On the evening of 9/11, George W Bush made a vow to the American public - that he would defeat terrorism.
Unknown to those listening in shock to the presidential address, the president and his advisers had already begun planning their trajectory into an invasion of Iraq. It was packaged as "holding responsible the states who support terrorism" by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser between 2001 and 2003.
"I believe it represented a recognition that we would never succeed against the terrorists if we went after them one at a time and as long as governments were facilitating the organisation, training, equipping of, financing of terrorist organisations, we were never going to get it under control," says Perle.
After 100 days spent fighting those who had become publicly accepted as the culprits - Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan - the US set the ball rolling for war against Iraq.
Perle published an article in The New York Times damning Iraq, primarily for its "collaboration with terrorists" and for "convincing" evidence regarding its involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
By then, of course, advisers had already convinced President Bush of the need for an intervention in Iraq. Among them was Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician and enemy of Saddam Hussein. He would come to be viewed as a controversial figure, seen by some as providing questionable information to facilitate the decision to go to war.
A member of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles, appeared to be motivated by the prospect of taking over from Saddam. Ignored by the Clinton administration, they had aligned themselves with the Republican Party. When George W Bush and his administration took office, the Iraqi exiles found themselves in an enviable position: they had the confidence of the administration and were willing to say anything to ensure that Saddam was removed.
As the case a for war was being constructed behind the scenes, Bush continued to prepare the public.
"Afghanistan is still just the beginning. If anybody harbours a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If they fund a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they house terrorists, they're terrorists ... If they develop weapons of mass destruction, that will be used to terrorise nations, they will be held accountable," Bush declared during a speech at the White House in November 2001.
Under the guise of fear of weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs, the American public was lulled into a false sense of urgency, ultimately justifying an invasion that American intelligence had already deemed unnecessary - years of investigations and monitoring had come up with no evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
In early 2002, the military machine was set into motion. But approval from Congress would still be needed. the Central Intelligence Agency was asked to carry out a National Intelligence Estimate. The document that was eventually produced - and only made available to the public 13 years later, in 2015
Unknown to those listening in shock to the presidential address, the president and his advisers had already begun planning their trajectory into an invasion of Iraq. It was packaged as "holding responsible the states who support terrorism" by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser between 2001 and 2003.
"I believe it represented a recognition that we would never succeed against the terrorists if we went after them one at a time and as long as governments were facilitating the organisation, training, equipping of, financing of terrorist organisations, we were never going to get it under control," says Perle.
After 100 days spent fighting those who had become publicly accepted as the culprits - Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan - the US set the ball rolling for war against Iraq.
Perle published an article in The New York Times damning Iraq, primarily for its "collaboration with terrorists" and for "convincing" evidence regarding its involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
By then, of course, advisers had already convinced President Bush of the need for an intervention in Iraq. Among them was Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician and enemy of Saddam Hussein. He would come to be viewed as a controversial figure, seen by some as providing questionable information to facilitate the decision to go to war.
A member of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles, appeared to be motivated by the prospect of taking over from Saddam. Ignored by the Clinton administration, they had aligned themselves with the Republican Party. When George W Bush and his administration took office, the Iraqi exiles found themselves in an enviable position: they had the confidence of the administration and were willing to say anything to ensure that Saddam was removed.
As the case a for war was being constructed behind the scenes, Bush continued to prepare the public.
"Afghanistan is still just the beginning. If anybody harbours a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If they fund a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they house terrorists, they're terrorists ... If they develop weapons of mass destruction, that will be used to terrorise nations, they will be held accountable," Bush declared during a speech at the White House in November 2001.
Under the guise of fear of weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs, the American public was lulled into a false sense of urgency, ultimately justifying an invasion that American intelligence had already deemed unnecessary - years of investigations and monitoring had come up with no evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
In early 2002, the military machine was set into motion. But approval from Congress would still be needed. the Central Intelligence Agency was asked to carry out a National Intelligence Estimate. The document that was eventually produced - and only made available to the public 13 years later, in 2015
Category
📚
Learning