The letter to the editor by Mr. Hoffman raises several interesting points. His initial paragraph in describing critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy (”I did not impugn their patriotism, although some of them are certainly deserving of that charge”) is somewhat confusing. So, per Mr. Hoffman, some unnamed Iraq war critics are unpatriotic although he does not further define just what particular elements of their criticism is unpatriotic.

Although I am not certain, I am under the impression that those “deserving of the charge” may consist of virtually anyone who raises the question as to why we attacked Iraq in the first place and Mr. Hoffman proceeds further along in his letter to ask me that very question. A fair inquiry and I will attempt to respond.

For a primer on just what would be the foreign policy goals of a neo-conservative administration, in general, I suggest that Mr. Hoffman spend some time absorbing the philosophy of an organization founded in July 1997, The Project for The New American Century(PNAC). Disappointed in the lack of a robust, read aggressive, foreign policy by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the founders of PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org) based their foreign policy on the following precepts: remaking the international order under effective U.S. hegemony; destroying America’s enemies; and crippling or eliminating the United Nations and other institutions making a claim to international jurisdiction. Additionally, “moral clarity” was essential in determining foreign policy goals and PNAC evinced a realism and truth that others lacked.

Who, you might ask, were the charter members of PNAC? It might come as no surprise that the following were among the original creators of the philosophy cited above: Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Move forward to January 2001, and what you have is the aforementioned group filling the positions of Vice President, Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Not exactly second tier and non-influential administration positions.

If, based on letters and statements, “destroying America’s enemies” was one of the general tenets of the PNAC, just what was their position concerning Iraq? In a nutshell, and this is four years before the events of September 2001, per PNAC, the Middle East must be remade to reflect American power and hegemony AND it is mandatory that Saddam Hussein be removed from power and if American military power must be used to do so, so be it.

Fast forward to late 2001/early 2002, when U.S. troops were already being prematurely diverted for an invasion of Iraq and were not available for use in Afghanistan. Result, Osama bin Laden (OBL) escapes capture or killing and it is apparent to the PNAC War Brain Trust (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) that the search for OBL will be far longer and complex than initially anticipated.

With fall elections on the horizon it is obvious to the PNAC ideologues that the lack of military success in eliminating OBL and al Qaeda will not sit well with the voting populace. What is needed is a “real war” with a “real villain,” that will be neat, rapid, cheap and tidy and manifest the hoped for PNAC-designed American Middle East hegemony. Who better fills this bill than Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

Plus, George Bush will truly be a wartime commander in chief and Americans have historically trusted and backed their president during times of war. Throw in what have proved to be bogus claims of Iraq possessing vast amounts of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and deep ties to al Qaeda and sprinkle this with subtle doses of fear by virtually every administration spokesman.

This produces the perfect formula for not only launching an undeclared war in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but any politician who is running for national office in 2002 will be tarred as “unpatriotic” if he/she questions what history has shown to be a preordained invasion policy.

I hope that the above answers your query as to why I think President Bush took us to war in Iraq; you undoubtedly will not agree, but I have done my best to present my views.

The truly sad part of this situation is that President Bush and his PNAC ideologues not only took us to war under false pretenses, but they then proceeded to dismally fail to provide strategic, unbiased and effective guidance to our fighting forces.

Consider the following: the United States possesses the finest trained, equipped, dedicated and led military force in the world. We invaded a country one-twelfth our size with no navy or air force and an army of no more than third world standards. Additionally, Iraq had been under a severe set of military/political/economic sanctions for 12 years and possessed no major weapons-making capability.

Unbelievably, we spent less time in defeating the military juggernauts of Germany and Japan in WW II than with our continuing undefined (“stay the course”) effort in Iraq.

Please do not accept the administration’s pass the buck rationale that they only based their conduct of the war and its follow-on insurgency from information provided by the “commanders in the field.” If, and I find this hard to believe, the senior field commanders did not request more forces than it was up to the senior leadership at the Pentagon and White House to look at the big picture and do what had to be done to ensure success.

President Bush, when all else fails as to what has transpired regarding his war on terror, truthfully states that “the U.S. homeland has not been attacked since 9/11 — over five years of safety!” Basically, stick with me and just forget Iraq.

With this as a yardstick, the presidency of Bill Clinton should receive a much overdue national “thank you” since following the World Trade Center attacks of December 1993, there were no attacks on the territory of the U.S. during the remaining seven years of his time in the White House.

Upon assuming office, President Bush took a look at the exact same intelligence which was available to President Clinton and watched, prior to the attacks of 9/11, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld intended to actually downsize the American military and Attorney General Ashcroft submitted a proposed FY 2002 budget for the FBI which reduced both the funding for the FBI’s counter-terrorist program and the number of agents assigned to it.

There are shortcomings to a presidency which bases its foreign policy on personal “insight” and “moral clarity.”

Wade J. Williams
Colonel, USA (Ret)
Peachtree City, Ga.