Germany's Media In Full Swing Over Powell Remark

During his latest trip to the Afghanistan Donor Conference in Berlin, Secretary of State Colin Powell made some remarks on the intelligence leading to the Iraq invasion. Germany's media are in full swing:

Berliner Morgenpost: "Powell admits mistake..."

dpa: "Powell admits questionable statement ... obviously wrong..."

Sueddeutsche Zeitung: "in retrospect information was not reliable..."

This is what Powell actually said in a press briefing:

QUESTION: I’d like to go back to your UN speech from last year. One of the most dramatic elements of that speech was about the mobile biological labs. And in recent weeks it has emerged that one of those intelligence sources you cited was flagged as unreliable by U.S. intelligence and another source had never been interviewed by U.S. officials and that we didn’t even know his name. It turns out that he was a relative of the INC. So, in light of that, was this really the best intelligence the U.S. could have put forward at the time?

SECRETARY POWELL: It was presented to me in the preparation of that as the best information and intelligence that we had. And I looked at the four elements that they gave me for that one and they stood behind them. Now it appears not to be the case, that it was that solid. But at the time that I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as being solid. Now, the commission that is going to be starting its work soon, I hope will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at that time. They certainly indicated to me as I was working on that, that it was solid. I’m not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, and as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced. And that was the most dramatic of them and I made sure it was multi-sourced. Now, if the sources fell apart then we need to find out how we’ve gotten ourselves in that position. I’ve had discussions with the CIA about it.

So Powell admitted that there are doubts now whether some of the information he had received was "that solid". He doesn't say it wasn't solid - he just mentions the possibility of an error ("if the sources fell apart...").

It is quite telling that, in the German media, there was virtually no reporting or information provided on other meetings during his trip in which Colin Powell strongly defended the Iraq invasion:

Powell in a Berlin school:

QUESTION: Concerning the Iraqi war, how do you value the current opinion of the U.S. Americans towards the development of the war, for the troops haven’t found any WMDs yet?

SECRETARY: The American people still are supportive of what we did. They understood why we went into Iraq. When we made the decision to go into Iraq last year, it was in the belief that we had from our intelligence agencies and the intelligence agencies of other countries and a whole body of opinion, and the body of information and fact that had been accumulated over twelve years from the end of the last war, that Saddam Hussein was still in possession of weapons of mass destruction. That he had never lost the intent and desire to have such weapons; that he was maintaining the infrastructure to develop such weapons in his chemical industry and in other aspects of his industrial base. And so we also believed that he had stockpiles of these weapons. That was the evidence that was available to us. It was the best judgment we made. Since going into Iraq, we have found evidence of his continued intention to have such weapons. Remember, he used them twice against his own people and against Iran, so why should we assume that he no longer had an interest in having those kinds of weapons. So his intention was still there and we found evidence of the capability to produce such weapons.

Now, what we have not found are actual stockpiles of the weapons. We don’t know why we haven’t found stockpiles. We thought there would be stockpiles. We have not found those stockpiles. But the work continues. There is a great deal of documentation to look at and there are a number of people to be interviewed still who will have knowledge of this subject and there are a lot of places that are still waiting to be examined and looked at. But the solid basis of evidence that we had was that the stockpiles existed. One thing that there is no doubt in my mind about is that if he had not been dealt with, if he had just been allowed to ignore the international community yet again and the sanctions went away and nobody was paying attention to him again, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have tried to rebuild whatever capability he had lost over the years and continue to be a threat to his neighbors, continue to be a threat to his people.

And that is not a problem any longer. He is sitting in a jail. That regime is crushed. Remaining elements of that regime are causing us trouble. They will be dealt with. But now the Iraqi people have a new constitution that is emerging. It is called an administrative law, which will become a constitution. We are getting ready to turn sovereignty back over to the Iraqi people and we are getting the Iraqi people ready for elections. It is costing us lives, it is costing us money, but it is the right thing to be doing. It is a noble cause because when we are through, when the coalition has finished its work, there will be a country there by the name of Iraq that will be democratic and will not be a threat to anybody.

Interview with Maybritt Illner of ZDF German Television:

MS. ILLNER: Coming to Iraq, you know all those claims. Aleksander Kwasniewski, the premiere of Poland, who said: “We have been taken for a ride.” Prime Minister Zapateros of Spain said he wants to withdraw his troops unless there is a new resolution and because it is a useless war. As CIA Chief Tenet said: “I’ve never said that there is a threat in Iraq and I also pointed that out.” So do you also personally feel misled?

SECRETARY POWELL: No. Well first I have to correct you on some factual errors. Mr. Tenet never said he saw no threat in Iraq. He said ….

MS. ILLNER: concerning weapons of mass destruction.

SECRETARY POWELL: No, no, no. That’s not what Mr. Tenet said. Mr. Tenet said, he did not use the word imminent with respect to threat. The threat information that we used to decide to go into Iraq with our coalition partners was threat information provided by Mr. Tenet and the CIA. And so we went to war on the basis of CIA assessments, UN assessments, and the assessments of, frankly, other intelligence agencies that the threat was there.

What Mr. Kwasniewski said, the Polish President was that he believed he was misled as much by Saddam Hussein, not that he was misled by the United States. And with respect to Spain, yes, they said they are going to withdraw their troops, the new Prime Minister did, in the absence of a U.N. resolution that gives the U.N. political control. Well, let’s see what kind of U.N. resolution may be emerging over the next several months. Spain is a sovereign country. It can do as it chooses and we will respect its decision. Poland has said they will stay. (...)

MS. ILLNER: Everyone in Germany, of course, remembers your passionate case you made to the U.N. in front of the military intervention, sorry in Iraq”. However, to date nothing has been found of this proof things that the world sozusagen [so to say], beyond all doubts that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Many of your allegations you made in front of the U.N. have been proved false. How do you now think about your speech?

SECRETARY POWELL: The presentation I gave was based on the best evidence and intelligence information that we had. What we have now found is that, one, he still had the intention to have such weapons. He had the programs.

MS. ILLNER: Are you sure?

SECRETARY POWELL. He had the programs to develop such weapons, that I am sure. That’s been established by Dr. Kay and Mr. Dolfer who was briefing our Congress earlier this week. Also confirms that. What we have not found...

MS. ILLNER: You have no such...

SECRETARY POWELL: What we have not found are actual stockpiles. We thought we would find stockpiles, weapons ready to use, existing. We haven’t found that. And that was a surprise to us. But it wasn’t that we knew they wouldn’t be there when I made that presentation. When I made that presentation, it was the agreed judgment of our whole intelligence community, as well as the belief of U.N. inspectors over a number of years, as well as the belief of most of the sophisticated intelligence agencies in a number of countries.

MS. ILLNER: But you know what Hans Blix, the U.N. weapon inspector was told and wrote down in his books, and what Dr. Kay has said now, that there was no threat of mass destruction weapon in and out of Iraq. So do you think on the whole that it was a really useful war?

SECRETARY POWELL: It’s a useful war. Do you think it is good for Saddam Hussein to be gone or not gone? I think it is good for him to be gone. No more mass graves will be filled. No more wasting of the oil treasure of Iraq. A democracy is going to be created. And so I think the world is a lot better off. Iraq is a lot better off. The region is a lot better off with a new regime coming into power. A new democratic regime that will be elected by the people, With a constitution that will make sure we will never have to raise the question or talk about weapons of mass destruction again.

This was a man who had rape rooms, mass graves, totalitarian regime, destroyed the environment in the south, oppressed the Shias, oppressed so many people in his own country. All of that is gone.

The obsession of Germany's media to - at the expense of truthful reporting - "prove" faults in the justification of the Iraq invasion can only be explained in psychological terms. Knowing what have learned after the invasion about mass graves in Iraq, about the "Oil for Food" scam that was responsible for the malnutrition and the death of thousands of children, about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world, and all the evil of the Saddam family: how can one possibly not applaud the decision to go to war?

(Translation by Ray D.)

Comments

[Daniel]

don't know if there is someone left on this thread.
a reply to Joe:
If you believe Germans think the Bundeswehr was powerful you completely don't know Germany. Everyone knows that the Bundeswehr reached its capacity in Macedonia and Afghanistan. German police and troops secured US military bases in Germany during the war. It was about the same they would have been able to do if Germany had been a cheerful supporter of the war. You probably know that refounding a German army was a difficult topic after WW2. You know that the Bundeswehr was built for defence on german territory and that even some years ago it was also politically not an option for the Bundeswehr to go abroad. So I dont think you say something new to any German.

A UN operation in Iraq had a different legitimation, probably also in the eyes of the Iraqi people. The military operations would still heavily rely on US troops. But it would not be an occupation by the US and its allies but by the world. This is different.

I did not and dont have any alternative option for Saddams Iraq. There you are right. From an egoistic point of view Iraq was no threat for us all, so the war was not necessary. You may only argue altruistically in the name of the Iraqi people. So my option is to "do nothing" (means UN control and stuff). True. I admit this is not satisfactory and quite egoistic. But if you want to be altruistic, dont forget about all the other torture regimes, but forget about the war on terror.

War really is an option too easy. Just look at Iraq. Do you think Bush had any clue what would happen after the military won the war? Would it not have been his task to "develop it in greater detail"? If really in all that chaos the terrorists got some WMDs in their hands, than exactly that happened, what you gave as reason to go to war: to prevent just this! This would mean both: Bush won the war and the military operation failed completely and worsened the situation. Understand why solutions are more complicate than throwing daisy cutters?

And I hope you dont really think of a military action in Iran. Perhaps its better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. At least Iran has for me the option to establish democracy by itself (in contrast to Iraq). This is a slow process, but just look close at the struggle of Khatami and most of Teherans population, in particular students, against the clerics. It takes time, but it has a real chance. Attacking Iraq from outside would not fasten this process! A friend of mine, who was in prison in Iran because of support for the democratic opposition, hates America for installing the Shah. Even though democracy in Iran is his main goal the last thing he would accept was any American influence, not to speak of an invasion. You just cant find a military solution for everything.

[Joe]

Dan,

Thank you for your comments. The history and capabilities of the German Military I am well aware of. I would say prior to the fall of the wall, they were much better than they are today but each government since then has chosen to use the defense portion of the budget as a bill payer to support various other parts of the social welfare state to include investing in the east. In one sense, this was an easy decision because of these immediate requirements. The US shortly after the fall of the wall entered into combat against Iraq. After that war, the military in the US was reduced in size also. The original plan was to reduce the army to 12 active divisions. Here the defense budget was also used as a bill payer for social programs. The active army ended up being reduced to 10 divisions.

Of course the European nations felt in some ways justified in reducing their militaries because they saw no immediate threat, they were busy putting the EU together and besides they knew the US would come to their aid should the need arise under the NATO alliance.

The one single thing that Europe and European fail to understand is and was the impact on the US and the American people of 9 11. It took us into a world where we had never been before. I do not think it is possible for a European to imagine this. After the initial shock wore off, there was a whole range of emotions at play for the American people. The two most important ones were to find those who did this and deal with them. And the second one was to make us safe again.

President Bush laid out a strategy to do both of these. Most Americans saw a linkage between transnational terrorism and Iraq. Their views on this linkage ranged from a feeling of direct sponsorship of 9 11 to supporting the planning and execution, to support in other forms to no linkage at all.

It did not really matter as a primary reason for removing Saddam if there was a direct linkage or not. What did matter was the fact that the world to include the UN believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that his hatred of US was shared by al Quida.

Having just witnessed and seen attacks in the US where thousands had been killed and not believing that was possible, even after the fact. These attacks were viewed as madness. For most people, there was a realization if this was possible and these people took pleasure in them, then if they could have killed even more people they would have judged their attacks to be even more successful.

One of the easiest ways to kill large numbers of people is through the use of WMD’s. The idea that the WMD’s in Saddam’s possession would be transferred to al Quida became a real possibility for most people in the US. Remember it only takes a liter bottle of most bio-chem weapons to kill several thousand people. So Saddam was viewed very much as a threat.

I tend to agree with all you wrote about the UN. I would like to give you an American perspective of what happened at the UN.

The question became one of how to disarm Saddam. It was apparent after 10 years; sanctions were not working and would not work as long as Saddam remained in power. No nation nor could the UN come up with a plan of how to do this without the use of direct military force.

President Bush went to the UN and asked a simple question. Are you going to enforce your own resolutions? These resolutions dating all the way to the end of the first Gulf War were based on Saddam disarming. To Americans this was both a simple and reasonable question for the UN to answer. When President Bush told the world leaders that the disarming of Saddam was considered to be in American’s vital interest, this was a clear message that this was going to happen and anything less was not acceptable to America.

The results of this were the passage of UNSCR 1441. It was followed by a second attempt to pass a UN resolution clearly authorizing the use of military force to remove Saddam. Lead by france and supported by Germany, this second resolution failed.

Now for some what I consider to be interesting questions to be asked and also some conjecture on my part. First I do not think france would have vetoed a US resolution to use force if it were not for the support of Germany. I do not think france was prepared for the results of what franco- US relations would be for years to come if she had done this. I am not sure if China or Russia would have voted to support the US and very well probably would have abstained. I do think without france actively working again the interest of the US, a resolution authorizing direct military action would have passed.

So the first question is the one that you answered already. That question being. Were there any realistic and viable options other than direct force to disarming Saddam?

The second question … Did the actions of france and Germany strengthens or weakens the UN?

I would like to give you a brief historical perspective of the UN from an American viewpoint. The UN was an ineffective and morally corrupt organization that outside of maybe taking care of refugees and feeding people served little purpose. This perspective was formed during the decades of the cold war with the Soviet Union casting a veto in the UNSC and the UN having no place to look for action or legitimacy. After the cold war, the first big test of the UN as a possible forum for the maintenance of international order and security was the first Gulf War. The UNSC took this challenge and acted as one approved for only the second time in its history the use of military force. This gave hope to many Americans that the UN would in fact become what it was set up to do and be.

As the arms inspections in Iraq continued and continued, with no results Americans began to once again question the usefulness of the UN. They began to become cynical when Libya was made chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights and when Iraq was scheduled to chair the commission on disarment.

The next big test for the UN was President Bush’s challenge about disarming Saddam. The UNSC seem to be working with the passage of UNSCR 1441. So a new sense of hope was born that the UN would be responsible. Then france and Germany started to obstruct any serious efforts to implement Resolution 1441.

So the failure to implement UNSCR 1441 with a second resolution has once again caused Americans to view the UN with total distain and some cruel joke about maintaining international order and security. Americans will not at all be upset that should some future President chose to by pass the UN altogether. And yes, the comment, “We will not ask france permission to protect America will be heard again in the current presidential election cycle and it will used in the future when there is a question of the UN and America’s interest diverging.

Now this is where I get a bit confused. I see Europe and particularly france and Germany putting great store in international organizations. What did they expect to gain from their actions? I for one think their actions only weakened the UN.

My third question… What would have happened if the UNSC had voted as one to support direct military intervention to disarm Saddam?

I am not sure. What I do know is that I think what is going on in Iraq today would be different than it currently is.

I would say this third question is one that can be debated for a very long time.

** I do want to tell you that I take exception when you call attention to why Iraq as opposed to some other nation which violates the basic human rights of its citizens. I find that to be a weak excuse. What you are saving is if you cannot cure all illnesses then why cure any. I for one wished it was possible to eliminate all governments like the one lead by Saddam but I also know that is not possible.

As for a plan for what happened after initial military operations were completed, I think there were plans in place and supplies and equipment to support many different believable likely outcomes. Fortunately in one sense those contingency plans never had to be executed. Some of these plans were to handle 100,000 or more refugees, the treatment of victims of chem-bio weapons, and the feeding of people.

One area where the US took a media beating over was the looting. One has to remember that most of the looting that was so widely reported took place while combat operations were on going. In this case the US did not have enough or the right forces to contain the looting and carry on combat operations. I think the level and degree of the looting surprised those conducting military operations.

I think the US was not prepared for the level of neglect they found in the infrastructure nor the total lack of services. What was left of the infrastructure much of it was destroyed by the looters. I also do not think the US nor do I think realistically anyone else thought the people of Iraq would act the way they did. I do not think as some like to say that the US was going to be greeted with flowers in the street but at the same time do I think they expected to be greeted with the general civil disorder they encountered either.

I think what happened to the WMD’s in Iraq is one of the great unsolved questions that must be answered.

I will share something with you on this subject that you might find interesting. I surely did. In the US there is a very detailed and complete review of intelligence organizations under way. Part of this review is the part many have been reading about and this concerns the 9 11 commission. Almost parallel with this and just as intense is a review of the intelligence concerning Iraq. Many in the US have called for an increase in HUMIN, Human Intelligence. Think spies. Much of this capability was eliminated in the mid 70’s in the US with more emphasis placed on technical collection.

One of the interesting reports I found was when the Iraq division commanders who occupied defensive positions south of Baghdad were captured and questioned about WMD’s each said they did not have any in their commands but the divisions on either side of them did.

So even if the US had had an enhanced HUMIN capability, the picture it would have gotten on WMD’s would have been no clearer.

As this has become very long, I shall save my comments about Iran for another post.