National Interest or Political Agenda: One of these things is doing its own thing…

Due to the rewriting of historical accounts dating from 1992-2004, over intelligence; I found myself drawn to Scott Ritter’s book Iraq Confidential. Written in a journalistic mode, it was easy to read and even easier to understand. Ritter reveals that the actors in this game of espionage and international inspections were vast; however the central characters revolved around two seemingly similar notions. First is the notion of political agendas and second that of national interest. Political agendas were markedly distant from the studious and well-trained inspectors. On the one hand, you have the CIA. The CIA, directed completely from the White House, wanted nothing short of complete Iraqi regime change; even going as far as to orchestrate a coup attempt in June 1996. This was a complete failure and Ritter opined that it was as bad as the Bay of Pigs invasion.

On the other hand, is a nation’s national interest of peace in the Middle East. This was the underlining duty of UNSCOM. This multinational group was instructed to inspect sites throughout Iraq. This was no easy task. The Iraqis were combative, uncooperative, and deceitful. Normal behavior, when a sovereign nation is asked to open up and let the whole world pry into its darkest secrets. Iraq, as any other nation, was guarded. Of course, the US saw this as simply an affront to the UN work of open inspections, but in reality the US wanted regime change. The inspections were used as a means to an end. The policy makers and politicos wanted Saddam out and nothing UNSCOM or the world could do would change this thinking. The inspectors and peace were caught in the middle of skewed policy and American hubris.

Even more disturbing then the illogical approach by the US was the underhanded and clearly deceptive nature of the CIA as opposed to international organizations. The CIA was the hit man for the White House. They played their hand close to the vest and when inspectors needed information about ‘weapons sties’ they were either snubbed or lied to. UNSCOM had to rely on other intelligence agencies for photos, eavesdropping and manpower. Furthermore, when the CIA saw that UNSCOM was moving forward without their help they labeled the other agencies as a ‘security risk’. Thus, in this tangled web of lies and missteps, Israel and Britain were deemed risks. They were risks because they did not share the same political goals as the US.

Therefore, the truth of the inspection process which lasted through 3 different presidents was not one of disarmament but of regime change. THEY WANTED THE INTELLEGENCE TO MATCH THE POLICY. This is the modus operandi of the CIA. This is a logical consequence of a private covert military arm gone unchecked by the democratic process and tied directly to the executive. The CIA, during this short new millennium, has brought this country: 9/11 and an unnecessary war in Iraq.

However, one must understand that these political agendas are not in our national interest. It is not in our national interest to be in a state of perpetual war. Peace and prosperity are in our national interest. Moreover, prosperity does not mean other nations must topple; in other words, international peace is not a zero sum game. The floundering policies associated with Iraq have left our true national interests forgotten. These interests are lost in the fog of war and deception. Americans must arm themselves with the truth. They must read all accounts of prewar intelligence and not shy away from political talk and discussions. Get in the fray and be officious about truth.