Sorry Jonah. It's always easier to say what you would have done in hindsight. The venomous snipers on the left side of the isle have that political ploy perfected.
Besides, we have learned quite a lot about Iraq, the UN & liberals since Saddam's removal. What we know about Saddam now proves that his removal was more than justified. We know how utterly corrupt the UN & many of our alleged allies really are even when we are in a global war against shadowy, evil terrorists which Saddam conspired with, aided, funded & trained.
What a strange new world we live in. It's downright scary.
Re: Jacoby (Iraq was a worthy mistake)
Jonah Goldberg
The Corner
I promised to respond to Jeff Jacoby yesterday, so that's what I'll do. But I don't want to belabor this any longer. So, this will just have to do for my final word for now.
I'm a big fan of Jeff's and I think he makes a good case against my "mistake" column. Indeed, the argument he makes is almost identical to the one I made in defense of the Afghanistan War when that was supposedly looking grim. Moreover, as I said in the very column Jeff criticizes, if we win in Iraq the war won't be remembered as a mistake.
So on that point I don't really see that there's that much distance between Jeff and me or between me and scads of angry and disappointed readers. But, look. I have always argued that the reasons to go to war were many. It was the press and others who wanted to confine the entire rationale to a single reason: Weapons of Mass Destruction. And it was the Bush Administration which foolishly over-emphasized WMDs. Their reason for doing that, however, made a lot more sense at the time. Since everyone knew that Iraq had WMDs and since most people agreed that post 9/11 that was a real problem, concentrating on the WMD issue seemed like the savvy political course.
But most serious decisions are made for a lot of different reasons. Narrowing things down to a single factor is great for soundbites. But it's the height of stupidity in real life. Nobody walks into a car dealership and asks "do you have any red cars?...you do? I'll take it!"
I agree with many of the reasons why we invaded Iraq and I think those reasons are still valid. Saddam applauded 9/11. The sanctions were breaking down. He defied the UN. We were never at peace with the guy. He sponsored suicide bombings. Etc etc.
But other items on the checklist haven't panned out. The Iraq war for many of us was supposed to be part of the larger war on terror. It was supposed to have a series of demonstration effects. The first was that we could project our power at will and impose our aims when necessary. We got the first part, but not the second. It was supposed to demonstrate that the Arab street lives under the thumb of tyranny and, given the chance, it would embrace freedom. With many heroic exceptions notwithstanding, that's not exactly the lesson the world has taken away. The Iraq war was supposed to be a shot across the bow of Iran and North Korea. It may have been that, but the result has been the acceleration of their nuclear programs and mischief-making. America looks weaker to much of the world because of the Iraq war, and that's a big problem. I agree entirely with Jeff and other readers that if we pull out before finishing the job, we will look weaker still.
For reasons I find unfathomable, we've kept the same size military we had on 9/10/01 and as a result our ability to threaten plausibly other regimes — which was supposed to be heightened by the war — has in fact diminished. This is a complicated issue and the "blame Rumsfeld chorus" is too simplistic. Democrats have never committed themselves to unity behind the war, which has resulted in a Tet-like political strategy among the insurgents. And many of our "allies" have seized the opportunity to behave in morally outrageous and strategically boneheaded ways. But the fact is that the Iraq war — to my mind — was always part of a larger global war on terror. Indeed, it was merely a battle in that war. I'm no military genius, but I think the phrase "choose your battles" has some merit. If we had to do it over again. We would have chosen either not to fight this one or — the better option — we would have chosen to have fought it in a very different way.
That said, we're here now. And I agree entirely with Jacoby and many of my readers who think we have to see it through, somehow. My proposed solution of a national referendum is not some wooly romantic gesture. One of the things the US has really figured out is how to run elections in Iraq. Giving the Iraqis the choice of the abyss or of a unifying national decision to do what's necessary might be the sort of galvanizing event the country needs for a fresh start and the sort of mandate the US and Iraqi armies need to crack down on the militias.
I should also note that liberals who complain — with varying degrees of honesty and dishonesty — that Bush's freedom agenda was an after thought and therefore illegitimate seem to forget that the civil war wasn't launched to free the slaves. It was launched to save the Union. Freeing the slaves came later, at least for many in the North. Whatever the alleged motives for making the Iraq war into a battle for democracy doesn't make the battle for democracy any less worthwhile.
Anyway, maybe readers are right that Monday morning quarterbacking like this isn't productive. But, it seems to me that the current debate needs a shot of realism. And, personally and professionally, I felt the need to call it like I see it.
corner.nationalreview.com
boston.com
nationalreview.com
article.nationalreview.com |
