Powell’s quote of the decade

I generally like to give Colin Powell the benefit of the doubt. But this quote, from him, from today’s Washington Post, is a classic of governmental gobbledygook:

    there was no effort on the part of the Reagan administration to either ignore it or not take note of it.

The “it” in question? Saddam Hussein’s March 1988 poison-gas attack against some of his own Kurdish citizens in Halabja, which reportedly killed 5,000 people.
As the Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran notes in the piece,

    Although the United States condemned the Iraqi government’s use of chemical weapons as a “grave violation” of international law, the Reagan administration did not sanction Hussein, who was regarded as a U.S. ally because of his war against Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government. At the time, the State Department said there were “indications” that Iran had used chemical artillery shells against Iraqi positions in the area…

And oh, Reagan’s national security advisor at that time was– Colin Powell.

21 thoughts on “Powell’s quote of the decade”

  1. And if the US had just lifted the sanctions on Iraq, as you and many others wished, I’m sure that Saddam would have never ever dreamed of doing another Halabja, right?

  2. It’s exactly that sort of remark with that sort of tone that reveals the incredible divisions that have taken place in this country as a result of the war. I haven’t heard a reasoned debate for I don’t know how long.
    Nonetheless, it’s worth trying.
    First, let’s assume that Ariel’s remark implies the argument heard often that the purpose of the war was to save and liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. It’s important in this case to acknowledge what devastation the man wrought, and how glad most Iraqis are that he is gone (quite separate from whether they are glad we are still there).
    Having said that, two questions arise:
    1. Was that, in fact, the reason we went to war?
    2. If it was the reason, does that mean the US has the moral obligation to unseat every dictator of equal or greater malice and destructiveness?
    If it was the reason, and assuming that removing dictators by force always results in the best possible situation afterwards, then I would say we badly missed the boat. Our target should have been Kim Jong Il. He has nukes, he has repeatedly said he intends to use them if threatened, and he has murdered and starved untold numbers of his own people and continues to do so. If, before the Iraq war, you had told me personally that I had to choose between an Iraqi and a North Korean prison, I would have picked an Iraqi one. It would take pages more for me to back this up, but I’ll have to leave it at this. Do some reading.
    But the notion that we went to war to free and liberate the Iraqi people falls apart immediately as soon as you realize that, in fact, the US supported Hussein during the worst of his attacks on the population, and while he actually had some WMD to speak of. And, as Helena points out, that is simply underscored by the fact that virtually all the same players — Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, et al. were in the first Bush administration.
    Somehow I don’t think they were suddenly struck by moral qualms this time around.

  3. Vivion, pretending that a humanitarian rationale was never part of the lengthy dialogue that preceded military action is simply incorrect, as the public record documents lavishly. The “humanitarian argument for war” quite simply counters facile humanitarian appeals for some undefined peaceful mode of disarmament, since Hussein’s regime stood little chance of collapsing from within, and many more people stood to die under his rule than through military force imposed from without.
    The US may not have an obligation to unseat all similar dictators, but that has never been the claim; since “sovereignty” and “anticipated death toll” (versus tactical necessity) were invoked by the anti-war crowd, it is entirely appropriate that both Hussein’s legitimacy as ruler, and his murderousness toward his own people be measured against these points.
    The US’ decades-old endorsement of Hussein (or for that matter Bin Laden) is irrelevant to any forward-directed foreign policy. Joseph Stalin was also once a US ally.
    Kim Jong Il — what’s your solution? Conceding that he likely has nuclear weapons [likely of Pakistani provenance], and that a military overthrow is therefore impossible, I’m all ears.

  4. Regarding Iraqis’ current thoughts on the war , a recent Gallup poll (taken in person, door-to-door by civilian pollsters) reveals that “nearly two-thirds believe removal of Pres Saddam Hussein has been worth hardship they have been forced to endure.”
    (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D11FC3C590C778EDDA00894DB404482)
    Salam Pax conceded in his recent BBC interview that the consequences of the war (if not the concomitant hardships) were welcomed by ordinary Iraqis, and that Saddam’s overthrow would not have occurred through any other means.

  5. Actually, Alex, if you read the report on the poll carefull you’d see that what got the roughly-70-percent “yes” answer was a question about whether the respondents expected life to be better five years down the line…. In other words, it could be interpreted in a number of ways, including as a generally negative commentary on the current state of affairs.

  6. “what got the roughly-70-percent “yes” answer was a question about whether the respondents expected life to be better five years down the line”
    “better than before the invasion” is how the question was phrased, and those answering ‘no’ to the same question amounted to only 8 percent.

  7. US has a moral obligation to become involved in international conflicts because we are all citizens of the world and what ever happens to people thousands of miles away affects the US.

  8. We may all be citizens of the world, but we’re also citizens of the US, and frankly, the United States government should first and foremost look to the well-being of its own citizens. Instead of starting a war against a dictator we helped set up half a world away on flimsy claims of suspected WMD, we should be far more concerned about the current state of our economy, on terrorism, on security, schools, etc. Our gov’t needs to be worried about us – however selfish it may seem, WE are their first responsibility.
    And even if our domestic affairs were just peachy, why should we get into an international conflict that will put our citizens at risk? How does US involvement benefit anyone? I have no delusions that we could enter a conflict as neutral mediators.
    Also, in the past, US involvement has amounted to nothing but hit-and-run military action leaving these countries we were supposed to have helped with unstable governments that later fell back into chaos. Is US involvement supposed to worsen the situation? I highly doubt that’s the aim, but history has shown that to be the course of things. That’s why the international community has been so skeptical of our commitment to Iraq. Instead of funding a war on Saddam Hussein that has resulted in hundreds of deaths, we could spend that money on plant biogenetics and save thousands of lives.
    Furthermore, who gave the US the power to judge and decide who needs saving or not? That “almighty” mindset is exactly what gets the US in trouble.

  9. The US has no moral obligation to become involved in international conflicts – it has a moral obligation to its own citizens – and then the people of the world.

  10. The US has a moral obliagtion to mitigate international conflicts because one, promoting world peace and stability is a moral obligation and two, because For the sake of our own security, we must mitigate international conflicts. All problems around the world have the potential to grow into WWIII if we do not intervene, which in turn can harm us.

  11. Oops I did it again! – Brittney Spears TGP thumbnail gallery we live together welivetogether little trouble maker joey jenna big naturals in the vip latina hardcore movies solo video girl

Comments are closed.