Brent Scowcroft on the Iraq War

“A long cut and paste, but paragraph two and three give you a brief synopsis.

Brent Scowcroft Calls Iraq War 'overreaction'
New York Observer, The, Sept 6, 2004 Byline: Andrew Rice

On Aug. 30, as Republicans gathered in New York to celebrate their "war President," retired Lt.-Gen. Brent Scowcroft sat with a reporter in his Washington office, giving his analysis of the direction of his party's foreign policy, weighing in on Iraq, Iran and the rest of the world, and lobbing a few rhetorical mortar shells in the direction of the White House, which is located just a few blocks away from his office.

"Look, I'm a friend of this administration," Mr. Scowcroft said. "I love the father. So do I want to do things which complicate [matters for] them? No. But do I feel that there are some things that it's important to get out? Yes."

From these "things," a distinct picture emerged of the Presidency of George W. Bush according to Mr. Scowcroft: one which is equally indebted to the advice of a shadow cabinet of neoconservatives, the President's evangelical brand of Christianity--which has given him a feeling of manifest destiny about conquering terrorism in the Middle East--or the father whose one-term Presidential destiny he is at pains not to live out himself.

It's because of the influence of these forces on the President that Mr. Bush may have "overreacted" to the threat of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, said Mr. Scowcroft, and that the "preoccupation with terrorism" meant that "we are maybe not paying enough attention to other problems in the world that have nothing to do with terrorism, but are really significant." Mr. Bush had squandered opportunities to avoid war in Iraq, said Mr. Scowcroft, who also speculated that the Bush administration had exaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction because it provided "the only reason which you could use to propel a war [in] a particular time frame." He fretted that the ongoing fighting in Iraq made it impossible for the administration to confront nations much closer to actually acquiring nuclear weapons, like Iran. Most of all, Mr. Scowcroft reiterated his skepticism about the prospects for gunship democracy in the Middle East--outlining the kind of realism for which George W. Bush's father was known around the world.

"It's not that I don't believe Iraq is capable of democracy," said Mr. Scowcroft. "But the notion that within every human being beats this primeval instinct for democracy has not ever been demonstrated to me."

All this he offered as he sat amid mementos of a career that has spanned three decades and five Republican administrations. His framed Presidential Medal of Freedom hung on one wall; a bronze bust of Jim Baker sat near the door. Displayed above his desk was a framed black-and-white photo of a younger Mr. Scowcroft, napping aboard Air Force One. It was signed by his close friend, former boss and ideological doppelganger, George Herbert Walker Bush.

Mr. Scowcroft's true-blue G.O.P. decoration scheme only underscores the strangeness of his position. For in addition to holding a number of official titles--former National Security Advisor, chairman of a Presidential advisory commission on intelligence issues, head of a high-powered lobbying group--Mr. Scowcroft has acquired this most unlikely sobriquet: Republican dissident. It all started two years ago, in the lead-up to the Iraq war, when Mr. Scowcroft penned a column for The Wall Street Journal entitled "Don't Attack Saddam." In it, he argued that there was scant justification for attacking Iraq, and that doing so would "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy" President's Bush's wider war on terrorism. For a few weeks, Washington was atwitter. Colin Powell called to thank Mr. Scowcroft for providing war skeptics some "running room." Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol lambasted him as a member of an "axis of appeasers." Amateur analysts divined Oedipal overtones. As Mr. Scowcroft himself puts it, he was widely seen as a "stalking horse" for the current President Bush's father, who always chased his politik with a shot of real.

Today, the episode is largely consigned to history. Mr. Scowcroft was ignored, America went to war, and many of the dangers he had warned of came to pass. But Mr. Scowcroft remains relevant--because of who he is, and what he represents: the foreign policy of the first Bush administration, with its emphasis on allies and thank-you notes, Great Power gamesmanship and sober-minded (critics say "amoral") calculation. For much of this second Bush administration, Mr. Scowcroft's school--the foreign-policy realists--has been sidelined, as neoconservatives strutted the halls of the Pentagon, spinning visions of a Middle East remade at gunpoint. Now, with Iraq turning into a gruesome slog and despair mounting in conservative circles, realism is suddenly in vogue again--and Mr. Scowcroft is looking like a prophet. In Washington, turning a man's name into an adjective is the highest form of flattery. It is a measure of how radically the country has changed these last four years that Senator John Kerry's foreign-policy advisors happily call themselves "Scowcroftian."

"It's curious," Mr. Scowcroft said. "I think back to my days of graduate school during the Cold War: I was attacked by many of my friends--probably primarily Democratic--for being a hard-liner, a hawk, so on and so forth. I think I have maintained a pretty consistent philosophy. Now I'm being attacked from the right for being a wussy liberal."

W.'s Destiny

"The President has said--I think he told [Bob] Woodward--[that] he doesn't feel that he has to reach beyond the experts that he has gathered around him. That he has every perspective he needs in order to make his decisions. He does not have a kitchen cabinet or that kind of thing, which was so popular with other Presidents that we've seen, who always went outside to their old cronies. This President just doesn't do that, and it's just part of his personality."

And which "other Presidents" was he referring to? Well, Mr. Scowcroft says he doesn't like to make explicit comparisons between the George Bush he served and the George Bush who is President now. "I have views, but I don't like to talk publicly about them," he said.

He prefers to couch his criticisms in political analysis and implied comparisons. "This administration has been pretty sharply divided on foreign policy," he said. "If you look at many of the things the President said when he was running for election in 2000, they are fairly dramatically different from the way the administration has behaved. A humbler foreign policy, for example, greater consideration for our allies, shying away from peacekeeping, nation-building--all of those have been reversed. Now the nation-building part not through choice, but it leads one to speculate: Why the shift? Because he had a different view of the world after he became President.

"It's possible that the transformation came with 9/11, and that the current President, who is a very religious person, thought that there was something unique, if not divine, about a catastrophe like 9/11 happening when he was President. That somehow that was meant to be, and his mission is to deal with the war on terrorism. Now that's a perfectly rational explanation--but there were signs of a change even before 9/11."

Mr. Scowcroft suggested that some of Mr. Bush's more bellicose moves were about politics rather than policy. "I'm not sure how much the President is driven by the [neoconservatives] and how much he is driven by wanting to be re-elected--maybe more than most Presidents do--because his father was defeated. And I think it's not impossible that, freed from that demand, he might behave somewhat differently."

In other words, even at this late date, Mr. Scowcroft sees some reason to hope that this son, like most sons, will eventually evolve into his father.

To describe Mr. Scowcroft and the elder Mr. Bush as friends is to understate the case--some say they share a brain. Mr. Scowcroft first came to prominence in the 1970's, when he was a deputy to Henry Kissinger, and first became National Security Advisor under Gerald Ford. But it was during his second stint in the job, under George H.W. Bush, that he really came into his own. The two men were so close that after Mr. Bush lost his re-election campaign, they wrote a joint memoir of the administration's foreign policy, describing the same events in alternating passages.

Continued from page 1.

"Do I know what the father thinks about most things? Yeah, I think so. If I don't, I've been sleeping for 30 years, because we've been together a long, long time," Mr. Scowcroft said. "We talk about a lot of things, and we talk about a lot of them very quietly. We have a wonderful relationship, and I have to be very careful about the appearance of speaking for him out of turn."

Indeed, Mr. Scowcroft quieted his criticism of the current administration's Iraq policy when it became clear that it was being interpreted as paternal advice by proxy--perhaps even by the younger Mr. Bush himself, who seemed spooked. ("I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq," the President told reporters in Crawford, Tex., shortly after Mr. Scowcroft's column appeared. "I listen very carefully to what they have to say.") Mr. Scowcroft said that the widely held perception that he was doing the elder Bush's bidding in voicing concerns about Iraq is "not true." He said the two men have never even discussed his article. Few people believe that, though, and Mr. Scowcroft said he's resigned to being viewed as Poppy's familiar, calling it "a fact of life."

Springtime for Realism?

Early on in the administration, it appeared that Mr. Scowcroft and the rest of the realists would exercise significant vicarious influence in the administration via Secretary of State Powell, who has shown a career-long reluctance to use military force in most circumstances, and through National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a Scowcroft protege. But Mr. Powell has mostly been marginalized, and Ms. Rice has often sided with hawks like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz in the struggle for the administration's soul. Mr. Scowcroft and Ms. Rice had bitter words after Mr. Scowcroft went public with his criticism of the Iraq war. Mr. Scowcroft says that he and Ms. Rice have since made up and now talk regularly, but associates say that Ms. Rice has bitterly disappointed her mentor. In public, Mr. Scowcroft takes care to praise Ms. Rice for her "brilliant mind," but when asked to assess her job performance, he said he would prefer not to comment. "Each National Security Advisor sees his or her job in slightly different ways," he said.

But lately Mr. Scowcroft--or at least his point of view--has been making a comeback. The New Republic recently declared that it was "Springtime for Realism"; conservative intellectuals like Francis Fukuyama, William F. Buckley and George Will have written despairingly of America's entanglement in Iraq. In recent months, talk within the administration of creating a showcase democracy in Iraq has quieted considerably. Mr. Bush, who once talked of smoking terrorists out of their caves, now says the war he's fighting may never be won--at least in any conventional sense.

Supporters of the President say that Mr. Scowcroft's cautious way of thinking about things--leaving Saddam Hussein in power, for instance--is a relic of the past and dangerous to boot. Critics point to his longstanding personal ties to the Saudis and to his business interests. Mr. Scowcroft doesn't disclose the clients of his consulting group, but they are said to include oil companies and foreign governments.

The fact of the matter is, though, that Mr. Scowcroft has been proven right about a lot of the things: He was skeptical about the existence of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and of its relationship to Al Qaeda; he warned that fighting a war in Iraq could prove a distraction to the rest of the war on terror, creating animosity and hurting alliances. Two years ago, the Presidential advisory board he heads recommended centralizing the nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities within the C.I.A.--an approach Mr. Bush just recently endorsed. (How did the administration thank Mr. Scowcroft's commission? It was rousted from its offices next to the White House and stuck in an less desirable office building a few blocks away. Washington wags saw it as punishment for Mr. Scowcroft's apostasy. He blames renovations, not revenge.)

Of course, the language at the convention continues to equate the multilateralism of the first Bush administration with a sort of relativism or amoral opportunism. Critics point out that it was Mr. Scowcroft, after all, who secretly went to China after the massacres at Tiananmen Square to reassure Deng Xiaoping about America's friendship. The elder Mr. Bush's administration was stridently criticized for sitting by while the Balkans sank into bloody civil war. But it's a measure of America's yearning for those supposedly simpler days, when Eastern Europeans were clamoring for our blue jeans, that the first Bush administration is now held up by many as a sort of golden era. Naturally, the people most proud of the administration's record are those who served it. And the fact that Mr. Scowcroft, the consummate insider, is expressing his displeasure publicly is a measure of how much those who served Bush pere feel that Bush fils has trampled their legacy in his march toward a preemptive war.

"One of the interesting issues is the degree to which the expertise of the previous Bush administration has been drawn on, and my answer to that question is: I think not much," said Lawrence Eagleburger, a former Secretary of State under the first President Bush who has also been critical of the current administration's foreign policy. "I think Scowcroft is one of those they should have been listening to. [But] I think to some degree, the people that are closest to this President viewed his father's administration on foreign policy as excessively multilateral."

"I think that there are still many, many people within the Republican Party that do not buy into the 'mission' thing," said the Cato Institute's Christopher Preble, one of the founders of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, a group of intellectuals and policy wonks who recently came together to preach pragmatism. "[They] are not prepared to sign up for a messianic liberation-theology strategy in the same way they were willing to do so during the Cold War, because the threat we are facing today is very, very different."

Mr. Scowcroft put it a little differently. "You know, I think fundamentally Americans side with John Quincy Adams: 'We go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,'" he said. "Things are always harder than they look. Changing history, changing people, changing cultures is a slow, evolutionary process--and I think we'll find that out in Iraq."”

“More and more, the evidence is out. Even thoughtful Reagan/Bush Republicans are speaking out against the war.”

“These people (Scrowcroft et. al., the people on these boards who listen to them etc...) really honestly scare the hell out of me.”

“Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!”

“err.... Bison, what is about Scowcroft that scares you?

Don't you think he would be in a position to offer credible analysis?”

““These people (Scrowcroft et. al., the people on these boards who listen to them etc...) really honestly scare the hell out of me.”

Why do people give the media so much power over them as if they are preaching the gospel from on high? And I do mean ALL media, right and left.”

“Great read pedxing.

As expected the usual response here on TT. Good grief. Responding will do no good. Insanity is running amok.”

“That's pretty much my point Nigal, it's like they're worshipping at the media's feet.

Scrowcroft like many other seems to think that it would be better to play cold war game with the terrorists, beef up our defense in response to their ability to defeat it. There is a serious problem with drawing on his experience. The Soviets weren't going to attack us. The back and forth game had to do with a show of capability. If we play this game with the terrorists we end up not responding to their ability to attack us but to their actual attacks, in other words people are going to die, civilians, here. There is only one strategy that will end this. Draw them into the open and kill them, somewhere other than here, and show the arab street that contrary to what the extremists would have them believe we are dedicated to their own self-determination. Hence Iraq. It ain't pretty and it makes the situation worse before it makes it better. But I'm not one for leadership that is so shortsighted that it doesn't understand that this is the price that has to be paid to change the situation, and that in the long run we'd pay a much higher price for not having done it.

I am frightened that people who do not understand this might someday attain positions of power. Thank goodness somebody who realized this was in power when the decision had to be made.”

“"If we play this game with the terrorists we end up not responding to their ability to attack us but to their actual attacks, in other words people are going to die, civilians, here."

It's a desire to avoid the threat and roll back to a pre 911 stance. Ya know, when terrorism was the same as illegal gambling and prostitution. j/k

But we are a spoiled and impatient lot that I do not believe has the stomach to fight a war be it there or here. If we do not fight them there we will have attacks here. OTOH we're gonna have attacks here no matter what. But the fact that we have NOT had an attack here sense 911 does tell me in my mind that we're doing something right. The worst attack Bin Laudan has launched has been video tapes.

The old days of just bombing some into submission like the first gulf war and in Kosavo simply can not be done now.”

“Why do people give the media so much power over them as if they are preaching the gospel from on high? And I do mean ALL media, right and left.”
Nigal
1:34:11 PM
12/07/04

so tell us Nigal & Bison where do you get your information from.

Do you believe that everything Bush and his adminstration tells you is true.

Why is it that anytime somebody post comments from someone who comments against the war it is wrong. But yet you do the same and we are suppose to believe that.

Bison, you have commented that one of the General's per your Uncle was stupid but yet you offer nothing to prove that other than your uncle's word. I guess we should believe him then.

You can't criticize people for posting statements made by a person when you do the same.”

“Yeah....I don't belive this uncle and the general story. Which general and who's your uncle? Sounds like sour grapes to me.”

““Yeah....I don't belive this uncle and the general story. Which general and who's your uncle? Sounds like sour grapes to me.”

No, the uncle is still away somewhere for what he did to me as a child. LOL!”

“He was the top aide to the NATO commander if that answers your question, I know of no one who knows my uncle that would question his integrity, It's his opinion but you can pretty much go by his opinion.”

“So enlighten us Bison. Which NATO commander and when did he serve this so-called NATO commander? Wat is your uncle's name. What rank did he hold? If he's real cough it up. I'll check his records.

I mean if you're going to expect us to take your uncle's opinion as fact at least let us know this uncle's name etc.”

“There was only one NATO commander on the list.”

“Bison, expects us to take his uncle's word for it. He is right and the General is wrong.

Come on Bison you can do better than that”

“Nobody said anything about right and wrong Ewker, I simply expressed that his opinion of the man, whom he worked very closely with, is that he ain't got too much common sense.”

“Yeah, there's only one but I still want you to tell your uncle's name, rank, and when he served this man.

I bet your uncle was some low ranking house boy shining the NATO Commander's shoes. That is if your uncle even exists.
last edited: 12/07/04 6:27:21 PM”

“Bison is talking about the General's listed on another thread. However, there were two NATO commanders on the list.”

“Sorry Ped, thought there was only one (Turner was a long time ago), mea culpa, SH I'm not posting a family members name on the board, He was a Col. at the time. This would have been the late 90's.”

“I don't take anyone's opinion as received wisdom. I don't accept argument by authority. However, there are plenty of people whose opinions are worth considering and there are people I respect.

Scowcroft was National Security Advisor for 2 Republican presidents and a highly competent one at that. Given his closeness to the Bushes, I would not expect him to openly disagree with this administration unless he had serious and sincere concerns. Does that mean he is right? Not necessarily, but it does mean that he ain't providing, or easily swayed by someone else's spin.

I think its worth considering what Bison and his Uncle have to say, even if we are getting it third hand. There is certainly no need to accuse either of bad faith. Still, we have no idea what the uncle meant by stupid, or what was done that lead him to that conclusion.”

“As I posted before Ped, he was referring to his lack of common sense, not necessarily his intelligence.”

“I've heard that old common sense argument before. Yawn. It's a way to slam a person who you just don't like, when you can't argue objectively anymore. So how does one measure this all important common sense anyway?

Common sense.....LMAO.

Sour Grapes.”

“And Bison - which NATO commander?

Also not sure what is meant by common sense or in what context it was used.
last edited: 12/08/04 8:28:11 AM”

“Clark, He's not quite old enough to have been an aide for Turner.

I would refer to a lack of common sense in this case as not taking into account the basic assumptions that a normal person with "common sense" would in your decision making process.”

“Huh?”

“Ya know, in all honesty I can admit that, after seeing what a complete disaster the Kerry nomination was, Clark would have been a great choice.”

“Jo, I agree with ya on Bison's statement.

But Nigal he has no common sense per Bison's uncle...lol

guess having no common sense could apply to lots of folks on here”

“After some thinking I remember that one of my uncles had a connection to a general once.

This uncle of mine, his name (no secret here) was Leo, he served in the 95th Infantry Division under General Patton in France in WWII. He actually served, unlike George W. Bush.

Well, Leo had some things to say about old GEneral Patton, some good some bad, but he would never go around saying that the General was stupid or had no common sense.

Leo took a sniper's bullet to the chest in the battle of Metz. Patton could have bypassed Metz, the Germans were encircled. But, Patton chose to slug it out with the Germans. Guess what...Leo disagreed. I would never sit here and say that George Patton's opinion on military matters were irrelevant.

If a cross section of respected military leaders and W's fathers close friend have disparaging things to say about the Iraq War, well, maybe there's something to it boys.”

“I fail to see your premise JO, your uncle may very well have not said that Patton was stupid or had no common sense because in your uncle's estimation he wasn't stupid and did have common sense. Sorry to bore you with logic.”

“It seems like everyone in the chain of command believes themselves smarter than the guy above them and I would think that a cornel would have a pretty good grasp on what the leadership is like. But then there’s the old “opinions are like ass holes…” factor.”

“I believe the word is 'kernel', Nigal.”

“He's baaack.

"Breaking Ranks: What Turned Brent Scowcroft Against the Bush Administration?" - Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 31 October 2005

It's not available on the web... you have to buy the magazine... but there are lengthy excerpts from it at http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001024.html”