Ford: Iraq Was A "Mistake"
"I think Rumsfeld, Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction."
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people. Whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interests, there comes a point where they conflict. And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
Thus, former President Gerald Ford criticizes the Bush Administration -- including Cheney and Rumsfeld, his former aides -- from the grave. The Washington Post released the July 2004 interview, which was embargoed until Ford's death.
Ford dealt with an opposition Congress, unlike Bush, and he'd served as Minority Leader of the House. Perhaps this context made him more amenable to dialog and less accepting of the slash-and-burn politics that mark Congress (and campaigns) today. Regardless of the explanation, his approach to Iraq seems more like that of Colin Powell than George W. Bush:
Describing his own preferred policy toward Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Ford said he would not have gone to war, based on the publicly available information at the time, and would have worked harder to find an alternative. "I don't think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly," he said, "I don't think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer."
Or maybe it's simply that he was a nice guy.
This interview shows, however, that Ford remained true to the core values of the moderate Republican party -- no nation-building, no war-mongering. Where have the moderates gone?
Also, see Former President Ford Dies, 93, Iraq Casualities By Month
Comments
Posted by Kathy for Andrew:
The UK government, in the wake of WW2, established a UK Historical Archive that covered EVERY aspect of WW2. For instance the British ‘The War Against Japan’ is considered the definitive history of the subject - by American historians.
They are called the ‘UK Official Histories’ The last to be published were the ones on Intelligence in WW3 - these histories run into about 1,000 very large volumes.
They vary from ‘The War At Sea’ ‘The Needs of Merchant Shipping’ ‘Food Rationing and Adminstration’ to ‘Civil and Military Government in NW Europe.
The ‘Official Histories’ are excellent because they tell you how things should be organised and what mistakes were made in WW2; they are meant to be used as ‘guides’ to anyone involved in another war.
They may be dated - but the principles of Military government are the same today as they were 50 years ago… fortunately the UK had a lot of experience with colonial government prior to WW2, and much of the British sector of Germany was run with a ‘colonial style’ government which was very effective.
Whenever you see something in the news that doesn’t quite add up - just take a trip to the University library and look them up. They will tell you everything you need to know about warfare and government.
Here’s a quote from FSV Donnison’s Civil and Military Government in NW Europe.
“Two War correspondents reached Hanover early. There was still fighting as the Military Government moved in. Three quarters of the town centre was completely destroyed. There was no electricity, no water, no sewers. Half a million people inhabited these ruins. It was a town of looting, drunkeness, rape and murder as forced labour broke out from all restraint. Shots whistled out from drunken slaves or left behind snipers. Police were mobbed and their bodies strung from lampposts. A new force was improvised and stopped the looting. It could do nothing about the murders and rapes. . . .”
When seeking to revive social existence is such anarchy, the essential of administration once more stand revealed. In easier times they disappear under the proliferation of amenities which comes to be looked on as the proper function of administration, but with order, and the enforcement of law, the provision of other services is vain or impossible.
It’s also worth considering that the British when re-occupying Scandinavia and SE Asia retained the German and Japanese Military government system for MONTHS after the surrender, so as to maintain order in the countryside.
The Russians did the same in Eastern Europe, retaining Nazi Party Officials in post to run the occupied territories.
The last thing you want to do is what the US government did in Baghdad - remove the Baathist Administration and create a power vacuum.