A Walking Contradiction

Andrew Card is a controversial figure. Most remembered as the man who whispered to President George W. Bush that America was under attack on 9/11. As President Bush’s White House chief of staff, Mr. Card stood by the president’s side for five and a half years while America was led into two colossal wars, during which time the government made numerous unforgiveable blunders and fatal mistakes, costing the lives of thousands, and ruining the lives of millions more. Meanwhile, terrorism is on the rise, and 147,000 thousand US troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While in office, Card established and ran the infamous Iraq Group that was responsible for communicating to the American government and public the reasons for invading Iraq. And, until now, the long-serving Republican makes no apologies for America’s war in Iraq, nor does he hide his view that, ultimately, President Bush was good for America. A staunch supporter of America’s “war on terror,” Andrew Card, like President Bush, divides the world into those who are with America and those who are against it. This bull-headed approach to the issue of terrorism ignores the causal factors of the phenomena and buys into the view that the end justifies the means, thus implicating the US and its allies in a vast number of human rights abuses, and completely destroying, once and for all, America’s image abroad.

Card, 63, began his political career in 1975 in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, representing the state in which he was born, followed by his position as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, and then as US secretary of transportation and deputy chief of staff under President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Card resigned in April 2006 to, according to commentators, take a break.

The Majalla interviewed Mr. Card, now the dean of The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, at a conference in Paris to get his view on the current situation in the Middle East.

The Majalla: You established the Iraq Group, a task force aimed at essentially selling the war to the American public. Can you tell me about your experience in that position?

There are a lot of myths about the Iraq Group. The truth is, any significant policy that the administration considered, there was a group formed around it to help with communication. So it wasn’t just communication with the American people, it was also communication within the executive branch of government. So the Iraq Group started off as a way to bring people from the State Department, the Defense Department, the intelligence community, the Justice Department, the economic interests of the United States together in one room to talk about the challenges of communicating within government about what the policy meant, and then yes, how do we communicate with members of Congress and the rest of the world.

So, there was an expectation that there was something nefarious by having an Iraq Group; it wasn’t; it was common. In fact, if you didn’t have a group like that you would have been irresponsible. So nothing nefarious, and it was not looking to “sell a war that was unjustified.” This was a war that America did not want to undertake. Even President Bush was not looking to go to war. He was trying to get Saddam Hussein to come clean, to comply with UN resolutions, to allow weapons inspectors to scour the country and talk with his bureaucrats; he denied that. The United National Security Council gave 16 opportunities to Saddam Hussein to come clean, and there had to be a consequence. I think Saddam thought the consequence would never be realized. But both the British and the Americans said, there is a limit, and you’ve got to come clean, and there will be serious consequences, and they telegraphed that quite well.

I don’t think there were many people around the world that didn’t think America was ready to demonstrate that there would be a consequence for failing to come clean with the people of the world consistent with UN resolutions. So, I’m very comfortable with the work that we did, and I actually am still very comfortable with the decision to go to war in Iraq even though we did not find weapons of mass destruction. That was not the exclusive reason that we went to war. Saddam Hussein did not answer the call from President Bush to be an ally in the war on terror, and he could’ve; instead, he responded by policies that were offensive to the battle against terror when he said that he would give rewards to families that sent suicide bombers into Israel, Europe or to the United States. And that was the wrong answer for Saddam to give. He should have said, I will stand with you against terror. I won’t stand with you for anything else, but I will stand with you against terror. And President Bush gave him that opportunity and he didn’t respond appropriately.

Q: Osama bin Laden is dead, what does this mean for America’s war on terror?

It means that we closed one chapter of the book. We didn’t finish the whole book. It was one chapter. It clearly does not end the war on terror; it does not end all the angst that America and the rest of the world have with regard to Al-Qaeda. But it was an important way to bring closure to the victims of September 11. There were 3,000 innocent bystanders that were victims of that terrorist act, and this was a way to bring closure to them. Osama bin Laden, the great mastermind of that horrible incident, was brought to justice, and I wish it had happened sooner, but it did happen, so that closure was important.
It means that we closed one chapter of the book. We didn’t finish the whole book.
I also feel that it was symbolically important for the rest of the world to see that America will be dogged in its effort to bring people to justice. Don’t think that just changing a president isn’t going to keep us on the path to find the people who perpetrated the crime; we are going to keep going after them until we get ‘em. And America showed the resolve to go after them and get ‘em, and bring them to justice, and we still have that resolve. So I hope that message is out there. If you are thinking about being a terrorist and killing Americans, understand, we will find you, and you will pay because of what you did. So, maybe you want to give a second thought about being a terrorist.

Q: Do you think America’s enemies have become greater in number since the war on terror started?

Well I think we don’t know. And part of it is, we don’t know what the result of the Arab Spring is. The Arab Spring might produce more allies, or it might produce more enemies. And I don’t know what the answer to that is. That’s why the turmoil in the Arab world is very very difficult for us to analyze and understand. But I hope that those who are fighting for democracy also recognize their responsibility to be a torch for democracy that spreads the light of freedom and participation rather than a torch of terrorist activities.

Q: What is America’s role in the Arab Spring?

I think it has continued to be a kind of example of democracy. I think America’s role is to be the hope, and to help bring that hope to more people. I hope that that’s our role. President Bush was a very strong leader. I think strong leadership from the United States is very important.

I’m going to cite a preface to Prime Minister Blair’s book, which was called A Journey. The forward to the book, at least for the US market, started right off by saying, “America wants to be loved, but America can’t be loved. America must be respected or feared…”(.) And I think it’s very important that America work very hard at being respected by those who like us, even those who love us. I think it has to be respected by those who care about us. I think it should be respected by those people who don’t know how to pay attention to us. But I think it should be feared by its enemies. And the enemies aren’t necessarily national governments. The enemies are terrorists that have clubs, and don’t respect borders, and are looking for borders beyond those which exist today in the nation states. And I hope that they will fear America, because we’re very serious about making sure that we protect opportunities for democracy to take hold, and for people to be empowered through democracy to do what we all want to have happen, which is elevate everyone’s life rather than just divide up the spoils to a select few.

Q: Can we apply these same ideals to Israel and Palestine?

We can, although I will say this, and this will be controversial to your readers. Israel is a great democracy in a troubled part of the world. And I think that it is a responsibility of the United States to defend that democracy’s right to exist and right to exist without the fear of terrorism or of annihilation or its borders being removed. So I do think that it’s important that that state of Israel, which is a thriving and practicing democracy, should be seen as an example for the rest of that part of the world. And I would like to see a two state solution, where there is a thriving, active democracy in the Palestinian state that would be recognized by Israel and the rest of the world, just as the whole world should recognize Israel as a state, and there are some elements within the Arab world that do not recognize Israel as a state. That’s denying the reality of the moment.

Q: Under the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, the Arab League formally agreed to recognize Israel as a state and normalize relations with the country on the condition that it completely withdraw from all occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and that Israel support a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on US resolution 194. Why then is there no Palestinian state?

Well, it’s very hard to negotiate. I sat in the Oval Office when President Bush met with Ariel Sharon for first time. And it was a very sobering meeting, because here you had a former tank driver, a warrior, sitting with the American president. And I remember President Bush looking Ariel Sharon right in the eyes, and saying: Do you want peace in Israel, yes or no? If you don’t, just tell me. If you want peace, are you going to work for it? And Ariel Sharon looked at the president, and said: I will work toward peace. And the president said: Work toward peace or do you want peace? And Ariel Sharon said: I want peace. And the president said: I will work with you.

President Bush then called for a two-state solution, in a very dramatic statement, and the first time a US president had said a “two-state” solution.  And Ariel Sharon said that he would be a partner in that process. And it started. And Ariel Sharon ran into political challenges at home, but he hung tough. Remember he said that Gaza will be free? The elections that took place in Gaza produced results that were an embarrassment to the free world. And that was frustrating. It was a democratic process but the results weren’t comfortable for the rest of the world. And so they said: Is there a partner in Palestine ready to negotiate with the Israelis? And the partner didn’t show up. So I think that was the frustration. But you can get there; it just will not be easy.

Q: If you were in the White House now, what would you advise Obama to do about Afghanistan and Iraq?

Well, I think Afghanistan and Iraq are two entirely different challenges. Right now we have a democracy that is struggling to be viable in Iraq; we have a government in Afghanistan that is just struggling on everything. And, at the same time, we are trying to make sure that neither country becomes a safe haven for terrorism. I think we have done a better job in Iraq of removing the temptation to become a safe haven for terrorists, but we haven’t succeeded in Afghanistan; we are making progress.

We are doing the military drawdown in Iraq as the democracy there is learning how to be a democracy. I don’t think we should withdraw too quickly. But I think we should withdraw, and it should be a withdrawal that eliminates frustration rather than invites it. But I think President Obama is facing a challenge, because he really hasn’t talked to the American people about either Iraq or Afghanistan. The greater focus has been on the economy and health care reforms, but I think he has a responsibility to describe to the American people exactly what he is planning to do in Iraq, and what he hopes to do in Afghanistan, knowing that it will be difficult. After all, American soldiers are making unbelievable sacrifices to bring stability to both countries. But I do think that it would be wrong for America to abandon the opportunity for success in Iraq, and I think it would be a mistake to leave Afghanistan as a state that could slip into anarchy very easily and become a safe haven for terrorists.

So I think the president has a tough dilemma, but that’s why you elect the president, to make the tough decisions. I don’t agree with the way he makes decisions. One of his staffers said that he prefers to lead from behind. If you lead from behind, you’re just inviting people to turn around and retreat. I actually think that you have to lead from in front, and I would like him to lead in front, and tell us what he is planning to do in Iraq and what he is planning to do in Afghanistan. Yes, he can have an expectation and a hope to withdraw, but you don’t just withdraw on a timeline, you withdraw based on performance and results on the ground.

Q: What challenges are we facing in Afghanistan?

I think the first thing I would say is I would like President Karzai, who is a very accomplished diplomat and personality, to demonstrate a commitment to clean government with no corruption, where opportunity for economic success would not be limited to family members or friends. I think that would go a long way in helping to bring the Afghan people on board with what would be called a democracy. Yes, they have to have a strong policy force with their own ability to protect themselves, and they’ve got to demonstrate that they are a true ally in the war on terror.

The most important question to be answered by Pakistan’s leadership, by Afghanistan’s leadership, by the Iraqi leadership, is, will you be an ally in the war on terror, because that’s the war that America is really leading the fight on with allies all around the world. No maybe they don’t stand up and say, war on terror, but I guarantee the French, and the Germans, and the Italians, the British are all together saying we want to fight terrorism and we don’t want it to have a hold in that part of the world. And I want President Karzai, and I want Maliki, and I want the leadership in Pakistan to say we have lots of challenges but you can depend on us to be allies in the war on terror, and we are going to make sure we have an increased capacity to be a good ally in that war on terror, and so far the Afghan leadership has not demonstrated that they have lived up to the responsibility that comes with that yet. They’re getting there, but not quite yet.

Q: How do you feel about the situation in Libya, and how the US and the international community are handling it?

My knee-jerk reaction with regard to Libya is that the US was a little tardy in its response as the Arab Spring was taking hold in Libya. I think the so-called rebels had the upper hand and we didn’t come to their aid until they had lost the upper hand, so we were a little bit tardy with the response. And we didn’t even respond as quickly as even the Arab League invited us to respond. So we were even tardy when we had cover. And then having NATO lead the response I think was even out of a little frustration. So I don’t think America’s leadership was as defined or as strong as it should have been given that circumstance.

Having said that, it’s a tough debate inside America to argue what is America’s national security interest in Libya. Now it’s relatively to say what is Italy’s national interest, what’s France’s national interest, all of Europe’s national interest? But that’s very different from the US parochial national interest in Libya. So that debate is a debate that I wish Congress would have and others would have. I think it’s appropriate that the reality of the mission is regime change, even though that’s not what the mission is called. The mission is called, “Protecting the People.” But clearly now, removing Qadhafi’s ability to lead is paramount to that mission, but even then I think recognition of that responsibility came too late for it to be as effective as it should have been. I think it was a mistake for President Obama to tell the American people that it would be just a few weeks. It doesn’t work that way. He should have known better. He should have said it will be a difficult mission and we will try to accomplish it as quickly as we can.

Interview conducted by Jacqueline Shoen.