"My point was that removing Saddam should not have been our highest priority. Fighting terrorism should have been our number one concern, followed by the Palestinian peace process"
About this Quote
Brent Scowcroft, a realist voice from the George H. W. Bush era, urges a hierarchy of aims shaped by prudence rather than zeal. After 9/11, the central threat was not a contained Iraqi dictator but a dispersed, adaptive terrorist network. The job was to dismantle al-Qaeda, harden homeland defenses, strengthen intelligence and law enforcement cooperation, and keep a broad international coalition focused on a shared enemy. Diverting the nation’s attention and resources to regime change in Baghdad risked splintering that coalition and creating more instability than it cured.
He also ties American security to diplomatic momentum on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moving that process forward would have signaled seriousness to Arab publics, reduced a potent source of grievance exploited by extremists, and improved the diplomatic terrain for cooperation against terrorism. Strategy is sequencing: align priorities with threats, then build legitimacy and partners around those priorities.
Scowcroft’s perspective draws on the decision in 1991 to expel Iraq from Kuwait without marching to Baghdad, a restraint he and President Bush defended in A World Transformed. The point was to preserve a rules-based order, avoid fracturing a diverse coalition, and not trigger a regional upheaval that would empower Iran or ignite sectarian conflict. He feared that making Saddam the main target after 9/11 would repeat the very mistake that earlier prudence had avoided.
Events that followed the 2003 invasion resonate with his warning. The war diverted focus from Afghanistan, fueled an insurgency, expanded Iranian influence, and created space for al-Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIS. Meanwhile, the peace process withered, and America’s moral and diplomatic capital eroded. Scowcroft’s argument is not sentimental but strategic: define the primary threat accurately, tackle it first with allies, and use diplomacy to shrink the ecosystem in which extremism thrives.
He also ties American security to diplomatic momentum on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moving that process forward would have signaled seriousness to Arab publics, reduced a potent source of grievance exploited by extremists, and improved the diplomatic terrain for cooperation against terrorism. Strategy is sequencing: align priorities with threats, then build legitimacy and partners around those priorities.
Scowcroft’s perspective draws on the decision in 1991 to expel Iraq from Kuwait without marching to Baghdad, a restraint he and President Bush defended in A World Transformed. The point was to preserve a rules-based order, avoid fracturing a diverse coalition, and not trigger a regional upheaval that would empower Iran or ignite sectarian conflict. He feared that making Saddam the main target after 9/11 would repeat the very mistake that earlier prudence had avoided.
Events that followed the 2003 invasion resonate with his warning. The war diverted focus from Afghanistan, fueled an insurgency, expanded Iranian influence, and created space for al-Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIS. Meanwhile, the peace process withered, and America’s moral and diplomatic capital eroded. Scowcroft’s argument is not sentimental but strategic: define the primary threat accurately, tackle it first with allies, and use diplomacy to shrink the ecosystem in which extremism thrives.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Brent
Add to List
