Donald Rumsfeld Never Believed In Democratic Iraq, Thought That Was Understood

About 12 years later, Donald Rumsfeld is coming clean – he never thought democracy could realistically take roots in Iraq. For years, the former Defense Secretary and political player implied otherwise, even attacking critics of the Bush administration policies. That appears to have all been a front, according to an interview with the London Times.

Donald Rumsfeld explained himself to the publication in a way liberal commentators like Jon Stewart would have killed for.

“I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories… The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”

That quote set off a media firestorm, with journalists pointing out that Rumsfeld was an unwavering proponent of fashioning a democracy in Iraq.

For example, the Huffington Post reported on a declassified memo from Donald Rumsfeld in 2002, shortly before the invasion, describing democratic groups as “essential” for the country.

“In Iraq, there are many undesirable opposition elements – a Communist faction, Sunni fundamentalists, and radical Sh’ia – all with presumably some support around the country and in some institutions. Organizing the democratic opposition groups that we favor into a real political-military force is essential to preempt these groups, avoid a political vacuum, and avoid a chaotic post-Saddam free-for-all.”

Investigative journalist Bob Woodward was particularly taken back by the new interview. He went on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to call the remarks a “total contradiction” considering Rumsfeld’s rhetoric over the last 12 years and claims in his memoir.

Donald Rumsfeld just doesn’t see it the same way.

In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, the former Defense Secretary claimed the Times quote doesn’t contradict anything, and that he always held honest reservations about democracy in Iraq.

Rumsfeld explained the “goal was to have Saddam Hussein not be there, and to have what replaced Saddam Hussein be a government that would not have weapons of mass destruction, that would not invade its neighbors, and that would be reasonably respectful of diverse ethnic groups.”

He went on to say, “And that was kind of the understanding I had and I thought everyone had.”

Meaning that from the start, Donald Rumsfeld felt like bringing democracy and liberty to Iraq was an optional bonus in the post-war country.

CNN pressed Rumsfeld on another quote from a speech several weeks after the invasion.

“If Iraq – with its size, capabilities, resources and its history – is able to move to the path of representative democracy, however bumpy the road, then the impact in the region and the world could be dramatic. Iraq could conceivably become a model – proof that a moderate Muslim state can succeed in the battle against extremism taking place in the Muslim world today.”

Donald Rumsfeld stood by that statement as well, explaining that Iraq would be a model. Luckily for Rumsfeld, the statement was purely hypothetical. Within reason anything in Iraq was conceivable, even the democracy he didn’t believe would take root.

If Rumsfeld really meant what he said to the Times, it was a fairly good prediction.

According to the Economist’s “Democracy Index,” Iraq doesn’t even qualify as a “flawed democracy.” Instead, they classified it as a hybrid regime in their 2012 update with Prime Minister al-Maliki monopolizing power for his Shi’a government. Freedom House was far more direct, explaining, “Iraq is not an electoral democracy.”

If his interview with the Times was honest, it turns out Donald Rumsfeld was right all along to doubt the post-war Iraq plan.

[Image Credit: Getty Images]