Haig to Dubya: Beware of Iraq Advice From Old Bushies

NewsMax ^ | 9/1/02 | Limbacher

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Former Reagan administration Secretary of State Alexander Haig said Sunday that President Bush shouldn't let advice from members of his father's administration interfere with his decision to attack Iraq.

"I think he has to be careful of the old gang," Haig told Fox News Sunday. "These are the people that created the problems in the first place by not handling Saddam Hussein correctly."

The former Reagan and Nixon official didn't hesitate naming names:

"I'm talking about the previous administration and their spokesmen: Jim Baker, [Brent] Skowcroft and a very wise daddy who's not talking at all and he shouldn't."

Haig also said it would be a mistake to read too much into Secretary of State Colin Powell's comments to the BBC this weekend, where he contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney's statement earlier in the week that a decision by Hussein to accept a new weapons inspection regime would do nothing to avert a U.S. attack.

"What we have is a little conscious ambiguity by the Secretary of State to try to shore up an important ally [Great Britian] in the process of getting ready to do, unfortunately, what we're going to have to do," he told Fox News.

In contrast to those urging caution, Haig said the case for action against Iraq is clear and he predicted the U.S. military would make quick work of Saddam's forces.

"No operation is easy. When anyone's hurt, it's not easy," he told Fox News. "But I think we're going to win it and win it very decisively; perhaps even as quickly as we did the last one - 72 hours - which we prematurely walked away from."

In addition to serving in senior positions is several past Republican administrations, Alexander Haig is a member of NewsMax.com's board of directors.

[MissAmericanPie]

I like Haig, any man that can inspire that much love from the men he commanded is a keeper. He's so right, why should President Bush heed the advice of those that ruined his father's legacy?

[Diogenesis]

Despite that he was "in charge here", some of what he said sounded possible.

[Galtoid]

The overthrow of Saddam will happen so swiftly and so perfectly that all this blahblahblah will be laughed about.
Bush isn't listening to anyone but those who truly matter.
He's not his father; he is his own man. Period.
Saddam should be very afraid.

[stlrocket]

I just watched it (delayed out here in the West) IT WAS GREAT! He was in Charge - if you know what I mean!

It's fun to watch someone actually say what everyone else is thinking!

PORTEND OF THINGS TO COME?

[Sungirl]

"These are the people that created the problems in the first place by not handling Saddam Hussein correctly."

Exactly...why repeat a failure??
I don't think W is going to listen to them, the way he is talking.

[MissAmericanPie]

I think he got a raw deal on that "I'm in charge here". There was a made for tv movie about it, and there were so many snakes behind the scenes twisting so many ways for a power grab, and he handled them all the best he could, at least according to the movie.

[Momaw Nadon]

Check out the Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

[alnick]

You're exactly right -- Bush 43 is his own man. What really gets me is all of these people who leap to the conclusion that Bush 41 is against taking out Hussein because Snowcroft et al have spoken out against it.

The fact of the matter is that they have no earthly idea what Bush 41 thinks about this because he has been quiet about it. 41 has always avoided interfering in 43's presidency, and that's as it should be.

[Trust but Verify]

Your comments are very intriguing. Care to expand on them? How do you believe this would be accomplished, and is this an educated guess on your part or something more? Thanks.

[Paul Ross]

I gained new respect for Jim Baker after the election sue-athon unleashed by Al Gore. But I also don't forget his smarmy foreign policy and foolishness with respect to unilateral gestures that weaken America. And Brent Scowcroft I HAVE NEVER TRUSTED after I managed to take a bead on the man back in 1983-1984. He has always been a behind-the-scenes opponent to SDI, and a vigorous use for American military muscle.

[Reagan Man]

Al Haig has always been, okay in my book.

Haig has served his country admirably, in war and in peace.

[wardaddy]

Bump to that!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[GOP_1900AD]

Indeed these dudes seemed like hard core lefty utopian pacifists after Reagan's folks. A great way to be reminded of their errors is to read, if you have not already done so, "While America Sleeps," by Kagan and Kagan. It gives a great rundown of the series of mistakes we've made since the late 80s:

1. Over reacting to the "events" of 1989 - 1991 - Reagan said "trust but verify" but instead we trusted, did not verify, and enacted a draw down that could not be justified even if all the Moscow commies had been strung up and Russian turned into the US on steroids, none of which, of course, happened. We went from a level of spend that the Left constantly whined about, and yet, was barely adequate, clear down to one where we could only hold in the event of second regional contingency. And this of course assumed only conventional warfare, in the face of tactical nukes we're not even close to 2 MRC.

2. Our wishy washy approach to the Balkans. When the first fur started to fly we should have either gone in unilaterally with gusto, or, told the EU to forget about us. In the end, we did neither, and when the media started to show the carnage, scope creep ensued, but still a half hearted effort at best.

3. Ditto on Somalia.

4. Out of chron order, but the failure to take Baghdad in '91.

5. Our failure to respond in any substantial way to the first WTC attack in '93.

6. Our failure to challenge N. Korea with any real threat of force in '94. Instead, we undermined the already anemic efforts of the IAEC and appeased. What a disaster.

7 Our ongoing overextension of our now drawn down forces.

The most analogous historical situation to our present one is the UK 1919 - 1939.

[Paul Ross]

I would echo that. But key on to the unilateralism. The original speech by GHWB when he announced the unilateral termination of all of our tactical battle-field nuclear shells and apparently even ordering dismantled our sea-based tactical nuclear warheads for ASW and air-defense, (...retaining only fighter-bomber delivered nuclear warheads for deterrence) which was done with the professed hope Russia would follow this lead. Well, we have over 11 years now for them to have followed it...and they haven't. And no sign they are about to. As many tactical nukes as ever. On land and at sea.

Not only is disarmament of the U.S. MX's, etc. gravely wrong, it is clearly Time to Re-Arm. And fast. In the interim, go back to Launch On Alert policy. God, I would love to get ahold of GWB in a closet somewhere and just drill him with the facts where he couldn't duck or hide behind Condoleeza. Wonder what nick-name he would come up with for me?