The Post Analyzes the UK Path to War
I'm not sure if Jay Rosen's recent Pressthink pleas helped the Post decide to do a front page news analysis of the DSM, but it looks like there is a growing movement to reanalyze the build-up to war in Iraq -- which is good news for The Echo Chamber Project.
During the build-up, the US media largely ignored many of the controversial details of the proposed intervention that were coming in from the overseas press. But now that the war is becoming more and more of a political liability for our allies, we're starting to see a lot more dissent and leaks that are reintroducing a lot of questions about the purpose and intent of the war.
The Post distances itself from the "He Said / She Said" debate over the DSM documents by starting two paragraphs with allegations from both sides -- "Critics of the Bush administration contend" & "Supporters of the administration contend." The Post then discloses the intent of their article:
But beyond the question of whether they constitute a so-called smoking gun of evidence against the White House, the memos offer an intriguing look at what the top officials of the United States' chief ally were thinking, doing and fearing in the months before the war.
There was a lot of lively political discussion about the DSM over in the comments section of Rosen's post -- and in the last comment Rosen speculates
I think the Brits and getting them on board was a substitute United Nations for the Bush war planners & strategists. Bush was prepared to go without even the fig leaf of the UN. They figured that America plus one was coalition enough, and the British were the one.
I think Rosen's speculation is probably right, and that the historical record of US documents would bear this out if any of it is ever leaked or formally declassified. But there's already enough evidence for this by connecting the dots of the Bush Administration's rhetoric and behavior towards the UN leading up to the war...
Rosen also asks, "Put that way, how much choice did Tony Blair really have?"...
The Post's front page story talks more about what the DSM reveals about the UK's doubts about the Path to War.
It's pretty clear that Blair was informed of all of the risks for any military intervention in Iraq, and he could have bowed out at any time knowing how much flak the UK would take from the International community and their domestic population. But Blair was living by the assumption spelled out by Michael Clarke in the Post article:
"Still, while no one in government would ever say it, the rationale from the British point of view is that our strategic relationship with the U.S. is more important than any single campaign we fight on its behalf. The basic calculation was: Right or wrong, it is in our interest to stand with the United States."
The Post says that "Many inside the British policy establishment still feel angry and bruised about the invasion and its aftermath." And that the DSM leak "shows the depth of those feelings." At some point, the UK may decide that it's no longer in their interest to stand with the US on Iraq, and it'll be interesting to see how they cut their losses.
