Winter Break WK #2: “Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq?”
Current wisdom has it that if there had been a few less hanging chads in Florida in November 2000, the world would be a different place.
Al Gore would have won the presidency, the Iraq war wouldn’t have happened, and several hundred thousand people who perished in that war would be alive today. That conclusion is based on the generally unchallenged belief that Iraq is George W. Bush’s war: that he and a cabal of like-minded right-wingers conceived and executed the invasion for their own ideological motives. Or, as Frank Harvey, a research professor of international relations at Dalhousie University, puts it: “A few powerful ideologues exploited public fears (and international goodwill) in the aftermath of 9/11 to amplify Iraq’s WMD threat as a primary justification for an unnecessary, preventive invasion.”
That view, notes Harvey, “has emerged as the dominant narrative for explaining the U.S. attack. It represents the prevailing consensus running through dozens of the most popular books on the Bush administration, and hundreds of frequently cited (and widely circulated) scholarly articles, media reports and blog entries on the invasion. In fact, casual observers engaged in a cursory review of the literature will find the same thesis repeated (and usually defended) by prominent scholars, journalists and Washington ‘insiders’ on the left and right of the political spectrum.”
Harvey believes the conclusion is dead wrong. In a new paper for the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute, he deconstructs the thesis and finds it “overlooks almost all of the relevant historical facts.” More than that, he asks a simple question: Had he been elected, would Al Gore have taken the same path as George Bush? He concludes, overwhelmingly, that he would have.
Given the prevailing mood in the aftermath of 9/11, the institutional structures that surround the president, the political and social pressures of the time, the accepted wisdom regarding Saddam Hussein and the international factors at work, says Harvey, Gore “[would have been] compelled … to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest.”
There are several threads to Harvey’s argument, which you can read in its entirety here. At the risk of oversimplifying a very detailed examination, here are a few of the arguments he makes:
• Despite its universal acceptance, the prevailing theory of the war, which Harvey calls “neoconism” “remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a ‘theory’ without theoretical content, an argument devoid of logic or perspective … Even the most superficial review of its central tenets reveals serious logical, empirical and theoretical flaws.”
For instance, he notes, it presumes that Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a few like-minded ideologues “had the intellectual prowess and political skills to manipulate the preferences, perceptions and priorities” of non-neocons such as Tony Blair and Colin Powell; the majority of both parties in both houses of Congress; the leadership of foreign policy and intelligence committees in the House and Senate — including every senior Democrat; most European leaders; “every member of the UN Security Council (including France, Russia and China) who unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and 60%-70% of the American people at the time.
• The “neocon” argument presumes Gore, in the same circumstances, would not have been presented with similar advice or faced pressures to act in a similar way. Harvey suggests this is wishful thinking. “In fact, all of the relevant evidence from Gore’s entire political career – his speeches on Iraq, contributions to the 2000 campaign debates on foreign affairs, policy announcements and interviews” argue Gore would have been at least as aggressive as Bush. As Harvey points out:
“Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” Gore and his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, both backed the 1991 Gulf War. As Vice President, Gore supported military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and “consistently adopted the hardest line in the Clinton administration when dealing with Saddam Hussein.” When President Clinton decided to abort his four-day bombing of Iraq in 1998, Gore opposed backing down “despite the absence of UN Security Council endorsement.”
Gore was surrounded by advisers who shared his hawkish views, whose speeches, statements and policy positions at the time give no hint they were reluctant to use force to bring Saddam Hussein into line.
• Bush did not invent the conditions or attitudes at the time. Gore would have been presented with the same flawed intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, faced the same public fears and pressures and the same international concerns. “Every member of the UN Security Council (including the war’s strongest critics, France and Russia)” unanimously endorsed the belief that Saddam had maintained proscribed weapons and was actively frustrating UN efforts to find them, Harvey writes.
“Anyone looking for reasons to be worried about Iraq could easily ignore speeches by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and focus instead on those delivered by Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Gore and Kerry; they could ignore the 2002 [National Intelligence Estimate] and read the NIEs published over the previous five years; or they could simply read the reports by UNMOVIC’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, or UNSCOM’s inspector Scott Ritter (one of the war’s strongest critics).”
• The faulty intelligence was backed up by Saddam’s bizarre efforts to encourage such beliefs, in hopes it would reduce the danger of a second conflict with Iran. There is no reason to believe Saddam would have acted differently under a Gore administration.
Harvey notes that the decision to invade was not made overnight but culminated from a series of escalating steps involving the UN and a host of international leaders, both friendly and otherwise.
“President Gore would have been compelled to make all of the same rational moves to get inspectors back into Iraq,” he concludes. “Strategically, the only way to accomplish this goal through multilateral diplomacy would have been to follow the same basic strategy. The competing counterfactual claim that none of these decisions would have been taken is simply not credible.”
He adds: “The only significant difference would have been the size of the invading force – Gore would probably have recommended a much larger troop deployment in line with General Anthony Zinni’s plan under the Clinton administration (OPPLAN 1003-98, originally approved in 1996 and updated in 1998, called for 400,000 troops). Boosted by the confidence of deploying this many troops, and concerned about the cost of sustaining such a large force through prolonged (and unsuccessful) inspections, Gore would have been more, not less inclined to accept the risks of war. It is highly unlikely that a sitting Democratic President would have survived the 2004 election if he decided against enforcing “all necessary means” or “serious consequences” in favour of the French-Russian position.
National Post
Although I think that this article brings up a few good points, I do not think that it is accurate to say that if Al Gore had been elected president in 2000 that he would not have engaged the country in a war in the Middle East. I am sure that under the circumstances, with 9/11 having just gone on, whoever was president of the United States would probably have been compelled to declare war. But you have to remember that in most cases, it is not just a president who declares war for an entire country. There are advisors and cabinet members and military leaders who also give imput to the president in times of crisis. And if Gore had been elected president, there would have been many different people working in the white house than were working there while Bush was president. And who knows if 9/11 would have even happened if some one else had been elected president? If Gore had been elected, maybe someone would have found out about the planned attacks and they would have been prevented, and nothing would have happened. It really doesn’t matter though, because Gore wasn’t elected, and the war has already started.
Connection: The extra credit movie we watched towards the beginning of the year talked about the 2000 election in depth and showed how close the race was. If the election had been called the other way, perhaps there never would have been a War on Terrorism.
While this article brings up several compelling arguments that many Bush supporters will be sure to jump on, I completely disagree with this article because it is contingent upon several things that are unlikely to have happened. While it is true Gore is a foreign policy hawk, the first contingent assumed and missing is the association of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. This association, despite common Mid-East knowledge that the two men despised each other, came primarily from the right-wing ideologues using logic that was warped at the time and later proven to be false in a Senate investigation. I do not believe that any of Gore’s picks for his Cabinet would have done that. The next crucial piece missing is that Gore would have had similar advise from his Cabinet that Bush was given. I think it is relatively safe to say that the advice would have been different, seeing as Gore and Bush, and the men they did or would have appointed, have opposing political ideologies. By assuming that the only difference the of the past eight years would have been Gore president and not Bush, meaning the Cabinet would have been the same, is not an accurate way to base a theory; yet the article seems to have that assumption at it’s base. The War in Iraq is definitely George W. Bush’s war.
Connection: Political ideologue. The article talks about how common accepted theory is that several right-wing ideologues are responsible for the Iraq War and that Harvey says that political ideology has nothing to do with it.
This is kind of enlightening. Al Gore may have made some of the same decisions regarding the “War” in Iraq. What we should do is rev up the time machine, elect Gore, and see what happens. There is no possible way to know what Al Gore would have done in a similar situation, and we do not even know if the terrorist attacks would have even happened. I believe “every action has a positive and equal reaction, therefore everything that goes around comes around in that fashion” (Outkast “Knowing”). We will never know how the world would have changed, or how the world would have reacted if Al Gore became president.
9/11 will probably define Bush’s presidential career. People will forget about Hurricane Katrina, the economy (unless we hit depression), No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act, but people will not forget the thousands of people lost in his holy oil war. Stating that other people would have done the same thing holds no water. We do not, and will not know what would have actually happened if Gore was president, this is pure speculation.
Connection: Public Opinion. This is obviously a ploy to give the American people a more favorable view of the president before he leaves office. I think that the author of the article is a bitter republican that is trying to get the American people back in favor of the Republican Party.
I don’t even know what to say about this article. Who really knows if Al Gore would have or would not have gone to war? But in reality, during 2001 we did have a terrorist attack and the first thought in the president’s mind would most likely be go to war because the attack caused so much chaos in our country. It’s not like the president would have just sat back and said, “Oh, it is okay. We don’t need to worry about a thing.” So yes, I do think Gore would have gone to war because our country needed to take action and stand up for ourselves. Furthermore, if we had not gone to war, we would not have those proud veterans that can say they fought for our country.
We can’t really think “what if” about the war though because what is done is done. We can’t waste our time thinking about how things might have gone differently if we had a different president. Our country just needs to accept the fact that we did go to war and it made our country a lot different. I believe that because we did go to war, our country is much more patriotic and really respects people in the military.
CONNECTION: “The War Room” (the extra credit movie.) This movie talked about the 2000 election and how close of a race it was. If the turnout would have went to Gore being our president, we might be talking about “what if Bush had been president, would there have been a war?”
I, for one, think it rather pointless to dwell upon the “could have been” for too long. So Gore lost the election eight years ago. Big deal. There really is no way of telling what his actions would have been concerning the war or the possibility of war. What really matters, or should matter, to everyone right now is the state we’re in because of the war. What’s all this speculation going to do to help us? Even if, by some mysterious power, it became known that Gore really was our rightful president and Bush had stolen the election, what could we do? I mean really? We can’t just go “oops! Just kidding,” kick Bush out, then dance around Gore as if we had no worries at all. I just think this whole article is either a way for Gore to draw attention to his loss because he’s still sore, or someone’s attempt to place even more blame on George Bush.
Either way, it’s absolutely ridiculous.
I think people just need to grow up and put all this speculative thinking into something useful: like how to lower the cost of groceries. Though perhaps this is just a way for people to take their minds off of how bad a condition our world is in. They’re all scared so they find reasons to believe that this could have never happened. Well guess what? It did. And to be perfectly honest, it’s not just the politicians’ faults. It’s all of our faults. We, as a democratic body, could have stopped Bush from ever invading had we not been so for it to begin with. We just don’t want to live with ourselves, so we push the blame aside.
Connection: Towards the beginning of the year, we talked a lot about the election of 2000 in class and how many believed it stolen from Gore. I do believe we even talked about how America would be different if he were president. While it is an interesting topic to consider, it’s not worth all the fuss that people make it out to be. Really, what are they going to do about it?
Who cares? Gore didn’t win, he isn’t the president. Rather than focus on what could have happened, we should focus on what is happening. At this point, most Americans object the war in Iraq; mostly because a justifiable reason no longer exists (there are no weapons of mass destruction). However, Bush’s unpopularity isn’t a result of this (obvious) mistake; it is a product of many mistakes without reconciliation. If only Bush acquired the amount of courage needed to admit wrong doings, articles like this would receive no attention.
Despite the previous brief rant, I am fairly confident that Gore/ any president would have, under the circumstances, invaded Iraq. Survival is a VERY basic element of human nature. When people’s lives are threatened, they tend to support whoever/ whatever seeks to protect them. The United State’s reputation is built upon strength, vulnerability isn’t an option. Therefore, when this nation is threatened, invasion is, and always will be, the obvious response. Fear has sort of a timeless way of redefining justice, and equality, and pride, and love, and tranquility. Fear manipulates logic, and sometimes allows us to redraw the boundaries that represent righteousness and faith. The chances of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction were less than 1%, but clearly, less than 1% is enough to startle and instill fear in the greatest nation on earth. Less than 1% is enough to risk/end the lives of thousands of men and women. Less than 1% is enough to take over a country, condemn its culture, and revamp its government. Who is Bush, who is Gore, who are we to separate fear, and morality? I don’t support the war in Iraq, however; if it were up to me, I too would have chosen to invade Iraq. Now, it’s clear that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are not a threat. So, let’s get the hell out of there!
Connection: In 2004, the main idea behind Bush’s campaign was ‘protection’. Since John Kerry was labeled as a “flip-flopper’ and Bush was labeled as the “protector against terrorist”, Bush won…obviously. Fear manipulates logic.
“Current wisdom has it that if there had been a few less hanging chads in Florida in November 2000, the world would be a different place.” It very while might have been a very different place, but it is most likely that events such as 9/11, unfortunately, still would have happened. I think it is interesting that most people still don’t believe that Gore would have taken the same path as Bush. As the article states, “Gore was a foreign policy hawk. He consistently opposed efforts to cut defense spending, supported Reagan’s decisions to bomb Libya, invade Grenada, aid the Contras in the 80s, and fund the B-1 and B-2 bomber and MX missile programs.” He has a long history of backing strong military action, and action in the Middle East was inevitable. There was support from the UN Security Council, a majority of the American public, and other important politicians. I’m not sure if the only difference would be in the invading force, but I think it is a moot point. I don’t believe the article was concentrated on a “what if” scenario, but rather concentrate on the misconception of most of the American public. I believe this ties into the paradox of mass politics. The public isn’t informed over candidates and their stances and they believe that just because Gore is a Democrat, that he would be less likely to go to war, than Bush. Which is not true. People could have elected Gore without knowing anything about his foreign policy.
In Response to Cyle Christianson:
I would defiantly have to agree that there is no possible way to know what Al Gore would have done in this type of situation. I hate when people of the opposite party than what is in office always say, “well if so in so was in office this would not be happening… so therefore I hate who ever is in office.” People get too caught up in party loyalty and don’t really understand that the person in office is probably doing the best possible job they can. Our country always gets in to this endless battle of one party being disappointed and playing the “what if game.”
In response to Kathrine Kruse:
Although I would say that this war has made our country a more patriotic country, at what price are we willing to pay for that patriotism? Are we willing to have thousands of men and women killed just so that more Americans will wave an American flag from their front porch? At some point we have to realize that patriotism isn’t all about pride for our country but also looking out for our fellow Americans. Even though this is inevitable with war, I don’t think we should be exchanging it for human lives.