Retired U.S. Ambassador Don Leidel spoke at the Democratic Club of Sarasota on September 13, 2003 on the subject of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and the Iraq War.

Retired U.S. ambassador Don Leidel addressed the Democratic Club of Sarasota on Saturday, September 13 on the subject of the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

Leidel dedicated his address to the memory of Roland Liebert, who received three degrees from the University of Wisconsin. He noted that Democratic Club president, Pat Liebert, received her masters degree from Wisconsin, and he added that the university had a profound impact on his own political orientation, including the visit to the university campus of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

He cited the following statement as the guiding University of Wisconsin’s principle:

“Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

Leidel’s central theme was the impact of neo—conservatives on the Bush administration’s foreign policy agenda.

Following are excerpts from Ambassador Leidel’s address:

Some of you here today heard me speak at Selby Library 13 months ago — before the Iraq war — when I asked “Why Iraq?” “Why Now?” “Where is the justification for war?”

I made a few predictions then:

1. I said we would go to the UN, but would go to war regardless of UN views.
2. I said the inspectors would go back to Iraq, but we would go to war regardless of what they found.
3. I said we would go to war and win decisively.
4. And then I said “our problems would begin and that we would be facing a multitude of unintended and unforeseen consequences.”
5. I worried that Iraq could become another Vietnam, because of our lack of understanding of the history and the culture of the country .

Some of you here today heard my remarks at New College several months ago when I urged that UN forces experienced in peacekeeping take over certain functions in Iraq from our poor G.I.s, untrained in peacekeeping, and lacking knowledge of the language and culture.

I missed last month’s meeting here because I was in New York at the Chautauqua Institution teaching a course on the checkered history of U.S. intelligence. I stressed that one of our major problems before 9/11 and today in Afghanistan and Iraq was our weakness in “on the ground” human intelligence.

Paul Bremer finally acknowledged this last week, when he said the need for better intelligence was greater than our need for additional troops.

So what is the Bush administration’s foreign policy? I’m going to give it to you in a nutshell — a 14 point program:

1. To take over military control of the Persian Gulf region
2. To maintain global US pre—eminence
3. To preclude the rise of a great power rival
4. To shape the international security order in line with American principles and interests
5. To advance American grand strategy as far into the future as possible
6. To fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars as a core mission
7. To discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role
8. To assure that peace—keeping missions are under American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations
9. To consider Iran as large a threat to US interests as Iraq
10. To spot—light China for “regime change” by increasing the presence of American forces in southeast Asia, and then to democratize China
11. To create U.S. Space Forces to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent our enemies from using the internet against the U.S.
12. To consider developing biological weapons in decades to come
13. To prepare for combat in new dimensions, in space, in cyberspace and perhaps in the world of microbes, and finally,
14. To pinpoint North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes. And because of their existence, to create a “world—wide command—and— control system.”

This is the blueprint for U.S. world domination - a new world order in the making.

Did this blueprint follow 9/11/2001? No. It was conceived in 1997 and published in September 2000 by the neo—conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (Wm. Kristol) and drawn up for and endorsed by Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff), Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams and other senior members of this administration — and basically codified in an NSC Directive of September 2002: “The National Security Strategy of the U.S.A.”

So this war has never been a matter of weapons of mass destruction. It’s all about consolidating American power in the world - starting out in the Arab world.

But the administration never explained this to the American people never explained that this is what the war was all about.

And where was the outrage by our Democratic leaders in Congress?

We’re talking about the direction - the sea change - in America’s foreign policy.

This is what needs to be debated in Congress. Instead, the focus — the big issue — is the 16 words in the President’s State of the Union address on Niger and uranium.

I think it’s shameful. I think it’s outrageous.

And our Democratic leadership in Congress has been taken in by the conventional wisdom that you don’t criticize the president in time of war and you can’t appear to the American people as unpatriotic, or you’ll lose the next election. Where has been the fearless sifting and winnowing to find and unmask the truth?

—So we know the Niger—uranium story was bogus
—We know there is no relevant connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein
—We know there is no relevant connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
—And weapons of mass destruction –

Do you remember Colin Powell telling the UN that we know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but we can’t tell the inspectors where they are because it will reveal~ intelligence methods and sources? So we take over Iraq and can’t tell our own forces where they are?

Where is the outrage?

But all this is secondary to the fact I underline fact it relates to truth and the truth is there has never been a shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein was planning or was capable of an imminent attack on the U.S.

Again, where is the outrage? What were our congressional leaders thinking? I just don’t understand it.

So what is another way of summing up this administration’s foreign policy “Ignore containment, ignore deterrence, ignore the UN, ignore diplomacy — “skip jail” and go directly to military force.”

But the Bush administration foreign policy just isn’t working.

It has failed in North Korea since attacking N. Korea as evil at the time it had no known, current program to build WMD. Now it is moving quickly to acquire them.

It has failed in Iran, where we had the opportunity for a breakthrough in our relations. Iran has now stepped up its nuclear program.

So we’ve had 32 months of the Bush era foreign policy:
— Two wars of our own choosing. The first in Afghanistan was justified (our target was the perpetrators of 9/11). Our second in Iraq was not.
— We’ve withdrawn from international agreements
— We’ve adopted a “with us or against us” rhetorical style that has turned the world against us and has hurt us even more than our actions
— We’ve declared as a matter of national purpose that we will preclude the rise of a great power rival


This unilateralism is wrong. And it is wrong simply because it is not in
our national interests.

The Bush administration’s foreign policy has been filled with contradictions and inconsistencies:
— Bush had declared before the war that the role of the U.S. military is to fight and win wars — not peacekeeping
— The Bush doctrine ruled out the kind of humanitarian intervention made
in Liberia -
— The Bush doctrine ruled out intervention in the cause of nation—building. So what are we doing (and not very well) in Afghanistan and Iraq?
— The Bush doctrine calls for a focused intervention strategy. Is our war on terror focused? How do we differentiate among terrorist organizations? Which threaten U.S. interests? Which do not? Syria? Iran? Do we really know?
— Pre—emption? How is it defined? What level of threat warrants pre—emptive use of force? Iraq was not pre-emption. There was no imminent threat. Iraq was prevention. Sometime in the future Saddam Hussein might be a threat to the U.S.

Does this justify the costs human, financial, and loss of standing in the world community?

— Paul Wolfowjtz has finally acknowledged that the intelligence evidence used to justify force in Iraq was “murky”.

Why weren’t the American people told that?

Where is the outrage?

— This clearly is a war of choice, and Bush came to office vowing not to fight this kind of war.

We are fighting wars in two countries with
1. no clear policy of intervention
2. no clear end in sight - and
3. no understanding by the American people of what this administration has gotten this nation into — and the majority of the American people and many of our Democratic congressional leaders feel it is unpatriotic to question our leadership in time of war and this is wrong

and do you feel safer now that Saddam Hussein is out of power?

Joseph Nye, in his book, “The Paradox of American Power”, points out that the Bush administration arrogantly reasons that we do not need to heed the views of other nations because of our unsurpassed military and economic power. So we now have the reputation of the world’s biggest bully.

Military superiority does not protect us from hostile attacks on our homeland.

As a result of the technological revolution in information and communications, individuals and groups of individuals can now play a role in world politics.

So what has this administration done? We have diverted attention from terrorist groups to take over the militarily and economically weak country of Iraq, with a commitment to rebuild a country with an already deteriorated infrastructure, with competing religions and competing tribes and no history of or experience in democracy.

What were we thinking?

We have turned our back on international treaties, norms and negotiating forums.

We’ve used consultations for talking, not listening.

And from Georgie Anne Geyer who I consider an able political reporter and very knowledgeable in the Middle East, “Our troops in Iraq are paying a terrible price for the morally incomprehensible fact that the Bush administration did not immediately bring in European, UN and other military police, NGOs, humanitarian workers, archeologists and weapons inspectors.
This was a decision made at the very beginning — a decision based on stubbornness and arrogance.”

I began with comments about Wisconsin. I don’t want you to forget about Wisconsin. Let me quote from three of its legislators:
From Senator Russ Feingold: “We need a whole different approach and we will not get there by being Republican—lite. We do ourselves and our nation no favor by meekly accepting the Bush administration’s confused foreign policy. We must insist that to criticize mistaken foreign policy is in fact patriotic. It is our duty and it is
necessary to win the fight against terrorism. I support the president’s efforts against Al Qaeda and the Taliban but I didn’t appreciate the spectacle of constantly shifting justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which I voted against and I didn’t appreciate the attempt to pretend that it was the same thing as the fight against an international terrorism network.” The only senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin: “I believe America should be a beacon of peace and liberty, which is why I voted against going to war in Iraq.”

Congressman David Obey who as I recall called for the resignation of both Bush and Rumsfeld and also voted against the Patriot Act said:
“Why should we care? It’s only the Constitution.”

And then there’s a real patriot in Wisconsin. You’ve probably never heard of her. Her name is Sally Baron. She’s from Stoughton, a suburb of Madison. She died last month. Her obituary read: “Memorials in her honor can be made to any organization working for the removal of George Bush.” And the money poured in. She’s become a folk hero in Wisconsin.

I’d now like to share with you the views of an outstanding array of speakers I heard last month at Chautauqua Institution. I think these views are more significant than what I have to say - a 5 minute synopsis of a full week of insights:
Ambassador James Dobbins — served in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan — Author
of recent book on nation—building — Constructed a model of seven nations starting with Germany and Japan, all with three conditions: military
victory, military occupation, democratization as a goal. Conclusion for Iraq based on the model:

— untold billions of dollars
— minimum of 500,000 troops
— minimum of 7 years to accomplish our goals

Dobbins added: “Iran could be most helpful to us in Iraq, but we’re not even talking to them.”

Dobbins, incidentally, was a last minute replacement for the Iranian ambassador to the UN. Our government refused to allow him to leave the NYC area.

Hillary Clinton spoke and remarked: “There is no country that is our
enemy where women are full participants in society and have the
freedom to make choices.”

Which reminded me of what I would include on the agenda of a new president’s first day in office: “Reverse this administration’s prohibition against funding family planning overseas.”

Over—population leads to lack of prosperity — the basic necessities for living and loss of hope.

Economic security and hope are the two greatest counter weights to terrorist recruitment. But our president and this Republican administration don’t understand the connection.

Of all the bad “ABC” decisions (Anything but Clinton) made by George Bush this is the worst — it’s absolutely insane.

William Kimball - ordained Baptist minister - chairman of the Department of Religion at Wake Forest University spent years in the Middle East and is author of “When Religion Becomes Evil”

He spoke of the raging battle of demonization of other people’s religions and how Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham are making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks by such statements as: “Islam is wicked and evil” and “Mohammed was a terrorist”. These statements end up on front pages around the world and this is what is creating future terrorists, he said. And these people are embraced by the Bush administration.

Kimball spoke of the shameful silence of our own Congress on the Iraq war. This ordained minister’s solemn solution: “Throw their butts out.”

Geoff Kemp (Rep.) and Martin Indyk (Dem.) spoke as a team and agreed it was naive of this administration to think we can be successful in this world without strong international support.

Egyptian ambassador to the US Nabil Fahmy said the U.S. is the envy of most of the world, including the Middle East, but we have to realize we live in a global interdependent community. And he added that we should never mix religion and politics.

And finally Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani nuclear physicist, who spoke of the frightening deep resentment against the U.S. throughout the world. He was familiar with our Neo—Cons agenda for the New American Century and said we’d need to do a lot of killing to carry out this agenda.

He said that with growing anti—U.S. anger in the world, terrorism grows and that nuclear terrorism is a real threat and more and more countries, including N. Korea and Iran, are concluding that only nuclear weapons will provide protection against the U.S. And he added that U.S. decisions in the Middle East are based on cultural ignorance. He then pleaded with the audience:

— Please don’t think you’re the only people on earth
— Please don’t keep tearing up international agreements
— Please don’t be a rogue superpower
— Please believe Thomas Jefferson when he said the principle of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belong to all the people on the planet

A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that

— large numbers of people in the world see the U.S. as a military threat
— And those disappointed that Iraq didn’t fight back cheering for an American defeat

— 74% in Pakistan
— 93% in Morocco
— 82% in Turkey (our ally)
— 58% in South Korea (our ally)
— 30% in France (our ally?)

And none of this seems to bother our administration.

I never give a talk on foreign policy without quoting our own Waldo Proffit. He wrote last year: “Our strength is the strength of the just. We are powerful not because we are feared but because we are respected. To keep our position in the world, we must lead by example, not by fear.”

And I think it’s abundantly clear that the respect we once had throughout the world has been replaced by fear.

What has the war with Iraq accomplished?

— it has widened the rift between Americans and Western Europeans
— it has further inflamed the Muslim world
— it has softened support for the war on terrorism
— and it has significantly weakened global public support for the pillars of the post WWII era
— the United Nations and
— the North Atlantic alliance

I’ll close by asserting that a Democratic victory in November 2004 can turn these anti—American attitudes around and right the wrongs of the Bush administration foreign policy almost instantaneously. Our next president doesn’t even need 16 words to do this — six will do — These are the six — “WE ARE REJOINING THE WORLD COMMUNITY!”