Incoherent Preemption.

“As Paul Wolfowitz has all but admitted, the ‘bureaucratic’ reason for war — weapons of mass destruction — was not the main one. The real reason was to rebuild the pillars of American influence in the Middle East. Americans may have figured this out for themselves, but it was certainly not what they were told. Nor were they told that building this new pillar might take years and years. What they were told — misleadingly and simplistically — was that force was justified to fight ‘terrorism’ and to destroy arsenals of mass destruction targeted at America and at Israel.” In a wide-ranging article for the NYT Magazine, Michael Ignatieff offers an historical critique of our currently muddled intervention policy, and outlines his own best-case-scenario proposal for US-led UN reform. “Putting the United States at the head of a revitalized United Nations is a huge task. For the United States is as disillusioned with the United Nations as the world is disillusioned with the United States. Yet…Pax Americana must be multilateral, as Franklin Roosevelt realized, or it will not survive.“

The “Browbeaters.”

Is Paul Wolfowitz in a 12-step program? A week after confiding to America about the “bureaucratic” thinking that motivated the WMD casus belli, Wolfowitz opens up to an audience in Singapore, telling them “we had no choice” in our Iraq policy because “the country swims on a sea of oil.” (Via High Industrial.) And now it turns out Cheney and co. were leaning hard on the CIA to come up with the “right” intelligence about Iraq’s WMD capabilities (and an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.) Hmm…looks like it’s getting grim at WMD Search Central. Update: Jake Tapper of Salon points out that Wolfowitz’s alleged Singapore statement is based on a misquote – Wolfowitz was talking about the efficacy of sanctions, not the reasons for war.

Dropping the Other Shoe.

In a strange moment of candor, Wolfowitz tells Vanity Fair that the WMD argument for overthrowing Saddam was chosen “for bureaucratic reasons,” since “it was the one reason everyone could agree on.” (He also lends credence to the argument advanced in this Fred Kaplan article that removing troops from Saudi Arabia was one of the central purposes of the Iraq war.) Meanwhile, in the same AP story, the head of US Marines in Iraq says of the WMDs, “they’re simply not there.” Looks like the Bushies have some explaining to do…If they follow the usual pattern, I suspect they’ll answer any tough question with a flurry of 9/11-esque horror stories.

Running the Table.

Although Saddam’s regime appears to be on its last legs, the Bushies have not yet begun to fight. In fact, this administration now seems recommitted to the task of destroying whatever remaining credibility America has left in the Middle East and the international community. For, despite recent setbacks in Afghanistan, Rummy, Wolfowitz, and the rest of Dubya’s neocon hawks now turn to Syria as the best candidate for our next splendid little war, a war that even England is loath to enter. And one has to assume Iran, Irkutsk, and Yakutsk are next. (Then maybe the Bushies will be content to take a card.)