Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed.

Second, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the case he was presenting for war — a case that depended crucially on visions of mushroom clouds — rested on suspect evidence. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union address Mr. Bush cited Iraq’s purchase of aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that Mr. Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment.

Was the difference between Mr. Bush’s public portrayal of the Iraqi threat and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate claims that he deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove apparently thought so. According to Mr. Waas, Mr. Rove “cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush’s 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged” if the contents of an October 2002 “President’s Summary” containing dissents about the significance of the aluminum tubes became public.

Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen: Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq.

As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: “The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops.”

Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.

And it’s not just Mr. Bush’s legacy that’s at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.

Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn’t. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn’t do it again?

The Discussion: 7 Comments

The thing I like about Krugman is he generally has a good read on the situation and does not get caught up in all the spin. I recall a WP op-ed writer, Cohen, who became the Iraq wars biggest supporter…and he really lost lots of peoples respect for that.

Bush needs an external distraction to save him and his party, the traditional “October suprise”. Its so amazing reading the press, the “alleged nuclear program” has now become the “nuclear program”, its like a bad dream comming back.

It’s sad that the ego and greed of so few will result in the death of so many. Iran will fight back, the US will suffer real loss (perhaps even losing a carrier), and the world will have an Oil shock that will send its economies into recession.

April 10, 2006 @ 2:35 am | Comment

That was Richard Cohen, whom I really used to respect. Once, long ago.

What we also need to be aware of if we invade Iran is the danger of terrorism. Iraq was never active in terrorism aside from Saddam sending a gift basket to the families of Palestinaian suicide bombers. Iran, on the other hand, has been supporting terrorist activities for decades, and if we attack them it’s all but guaranteed to inspire a new wave of anti-American terrorism.

April 10, 2006 @ 4:33 am | Comment

Richard Cohen, unlike some folks, is capable of recognizing when he has made a mistake. He continues to write excellent prose… check this out:
A Hole in Which Hopes Are Buried

April 10, 2006 @ 5:04 am | Comment

Yeah, I would expect “terrorism” as part of the Iranian retaliation, I think from their point of view a US attack would be seen as terrorism too.

What else can you call a pre-emptive war? Attacking someone when they have done nothing to you, killing innocent people who just happen to work at one of these facilities, or be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We reap what we sow…my life time policy of avoiding all things American (especially aircraft) shall have to continue indefinitely I fear.

April 10, 2006 @ 5:24 am | Comment

“But he wouldn’t do that.”

That’s pretty much what my dad — who briefly worked for the Texas state government while Our Leader was governor — told me when I said, in the autumn of 2002, that a U.S. attack on Iraq was inevitable. My dad is a really smart guy, but in retrospect I can’t believe he was ever that naïve.

“my life time policy of avoiding all things American”

A U.S. attack on Iran — which, let me just say for the record, is also inevitable — will have two main beneficiaries: China and Europe, in that order. It will simply destroy whatever remains of America’s standing in the world community, especially if nuclear weapons are used.

April 10, 2006 @ 12:38 pm | Comment

I think I’ll be staying in Asia for a long time…

April 10, 2006 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

I’m looking towards the 06 and 08 elections to determine whether it’s time for me to seriously consider becoming an expat.

Hoping that the outcry over Hersch’s piece might be enough to stop this Iran madness…

April 11, 2006 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.