Iraq: Who Lied?
The High Cost of Lying About War
Published on Sunday, June 29, 2003 by the Chicago Tribune
by Karen J. Alter
If Saddam Hussein had choked on a pretzel, been assassinated by his closest advisers or slain by his own people rising in revolt, the U.S. and the world would have cheered.
Instead, he was overthrown by a U.S. military invasion, after a worldwide campaign of half-truths, misleading insinuations and outright lies. How the world rid itself of Hussein matters as much as the fact that Hussein no longer runs Iraq.
The world cares that this war was justified by lies, and Americans should care too.
Even if some evidence of an Iraqi program to create weapons of mass destruction is eventually unearthed, it is already clear that the evidence the Bush administration used to support its case for war was faulty. Perhaps the Bush administration is only guilty of naively believing people whom it knew had a reason to lie.
Intelligence experts knew that many in the Iraqi exile community wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq and would say whatever it took to get an invasion. Perhaps the Bush administration is mainly guilty of knowingly peddling bad intelligence--information that had been discredited or deemed unreliable by experts.
Don't forget how the secretary of defense created his own internal intelligence office, hand-selecting "experts" willing to vouch for questionable sources and interpret evidence in ways that the CIA, FBI and even the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency would not.
Or perhaps the administration is mainly guilty of insinuation--withholding counter-evidence while letting others read into its public statements deep connections between Hussein, nuclear weapons programs and Al Qaeda.
Do such transgressions cross over the line from honest miscalculation to willful misleading--dare we say lying? Does it matter whether President Bush lied or was simply grossly mistaken?
Currency of truth
Either way, we pay the high costs:
- The credibility of the U.S. has suffered. Who will believe us the next time a U.S. administration claims to have classified information of an impending threat? The ability of the U.S. to rally the world has been compromised.
- People around the world no longer believe that the U.S. is a benign force for change. If we must live with one country possessing unparalleled power, at least let it be a country that champions freedom, human rights and the rule of law. Americans and people around the world have believed this image of America, supporting the U.S. in its efforts to fight terrorism and promote change. Increasingly, however, the U.S. appears as an oppressive Goliath, unwilling to listen to or value others' opinions and punishing of those who dare to disagree. If the U.S. is a Goliath, its challengers become underdog Davids, worthy of popular support.
- The democratic process has been undermined. Democracy works when there is an earnest debate that informs public decision-making. How can Americans seriously evaluate whether a war with Iraq makes sense, and whether we should give the UN more time, when the credibility of the intelligence and the extent of the Iraqi threat has been greatly exaggerated?
- Our intelligence system has been compromised. In the fight against terrorism, the U.S. relies on intelligence offered by ordinary people around the world. The willingness of the neighbors and compatriots of those plotting against the U.S. to pass on intelligence is undermined if these sources fear that their information will be used to manufacture threats and support a U.S. desire to dominate others.
- Americans around the world now face greater risks. In the past, U.S. soldiers often have been welcomed wherever they have been stationed because they are seen as liberators and guarantors of peace and security. The more U.S. soldiers are perceived as occupiers killing civilians and innocents, the harder and more dangerous their job becomes and the more likely Americans around the world will become targets of violence.
- We may have set a bad precedent. If the U.S. attack on Iraq sets a precedent that any country can invade another whenever there is an irrational fear, regardless of whether it is unsubstantiated or even fabricated, the world will be a more dangerous place.
- The integrity of U.S. politics is undermined. It is amazing that many of the same people who thought President Bill Clinton should be impeached for lying about his extra-marital affair are far less troubled when a president manipulates the public for political ends. Why aren't the people who wanted to impeach Clinton mobilizing now?
This is not the first war to be triggered by lies or misperceptions.
But the transparencies of the falsehoods are so clear, people throughout the world simply cannot believe that Americans thought Hussein posed a threat to them. Whether or not conspiratorial arguments about Texas oil designs or an imperial lust to dominate are true, the U.S. is perceived to be the greatest threat to world security by people around the globe, making the world a more dangerous place for America and its supporters.
Alternative scenarios to war
Maybe the charge of lying would not hold up in a court of law. But there was an alternative to using mistruths and insinuation to justify a war. If getting rid of Hussein was the only acceptable outcome, Bush could have relied on Hussein to fail to fulfill his promises to the UN. If Bush had waited for the UN process, he might have had UN support, a broader coalition of forces to wage the war, more help in the post-war reconstruction, and a greater basis to credibly believe that Hussein had not gotten rid of his weapons of mass destruction.
The president has a responsibility to make sure there is strong evidence before he publicly levies serious charges against other countries. The reputation of the United States is on the line, and the costs of the error directly affect all Americans.
Hussein was a tyrant. But it matters that the war was justified by lies. Whether or not you believe that the Bush administration crossed the line of lying, our leaders should be held accountable for manipulating information, misleading the American public and undermining America's reputation.
Holding those responsible accountable will let political leaders know that manipulating the public is not acceptable political behavior--in the U.S. or anywhere. It will also be a first step to correcting the damage, distancing the American people from the abuses and mistakes of its leadership.
Karen J. Alter, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern University, specializes in International Relations.