Invasion of the Cheney Snatchers
This eerie video clip of a 1994 interview with Dick Cheney has been making the rounds in recent days:
In it, Cheney defends the Bush 41 administration’s decision not to proceed to Baghdad after expelling the Iraqi army from Kuwait. His description of the downsides of occupation now sounds downright prophetic.
Seeing this clip reminded me of a personal experience along similar lines. Back in 1998, when I was running Cato’s then-new Center for Trade Policy Studies, we held a conference on unilateral economic sanctions called “Collateral Damage: The Economic Cost of U.S. Foreign Policy.” And our luncheon speaker at that event was none other than Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney.
Looking back at the transcript of his talk, you can see that it’s not just Cheney’s views of the wisdom of occupying Iraq that have undergone an amazing transformation. So has his attitude about engaging versus confronting Iran:
[O]ur sanctions policy oftentimes generates unanticipated consequences. It puts us in a position where a part of our government is pursuing objectives that are at odds with other objectives that the United States has with respect to a particular region.
An example that comes immediately to mind has to do with efforts to develop the resources of the former Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea area. It is a region rich in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action, both in terms of opportunities that develop with respect to Iran itself, and also with respect to our ability to gain access to Caspian resources. Iran is not punished by this decision. There are numerous oil and gas development companies from other countries that are now aggressively pursuing opportunities to develop those resources. That development will proceed, but it will happen without American participation. The most striking result of the government’s use of unilateral sanctions in the region is that only American companies are prohibited from operating there.
Another good example of how our sanctions policy oftentimes gets in the way of our other interests occurred in the fall of 1997 when Saddam Hussein was resisting U.N. weapons inspections. I happened to be in the Gulf region during that period of time. Administration officials in the area were trying to get Arab members of the coalition that executed operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory. They wanted that capability in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions. Our friends in the region cited a number of reasons for not complying with our request. They were concerned with the fragile nature of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which was stalled. But they also had fundamental concerns about our policy toward Iran. We had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise, and that they should not do.
So, what effect does this have on our standing in the region? I take note of the fact that all of the Arab countries we approached, with the single exception of Kuwait, rejected our request to base forces on their soil in the event military action was required against Iraq. As if that weren’t enough, most of them boycotted the economic conference that the United States supported in connection with the peace process that was hosted in Qatar during that period of time. Then, having rejected participation in that conference, they all went to Tehran and attended the Islamic summit hosted by the Iranians. The nation that’s isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgment of U.S. policy in the area.
Note again that Cheney gave these remarks in 1998 – when Iran’s nuclear ambitions were already well known, and two years after the Khobar Towers bombing in which Iran was believed to be complicit.
9/11 may not have changed everything, but it sure changed Dick Cheney.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Well it changed many of us. You may have forgotten but the US has not has such an attack on our soil since 1812. It changed many of us because we realized there is the will and there is a way for massive carnage within the US (smuggled nuclear weapons). And there was only one dictator in the world with both the tract record of foolish attacks and genocide AND the desire for nuclear weapons. As the santions were breaking down and we faced loss of control over a madman in a techno age of potentially transferable nuclear weapons from a state to terrorist groups, Iraq appeared to be the greatest long term threat to the world. Sorry it didn’t work out better but your reasons for supporting it are no less real for the subsequent failure. I appreciate Cheney and Bush getting rid of Saddam. Sorry.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
What do you mean “…1998 – when Iran’s nuclear ambitions were already well known”? Ahmadinejad wasn’t even elected yet. And where they are with centrifuges and enrichment today is like a different universe than in 1998.
Moreover, it seems pretty clear that however they felt in 1998 (and remember, they were still trying to counter Saddam’s Iraq) Saudi Arabia and the gulf states today are clearly agitated about Iran.
While Cheney’s change of opinion over occupation of Iraq is interesting, his arguments against sanctions when he was speaking as the CEO of a multinational and not as Defense Secretary/VP should be viewed in that context. And his defense of not occupying Iraq in 1991 was clearly to defend Bush 41 at the time.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
[...] not let the delusions that were to come after 9/11 get in the way of sound thinking. Here he is in 1998 on sanctions on Iran: [O]ur sanctions policy oftentimes generates unanticipated consequences. It puts us in a position [...]
August 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
[...] Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves … …more [...]
August 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Christopher, I can appreciate your sentiments. Just remember that our fears about Saddam and Iraq were not validated.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Mark:
“his defense of not occupying Iraq in 1991 was clearly to defend Bush 41 at the time.”
No, it was a clear, rational, fact based statement of how he perceived an occupation would go, and how it indeed went 12 years later. He at some point stopped believing it, or just stopped telling us. But it wasn’t a front then.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Isn’t an obvious factor in the Iran change that Halliburton either wanted to or did trade with Iran? (I think I recall a stink a few years ago that they might have made illegal trades while Cheney was part of the company. I can’t remember if it was true). There’s no comparable vested interest in the case of Iraq, which makes it a more interesting about-face.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:25 am
[...] Isn’t video tape a bitch? Aug19 19 August 2007, mudslide @ 11:25 pm There you are, pretending to be all wise and thoughtful and then someone finds the videotape, and their you are arguing forcefully and intelligently for the exact opposite. You would think our dear Veep would get tired of this but once again, his “ultimate big lie” is outted. [Hat tip: Brink Lindsey [...]
October 29th, 2007 at 8:08 am
[...] in 91. Cheney is even quoted as saying that it would be insane to remove Saddam back in 1991. Cheney advised against invading Iraq in 1994 And they call John Kerry a "flip-flopper" This is about the only time Cheney ever said [...]
December 8th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Cheney proves the old adage “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” People will disagree with you but respect you if your core positions don’t change. But if you argue one view as CEO of Halliburton, and it is to your company’s advantage, and then switch to argue the other view to ingratiate yourself to your party line, then people quickly realize you have no principles, and are merely arguing whatever serves you best on a personal level at that moment.
This is the number one reason people reject a leader; when he’s found to advocate ideas merely because they’re politically convenient. We need a leader who, by the age of 45 or so, only advocates his core principles, and never wavers.