The Paul O’Neill Controversy: Smith on the Iraq War Planning and the PNAC
The allegation by Paul O’Neill that Bush wanted people to get him a
justification for an Iraq war already in January of 2001 has provoked a
lot of controversy about the origins of the war. (“?It was all about
finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it . . . The President saying, ?
Go find me a way to do this.? ) Bush denies he determined
to go to war so early, though note that as late as November of 2002 he was
saying he had not made up his mind on whether to go to war, which was
an out-and-out lie. So if he was lying then, we can’t be sure he isn’t lying
now.
My friend and colleague Charles Smith, a Mideast expert and historian at
the University of Arizona, recently sent out what I think is a remarkably clear
account of the main figures involved in getting up the Iraq war, and he
graciously allowed me to share it, below.
Smith:
“It is not clear just what the Clinton administration actually intended for
Iraq beyond the intensified air strikes from late 1998, but I can
contribute to the record for what subsequent administration appointees
intended from the same period.
“Clean Break” and its vision of Saddam’s overthrow as
the precursor to ensuring Israel’s strategic dominance in the region,
coupled with the undermining of the Oslo process – all discussed here
previously. Then there were two letters sent to Clinton, in February and
May 1998 (in advance of his stepped-up military approach to Saddam). Both
called for an attack on Iraq and Saddam’s overthrow. Both referred to the
dangers of Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I want to mention each letter and list the signatories in order to suggest
that Paul O’Neill may be right about plans being underway to go after
Saddam very soon after Bush took office. To put it another way, if such
plans didn’t really start until after 9/11, what were some of these people
doing for nine months after Bush took office?
1. The first letter, 2/19/98, was an “Open Letter to the President.” It
mentions the Iraq National Congress and calls for a “comprehensive
political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime”
as in “the vital national interests of our country.”
Richard Perle, author of “Clean Break,” co-authored the first letter
with former congresman Stephen Solarz.. Signatories were, as listed,
Elliott Abrams, Richard V. Allen, Richard Armitage, Jeffrey Bergner, John
Bolton, Stephen Bryen, Richard Burt, Frank Carlucci, William Clark, Paula
Dobriansky, Douglas Feith (Clean Break signer), Frank Gaffney, Jeffrey
Gedmin, Fred Ikle, Robert Kagan (Project for New American Century), Zalmay
Khalilzad, Sven Kramer, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis
(more on him later), Rear Admiral retired Frederick Lewis, Maj General
Jarvis Lynch, retired, Robert McFarlane, Joshua Muravchik, Robert Pastor,
Martin Peretz, Roger Robinson, Peter Rodman, Peter Rosenblatt, Donald
Rumsfeld (**), Gary Schmitt (Project for New American Century), Max
Singer, Helmut Sonnenfeldt (ID’d as tied to Perle on suspicion of spying
in 1970s by Seymour Hersh), Casper Weinberger, Leon Wienseltier, Paul
Wolfowitz(**), David Wurmser (Clean Break signer and author of second memo
to Netanyahu in 1996), and Dov Zakheim.
Bernard Lewis’s presence here causes me to wonder if his book “What Went
Wrong” which has gained so much attention might have been written with
some eye to the view of many of his co-signers on this list to be the ones
to make things right in the Middle East.
2. The second letter, 5/29/98, was addressed to Newt Gingrich and Trent
Lott as Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader respectively. It
repeated the arguments of the first letter but stressed that failure to
overthrow Saddam would greatly harm U.S. leadership and credibility
because we would have failed to limit the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. This in turn could “make Saddam the driving force of Middle
East politics, including on such important matters as the Middle East
peace process.” (This statement is very interesting in light of the goals
of “Clean Break”). The signers called on Gingrich and Lott to insist that
the U.S. make the removal of Saddam’s regime and its replacement by a
“peaceful and democratic Iraq” an “explicit goal.” There is no indication
of authorship as in the February letter but the signers as listed are:
Elliott Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula
Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama (I thought the “end of history” had already
happened!), Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Peter Rodman,
Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R.
James Woolsey, Robert Zoellick.
There are many notable repeats here from the first letter, Abrams,
Bolton, Perle, Dobransky, Kagan, Khalilzad, Kristol, Rodman, Rumsfeld, and
Wolfowitz. Quite a lineup of those high up in DoD (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
and Feith from first letter make up the top three posts), State Dept
(Bolton, and Armitage from first letter), NSC Middle East head (Abrams),
Defense Policy Board (Perle and Woolsey), plus the pundits such as
Kristol.
So do we think these people twiddled their thumbs about Iraq until 9/11
woke them up? Or does O’Neill’s statement seem more plausible?”
Charles Smith
University of Arizona
© 2025 All Rights Reserved