February 18, 2004
WILKIE'S INTELLIGENCE
Holy anti-war icon Andrew Wilkie quit his intelligence job before the war. Why?
Mr Wilkie quit his job as an intelligence analyst with the Office of National Assessments (ONA) before the Iraq invasion last year to publicly campaign against government claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Wrong. While Wilkie believed the threat of WMD was overplayed (“Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program is, I believe, genuinely contained”) he didn’t claim that Iraq had no WMD (“there is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons”). His main concern was over something that never happened:
"My main concern is that Saddam could engineer a humanitarian disaster for any of a number of reasons. We all know of his program to co-locate his sensitive assets in civilian areas, next to schools and so on. He's also got a number of options up his sleeve. Three main ones come to mind:
"He creates a humanitarian disaster to overwhelm coalition forces. Just totally overwhelm them, with thousands of casualties, hundreds of thousands of refugees, internally displaced people, trying to move through their lines. That would play all sorts of havoc for the coalition military.
"He might create a humanitarian disaster to cause such outrage in the international community as to force the US to stop.
"He could create a humanitarian disaster as part of a scorched-earth policy once he realises the game is up. He's on the record as saying during the Iran-Iraq war when it looked like Iraq could lose that he would leave nothing of value for the invading army. That, I think, is an awfully important insight into the way this evil man thinks."
Wilkie thinks there are a number of ways Saddam could produce a humanitarian disaster. "He could do it with weapons of mass destruction. He's already used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and he could do the same again."
In The Bulletin story that first outlined Wilkie’s position on the coming war, his concerns over WMD amounted to only 40 words. Now he -- assisted by a media with short-term memory problems -- would have us believe it was his primary objection.
Posted by Tim Blair at February 18, 2004 03:07 PMI don't suppose there's any chance of Wilkie doing a David Kelly and offing himself?
That would be too much to hope for.
Posted by: John Kerry's Sex Toy at February 18, 2004 at 03:25 PMIraq, he says, does not pose a serious enough threat to the United States or Australia to justify a war.
and
What is the basis of his conviction that Iraq does not pose a serious enough threat to justify a war? "Their military is very weak. It's a fraction of the size it was when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. Most of what remains is poorly trained, poorly equipped and of questionable loyalty to the regime. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program is, I believe, genuinely contained. There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons, but their program now is disjointed and limited. It's not a national WMD program like they used to have. Also, I am not convinced that Iraq is actively co-operating with al Qaeda. The bottom line is that this war against Iraq is totally unrelated to the war on terror."
That's 145 words, all of which precede Tim's typically decontextualized quotation, and all of which turn out to be 100% correct on the facts.
Hey, I disagree with some of his assessments on what consitutes good policy. But there's no denying that he was a lot more accurate on Iraq's military capabilities than Tim ... or the U.S. government.
Posted by: Mork at February 18, 2004 at 03:59 PM"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program is, I believe, genuinely contained. There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons, but their program now is disjointed and limited. It's not a national WMD program like they used to have."
Forty words, Mork.
Posted by: tim at February 18, 2004 at 04:21 PMNotice, Mork, that Tim's point is that the 40 words of WMD are only a portion of those 145+ words where Wilkie makes his case against the war... yet it is merely those 40 words that seem to matter now despite the terrible wrongness of everything else.
I especially liked the part where you profess to believe statements like "There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons..." are 100% on the facts.
And when it comes down to it, arguing that a despot can't do anything to stop us only makes me wonder why we should continue to tolerate the harmless despot's open funding of terrorism and brutal abuse of his own people.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 18, 2004 at 04:25 PMMork, can we interest you in a plastic turkey myth?
Posted by: perfectsense at February 18, 2004 at 04:46 PMThanks Sortelli, you beat me to the point - i would like it noted that Mork has endorsed the comment:
"There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons"
as "100% correct on the facts".
Please note - the tense used was 'have', not 'had', 'may have' etc - 'have'. Next you will be claiming that these weapons posed an 'imminent threat' (Something GWB never did)
Posted by: Paul Dub at February 18, 2004 at 04:51 PMGood work Blair. Very good work. We here in Oz have a good chance of keeping the media honest on Wilkie. And keeping Wilkie honest too, if he starts fabricating his past.
Keep it up.
This is off-topic but you might be amused to know who Monbiot thinks is the latest scourge of Western civilization.
Posted by: Yehudit at February 18, 2004 at 05:30 PMThere you guys go with those pesky facts again!
You must understand that facts are only useful to support beliefs and feelings. When they don't, the facts have to be tailored to fit the belief or feeling.
Some People feel, for various reasons, war with Iraq was wrong.
Some People want to believe/feel Bush, Blair, Howard, etc. LIED to us.
Some People want to believe/feel Pres. Bush is an idiot who doesn't even know, or care, about real vs. plastic turkeys.
Some People want to believe/feel the US and coalition partners acted with no support at all from other countries. (Actually, no support from countries that matter.)
Some People want to believe/feel the US is the greatest threat to human civilization this world has ever known and we're determined to use our power to establish an empire.
Some People want to believe in a world-controlling Zioninst Entity.
Some People do NOT want to believe a group of religious nutz has declared war upon many of our nations.
For people who want to believe or feel, or don't want to believe, facts do not matter. They ignore or twist facts to suit their beliefs.
Engaging in any sort of debate or conversation with people who twist/ignore facts, is as satisfying as banging your head against a wall .. feels so good when you stop.
Posted by: Chris Josepshon at February 18, 2004 at 05:31 PMGee, Tim, you've got me there ... Laurie Oakes happened to put all those words warning about humanitarian disaster in direct quotes but only paraphrased what Wilkie told him about Iraqi weapons programs (apart from those 40 words).
But you understand, don't you, that this is a report and not a transcript, so for all we know, in the interview Wilkie may have devoted thousands of words to weapons and only the ones you've quoted to humanitarian issues. Or not.
But you don't know, and neither does anyone but Wilkie and Oakes (who, by the way, seems to have thought that what Wilkie said on weapons was more significant, given his ordering of the article).
But anyway, hats off to you Tim, you've correctly identified that there were more words in direct quotes on humanitarian issues in Laurie Oakes' report than there were on Iraqi weapons.
I can feel the resistance crumbling around me.
Posted by: Mork at February 18, 2004 at 05:36 PMMork
"he was a lot more accurate on Iraq's military capabilities than Tim"
And what military capabilities did Tim predict and got wrong?
Aren't you attributing to Tim something he did not say?
Posted by: Gary at February 18, 2004 at 05:41 PMMork = weasel sophist. In Macedonia we would put you to the firing squad!
Posted by: Drago at February 18, 2004 at 06:54 PMLet's make one thing clear- the piece highlights what he might do if he was attacked. So, why attack him in the first place if he was thoroughly contained??
Most people on this blog have lost the plot. US/UK/Austrailia have entered into a disaster in Iraq.
The war has not been successful guys- face it.
A few quick reasons-
1. The war created further destruction of Iraq's infrastructure which the US is now looking to wash it's hands of with a quick exit strategy and now they are looking for the UN!
2. The current Iraqi security forces will unable to contain the Resistance without continued presence and hand-holding from the US.
3. Iraq will be poor for many years to come. The flow of revenue (Oil pipelines) is continually interrupted by the Resistance -hence damaging the US quick exit strategy.
4. The main proponents of the war- the Bush and Blair governments, are both in positions of weakness with resignations and whistleblowers. If they are both turfed out in the upcoming elections, the political will, will not be the same. (Compare with other post-war leaders from the 80s/90s and then you will realise how weak they look).
5. The US has made Iraq into an open battleground. The Baathists have been overtaken by Jihadists in willingness to continue war. The future regime will be weak against a popular uprising and by suicide bombings. An Algeria type situation could then ensue.
6. Democracy does not justify war. Remember the Nazi's used democracy to come to power. What if a Shia regime comes to power? Tom Clancy's vision of United Islamic Republic (Iraq+Iran) then does not look too far off.
Posted by: rhactive at February 18, 2004 at 07:58 PMIf Bush, Blair and Howard lied about WMD to drag us all into a war with Iraq why would they use this particular lie? Given that if it were a lie they would know that exposure was inevitable when WMD are neither used nor found.
All this pseudo intellectual wankery about who said “has” or “had” and how soon is “imminent” should tell us a lot about how our leaders behave. I believe there is a saying along the lines of ‘we get the government we deserve’. Maybe Bush and Co. did spin us a line to get enough support for what is most likely the right thing to have done, what does this say about us?
Just about everyone who criticises the action taken gives equally valid grounds for it, just for a different, and un-acknowledged reason.
rhactive sums it up well “Let's make one thing clear- the piece highlights what he might do if he was attacked. So, why attack him in the first place if he was thoroughly contained??” (please note that I cut and paste this, any misquote is the fault of Bill Gates.)
One thing I know for sure Saddam was not an imminent threat to the people of Iraq he was a current threat. So Mr.active if he was contained in your house would that be OK?
Mork, let's run this by you again. I know it's all in the original post, but if Tim said that the sun would rise tomorrow you'd claim that just because it's risen every day since the dawn of the earth doesn't actually guarantee that it would do so again, or that if Tim said the world was round you'd claim it was flat. Because you are a clever sort of fellow who questions the details.
The article claims that Wilkies quit to campaign against claims that Iraq had WMD. Not true, he claimed that Iraq most certainly had WMD but that it didn't matter.
Now, even though he's JUST AS WRONG as every other intelligence analyst who thought Iraq had certainly been able to amass WMD despite the sanctions, he's claiming that the government has exaggerated or fabricated the claim HE BELIEVED HIMSELF before the war.
Anyway, unless you can pull up something to back up your assumption that Wilkies might have opposed the war more on the WMD issue (despite that he said they certainly had them) than on the humanitarian issues (that he was totally, shamingly wrong on), you'd best go back to picking at question marks.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 18, 2004 at 09:19 PMAnd for the deliciously ridiculous rhactive:
So, why attack him in the first place if he was thoroughly contained??
"Containing" and forcing stability on the Middle East created a repressed culture that glorifies the murder of civilians as political expression. "Containing" Iraq was more devastating and brutal than the war to oust Saddam was.
1. The war created further destruction of Iraq's infrastructure which the US is now looking to wash it's hands of with a quick exit strategy and now they are looking for the UN!
Gosh, I'm glad the opponents of the war are being pragmatic and doing all they can to support the occupation. It is truly a shame that the rape rooms and goon squads are no longer holding Iraq's infrastructure together. And it's too bad that we aren't building schools and hospitals and power plants and... oh. Nevermind.
Iraq's infrastructure? You DARE to complain about Iraq's infrastructure? Was the security of Saddam better? Were the living conditions under Saddam better? And would they have ever improved if left alone? Would you have wasted a single moment of your precious day thinking about it if it was?
2. The current Iraqi security forces will unable to contain the Resistance without continued presence and hand-holding from the US.
Back that up. The resistance has been getting weaker since Saddam's capture. They can't win in any military sense, they can only weaken public opinion, but I am SO heartened to know that you have the resolve to support their defeat and don't have any illusions about their chances of victory.
Oh. Nevermind.
3. Iraq will be poor for many years to come. The flow of revenue (Oil pipelines) is continually interrupted by the Resistance -hence damaging the US quick exit strategy.
As opposed to how poor Iraq would be if it was "contained" indefinately? Gosh, it's a pity that the US is relying solely on the oil when they could be out there getting other countries to forgive Iraqi debt... oh. Nevermind.
4. The main proponents of the war- the Bush and Blair governments, are both in positions of weakness with resignations and whistleblowers. If they are both turfed out in the upcoming elections, the political will, will not be the same. (Compare with other post-war leaders from the 80s/90s and then you will realise how weak they look).
Again, it's a delight to know that you have the spine and common sense to back the proponents of the war instead of simutaneously proclaiming and waiting for their defeat at the hands of the ever dwindling resistance that wants to restore the Ba'ath infrastructure... it's also nice to know that those whistleblowers like Gilligan and the BBC have been vindicated. Oh. NEVERMIND!
5. The US has made Iraq into an open battleground. The Baathists have been overtaken by Jihadists in willingness to continue war. The future regime will be weak against a popular uprising and by suicide bombings. An Algeria type situation could then ensue.
The Jihadists are complaining that the Iraqis aren't helping them enough, so now they're targeting Iraqis as well as Coalition troops. And they're losing. A future regime will be elected democratically by the popular majority necessary to create a popular uprising. Have you been paying attention at all? Oh. NEVERMIND!!!!
6. Democracy does not justify war. Remember the Nazi's used democracy to come to power. What if a Shia regime comes to power? Tom Clancy's vision of United Islamic Republic (Iraq+Iran) then does not look too far off.
Democracy does not justify war? Tell that to George Washington. Freedom is only available if you're willing to fight for it, either in defense or to reclaim it from tyranny. We've supressed it in the Middle East, and we're paying the price now.
It's a darn good thing that you're supporting those folks who scare Iran, bully Libya into giving up WMD, keep Pakistan and Saudi Arabia under pressure and have the best chance of rebuilding Iraq regardless of how popular it makes them. OH, NEVERMIND!
Posted by: Sortelli at February 18, 2004 at 09:40 PMWilkie’s supposed credibility stems from his role in the ONA. According to the original interview he claimed, "Yes, it might be a short and successful war. It might be. But it might not be as well. My main concern is that Saddam could engineer a humanitarian disaster for any of a number of reasons”. This is the area in which he is qualified, his other concerns were in areas of state policy, as he is not (yet) an elected representative this opinion is of less value.
So, taking Wilkie at his own word he opposed the war on the grounds that he considered the risk profile to be unacceptable, mostly to the people of Iraq - very thoughtful. This being the case why is he simply not expressing his relief that he was wrong.
So News Corporation misquoted Wilkie to begin with?
Was that your original point, Tim?
If not, what was?
Posted by: Squirky at February 18, 2004 at 10:02 PMWow. There sure are a lot of people who would have preferred seeing a despot left in power. You guys ever have trouble sleeping at night?
Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 18, 2004 at 11:24 PM"1. The war created further destruction of Iraq's infrastructure which the US is now looking to wash it's hands of with a quick exit strategy and now they are looking for the UN!"
Am I crazy or weren't they saying, just a second ago, that we should get out quickly and relinquish control to the UN?
Now that's bad?
We've gotten to a point at which they've taken the idea of 'opposition party' to it's final ludicrous level. There can be no conversation with them because, whatever position we take, even if it be exactly what the demand, will instantly become 'wrong' in their eyes.
Posted by: jack at February 19, 2004 at 03:26 AMSortelli- sorry I think you are not entirely clear on the facts.
I quote- "And it's too bad that we aren't building schools and hospitals and power plants and... oh. Nevermind.
Iraq's infrastructure? You DARE to complain about Iraq's infrastructure?"
Are you saying Iraqis didn't have schools and power plants before the invasion?? Please give the Iraqis some credit for running their country before the US came in!! Yes Saddam was brutal but he also used the oil wealth to ensure every child could be educated and built a first world infrastructure. (Before it was bombed of course).
"Was the security of Saddam better? "
Ha! Frankly yes.
The Iraqis didn't need to run armoured patrols or park tanks in front of hospitals!!
An example- gun crime was virtually non-existent in Baghdad before the war- ask any Iraqi please!!
"The resistance has been getting weaker since Saddam's capture. They can't win in any military sense, they can only weaken public opinion"
No- the death toll has been increasing.
Face it - America has lost the intellectual war in the Middle East and so it is the Americans who have resorted to force not the other way round!
"it's a pity that the US is relying solely on the oil when they could be out there getting other countries to forgive Iraqi debt."
Good point but wrong understanding. The Oil Ministry was the only government building left intact. What else the can the US depend on? I don't blame them for trying to get Iraq a headstart- because the US can't indefinitely bankroll Iraq.
"The Jihadists are complaining that the Iraqis aren't helping them enough, so now they're targeting Iraqis as well as Coalition troops."
Wrong again. The Jihadists see the Iraqi forces as collaborators. And yes the Iraqis will start providing help as the aggressive house to house raids and humiliation continues in the Sunni Triangle. The classic guerilla situation- violence by rebels will provoke even greater violence from the occupier hence creating more sympathy for the rebels.
RHactive
"used the oil wealth to ensure every child could be educated and built a first world infrastructure. (Before it was bombed of course)."
Most of the infrastructure was not targeted and is being repaired from years of neglect and was far from world class . Looking through the archives of Cent-Com will back that up.
"Was the security of Saddam better? "
"Ha! Frankly yes. "
Living under thumb of a dictator is OK unless you are the one that is offcourse.
"An example- gun crime was virtually non-existent in Baghdad before the war- ask any Iraqi please!!"
Oh and Saddam handing out guns to his henchmen just before GW2 has nothing to do with it then. A Dictator often disarm the population that's how they stay dictators.
"No- the death toll has been increasing."
mmm look again it is dropping but if you state that refute me supply them.
Final point: Go ask an actual Iraqi what it was like under Saddam starting from here.
Posted by: Gary at February 23, 2004 at 07:39 PM