The Doctrine of Preemption and Going to War in Iraq
The reading that most interested me was Immerman, "Intelligence and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," Understanding the U.S. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the topics Immerman discussed was how Clinton kept bin Laden and Al Qaeda as higher priorities than Iraq and Afghanistan (Immerman, 81). I believe that the Clinton administration was right to keep bin Laden and Al Qaeda as higher concerns. Terrorists, with the mastermind bin Laden, had bombed multiple U.S. embassies and the USS Cole harbored in Yemen (Immerman, 81). Personally, if a group is targeting U.S. owned places, things, or people, I would consider them a dangerous threat to American citizens and people of other nationalities, who happen to be near or in the areas affected. Thus, this would eventually lead to the attack on the U.S. on U.S. mainland and soil.
After Clinton was impeached, Bush took office and discharged Clinton's search for bin Laden and Al Qaeda to focus on defense against nuclear weapons, especially Saddam Hussein's most-likely not existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction) (Immerman, 82). I agree that nuclear weapons were an interest point, but not for Hussein. There was no evidence against him for having or not having nuclear weapons according to the CIA who had not collected any intelligence to say otherwise (Immerman, 83). Therefore, I disagree with Bush for brushing Al Qaeda and bin Laden off. There was evidence, such as dead people and bombings, that showed them being more than a threat because Al Qaeda and bin Laden had alright caused damage, unlike the possible WMD Hussein might have had in hiding.
To make things worse, the CIA warned George W. Bush with a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." in August 2001 and told him "that the risk was so high, and the danger so imminent, that he should take extraordinary precautions" (Immerman 82). Bush and his administration were unimpressed by the report and Bush believed the report to be "an effort to provide historical context" to the current state of not worrying about bin Laden and Al Qaeda (Immerman, 82). Bush was too focused on defense against nuclear weapons, just as he had said Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I still cannot understand how Bush and his administration thought a hidden threat of nuclear weapons was more important than Al Qaeda bombing and targeting American embassies and ships. Bush should have taken some kind of precautions instead of ignoring a report about bin Laden. George Tenet, Michael Morrell, and the CIA were trying to change Bush's mind into considering Al Qaeda and bin Laden as a forthcoming danger. However, Bush was wrong in not listening to the report and had to face what was coming.
After Clinton was impeached, Bush took office and discharged Clinton's search for bin Laden and Al Qaeda to focus on defense against nuclear weapons, especially Saddam Hussein's most-likely not existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction) (Immerman, 82). I agree that nuclear weapons were an interest point, but not for Hussein. There was no evidence against him for having or not having nuclear weapons according to the CIA who had not collected any intelligence to say otherwise (Immerman, 83). Therefore, I disagree with Bush for brushing Al Qaeda and bin Laden off. There was evidence, such as dead people and bombings, that showed them being more than a threat because Al Qaeda and bin Laden had alright caused damage, unlike the possible WMD Hussein might have had in hiding.
To make things worse, the CIA warned George W. Bush with a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." in August 2001 and told him "that the risk was so high, and the danger so imminent, that he should take extraordinary precautions" (Immerman 82). Bush and his administration were unimpressed by the report and Bush believed the report to be "an effort to provide historical context" to the current state of not worrying about bin Laden and Al Qaeda (Immerman, 82). Bush was too focused on defense against nuclear weapons, just as he had said Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I still cannot understand how Bush and his administration thought a hidden threat of nuclear weapons was more important than Al Qaeda bombing and targeting American embassies and ships. Bush should have taken some kind of precautions instead of ignoring a report about bin Laden. George Tenet, Michael Morrell, and the CIA were trying to change Bush's mind into considering Al Qaeda and bin Laden as a forthcoming danger. However, Bush was wrong in not listening to the report and had to face what was coming.
Comments
Post a Comment