George W Bush was wrong to push democracy on Iraq, one of the chief architects of the 2003 war has admitted as he warned that the West is woefully ill equipped to cope with rampant Islamist extremism.
Donald Rumsfeld, the former US defence secretary, conceded that trying to replace the tyranny of Saddam Hussein with democratic structures was unrealistic. In an interview with The Times he said: “I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories. The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”
His remarks amount to a clear and very rare breach between Mr Rumsfeld and his commander-in-chief, President Bush, who embraced the idea of using the aftermath of the conflict to push democracy across the Middle East.
In a wide-ranging interview in his office at the Rumsfeld Foundation, an educational organisation, he said:
- Nato and the UN were no longer fit and should be replaced with new alliances to cope with modern threats such as chemical weapons, Iran and slavery.
- The West should begin a new Cold War-style offensive against Islamist groups, with allies co-operating on joint spying operations and co-ordinating attempts to starve extremists of money and other assets.
- Removing Colonel Gaddafi from power in Libya had left the region more dangerous.
- President Obama had abdicated leadership and opened the door to Russian expansionism.
Mr Rumsfeld expressed concern at western governments’ failure to grapple with the rise of Islamist extremism, either to understand the motivations of its protagonists or grasp that Arab nations were disintegrating.
“The movement for a caliphate, the movement against nation states is central and fundamental. And no one’s talking about it. Have you ever heard anyone at the UN begin to think about that concept?” he asked.
He warned that the failure of western leaders to show any courage in the fight against Islamists by refusing to identify who the enemy was, the nature of the threat, and the extent of their own vulnerability, meant that there was less likelihood that the Muslim community itself would fight against jihadists.
“If leaders aren’t willing to do it, why the hell should a guy with a wife and kids in the community put himself at risk?” he asked.
He predicted that the threat from Islamists - typified by the advance of Isis - would take decades to conquer. “You begin to look at this thing not like a war but more like the Cold War ... you’re not going to win this with bullets, you’re in a competition of ideas.”
Mr Rumsfeld, who served under Mr Bush between 2001 and 2006, added: “You’re going to have to squeeze down bank accounts, to find out who’s teaching whom what, to find ways to promote and encourage moderates.”
Although he defended the removal of Saddam, he expressed dismay at the West’s attempts to break the Libyan regime with airstrikes in 2011 and the subsequent overthrow of Gaddafi, who was killed by rebels in October of that year. Asked for his view of the West’s military intervention in Libya, he added: “It certainly doesn’t look very nice having done it.”
However, one benefit of Saddam’s removal had been that Gaddafi decided to come in from the cold and give up his nuclear programme, he said.
He suggested that Nato might have run its course. Its challenges today - the Iranian regime, the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, terrorism, drug trafficking and human slavery - required a different response from a body set up to fight the Cold War. Instead, he said, there should be multiple coalitions of “right-thinking” countries such as the US, western European nations, Israel and some Asian states.
Mr Rumsfeld gave a withering account of the Obama presidency, blaming Russia’s actions in Ukraine on the president’s abandonment of “America’s historic role in promoting and defending free societies”.
He added: “We can’t police the world, it’s too big, but people want to know what to think about their futures and the risks. Leaders need to tell them what is happening and have the guts to stand up and say, ‘This is what I think’.”
[Edited on 6/8/2015 by 2112]
The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”
Funny, I don't remember him saying that at the time. He seemed very enthused to be going to war in Iraq. I remember when faced with a question about the lack of a strong coalition of allies his response was "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
Nixon would be proud.
The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”
Funny, I don't remember him saying that at the time. He seemed very enthused to be going to war in Iraq. I remember when faced with a question about the lack of a strong coalition of allies his response was "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
He didn't say he was wrong to overthrow Hussein. He said he was wrong to try to impose a Democracy under U.S. occupation. Anyone who actually bothers to read the history will see that their were opposing approaches. St. Colin Powell and the State Department proposed the massive U.S. occupation and creation of a "democracy." The State Department, led by Rumsfeld argued for a small American footprint and the quick formation of a legitimate acting Iraqi government. Would this have worked better? We'll never knnow. Bush chose the wrong path.
He predicted that the threat from Islamists - typified by the advance of Isis - would take decades to conquer. “You begin to look at this thing not like a war but more like the Cold War ... you’re not going to win this with bullets, you’re in a competition of ideas.”
He got that last part right.
The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”
Funny, I don't remember him saying that at the time. He seemed very enthused to be going to war in Iraq. I remember when faced with a question about the lack of a strong coalition of allies his response was "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
Doesn't mean he wasn't he wasn't concerned and didn't voice his concerns to his bosses. But when the decision was made, he got on board. That's not unusual in government or in business.
I said:
Funny, I don't remember him saying that at the time. He seemed very enthused to be going to war in Iraq. I remember when faced with a question about the lack of a strong coalition of allies his response was "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
dougrhon reponded:
He didn't say he was wrong to overthrow Hussein. He said he was wrong to try to impose a Democracy under U.S. occupation. Anyone who actually bothers to read the history will see that their were opposing approaches. St. Colin Powell and the State Department proposed the massive U.S. occupation and creation of a "democracy." The State Department, led by Rumsfeld argued for a small American footprint and the quick formation of a legitimate acting Iraqi government. Would this have worked better? We'll never knnow. Bush chose the wrong path.
and gondicar responded:
Doesn't mean he wasn't he wasn't concerned and didn't voice his concerns to his bosses. But when the decision was made, he got on board. That's not unusual in government or in business.
Points taken. You are both right. I just get aggrevated sometimes by Rumsfeld's smugness. He irritates me even when he's right.
I said:
Funny, I don't remember him saying that at the time. He seemed very enthused to be going to war in Iraq. I remember when faced with a question about the lack of a strong coalition of allies his response was "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
dougrhon reponded:
He didn't say he was wrong to overthrow Hussein. He said he was wrong to try to impose a Democracy under U.S. occupation. Anyone who actually bothers to read the history will see that their were opposing approaches. St. Colin Powell and the State Department proposed the massive U.S. occupation and creation of a "democracy." The State Department, led by Rumsfeld argued for a small American footprint and the quick formation of a legitimate acting Iraqi government. Would this have worked better? We'll never knnow. Bush chose the wrong path.
and gondicar responded:
Doesn't mean he wasn't he wasn't concerned and didn't voice his concerns to his bosses. But when the decision was made, he got on board. That's not unusual in government or in business.
Points taken. You are both right. I just get aggrevated sometimes by Rumsfeld's smugness. He irritates me even when he's right.
It's rare we are both right. And you are right as well. His smugness is very irritating.
IMHO Rumsfeld and Powell were both wrong as you can't force Democracy on a people who have never known freedom. The desire for freedom has to come from within and not thrust upon them from outside influences.
This idea that setting up some makeshift government would be a success in Iraq, when they have such major religious sect conflicts, was shortsighted and doomed to failure no matter which approach was implemented.
Democracy is a smokescreen for occupying a country to take it's resources under the guise of we will help you develop prosperity and manage your resources. We will bring you freedom, money, jobs etc. If we just said look we are coming over there and we will bomb your infrastructure into oblivion, take out your leaders, set up a government friendly to us and our foreign trade partners people would respond with a resounding 'EFF YOU America'. So we talk nicely and try to convince them we are there to help them. We do raise the standard of living for some, but overall no.
[Edited on 6/14/2015 by gina]
Rumsfeld is a moron. He continues to try to distance himself from the idiotic decisions made by the Bush/Cheney imbecile crew that created what we now have in Iraq which will be haunting us for decades to come. Worse military blunder in our history and we will be paying for it for decades and decades. We weren't welcomed by Iraqis with flowers and candy, the war was not quick and easy, and the bills that continue to mount are being paid for by us, not by Iraqi oil revenues as we had been told. Complete and utter failure and Rumsfeld was and is right in the middle of the cause of it no matter how much he tries to run from it now. His legacy of stupidity is set in stone.
Rumsfeld is a moron. He continues to try to distance himself from the idiotic decisions made by the Bush/Cheney imbecile crew that created what we now have in Iraq which will be haunting us for decades to come. Worse military blunder in our history and we will be paying for it for decades and decades. We weren't welcomed by Iraqis with flowers and candy, the war was not quick and easy, and the bills that continue to mount are being paid for by us, not by Iraqi oil revenues as we had been told. Complete and utter failure and Rumsfeld was and is right in the middle of the cause of it no matter how much he tries to run from it now. His legacy of stupidity is set in stone.
The American People apparently wanted to give the Nixon regime another go just to see how bad things could get. Well. We found out.
I can't help but wonder if any of these war profiteers ever feel even a bit of remorse for the lives they've destroyed by their deliberate lies and incompetence to drag this nation into an unneeded war and the bungled occupation thereafter. It seems they spend all their energy all these year later trying to justify their rational for what most agree is the biggest foreign policy blunder in this nations history.
And now with the rise of ISIS, a movement their actions created, some of them seem as if they're in hyper drive to try and spin their legacy. I find it sickening personally given the thousands upon thousands of lives lost and treasury spent while they seem only concerned about soothing their own egos. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, all of them.
Even worse, if Jeb Bush wins the White House, many of them will be right back in power as this same crew of chicken hawks are part of the Bush team. Scary just to think about what other damage they could cause.
[Edited on 6/13/2015 by Chain]
IMHO Rumsfeld and Powell were both wrong as you can't force Democracy on a people who have never known freedom. The desire for freedom has to come from within and not thrust upon them from outside influences.
Exactly, They haven't sacrificed, bled and died for freedom or any of its core values, a total waste of our resources that Imho was doomed from the start, although I hope they prove me wrong.
I agree with him that Bush was wrong, I've always seen it as your neighbor shooting your dog and you in return setting fire to the car that belongs to the guy up the street in retaliation.
