Answering a dissent.
This is an answer to a reasonable dissent. I've posted his positions and my responses, I hope it is clear when my commentator is speaking. You can find his full comments toward the end of the Fairness in Iraq comments.
As part of my response, I linked to an excellent post on why it was so strategically important to invade Iraq. That link is here.DETERRENCE (part 1)
I don't understand your point when you say "be responsible." I am being quite responsible in my criticism of the President. … wasn't it the President's job to give the American people valid, truthful reasons for going to war, so they could support him? He did that in Afghanistan, and he had volumes of support. So, why didn't he do it in Iraq?
Claiming he didn’t give valid truthful reasons for going to war is not being either honest or responsible. In contrast, claiming that Saddam was a contained problem that wasn’t going to break out of his containment box and so we should concentrate on other things would be a responsible criticism.
I think that criticism would be very poor, but it would be responsible. Other potential criticisms include the level of troops, the decision not to shoot looters, the decision to back away from Fallujah.
The idea of having a valid, internationally credible reason to go to war is not new.
The Iraq war arguably met the test of Just War Theory, considered the starting point for serious discussion of the topic. I chose the word arguably intentionally, since people versed in that theory have come up with different answers on whether the Iraq war qualified. Basing your opinion on that theory is certainly responsible.
And so is pointing to ideas concerning the strategic implications of such an action.
Where is the President, or anyone else in his administration, saying "the sin is upon my head"?
The President, when he says that the responsibility was his and he is confident in the judgment of history. I don’t think you understand the full implications of your ‘do over’ comment. The moral implications of an action are judged by what was known (and in some cases should have been known) about the situation when the decision was made.
Had the President NOT gone to war given the information he had, it would have been a historic betrayal of America that could have never been forgiven. Finding out that there were actually no stockpiles in 2003 would not have changed that verdict. Nor would it have prevented Kerry from coasting to victory by pointing out the massive disaster that not invading Iraq had precipitated. I’d be voting for “anyone but Bush” if Bush hadn’t invaded.
… we all agree that Saddam was a bad guy …
Yes, and now he is a bad guy sitting in jail rather than a bad guy who beat the United States, is no longer under sanctions, and is rapidly rebuilding his military while the United States effort against Islamic Fascism completely collapsed. Yes, he was a bad guy and now he is no longer in a position to be a bad guy and the world is vastly better off.
If you had your way, he’d still be in power and that would be a disaster not just for Iraq but for the entire world.
… it does bother me when we start a war that turns out to be based on completely false pretenses, and in so doing we alienate half of our own people, and most of our allies.
It would bother me if it were true. The war was not fought under false pretenses. It was fought for many, many reasons. The primary reason listed, the one on which most people wound up agreeing as the best reason, turned out to be mistaken. That isn’t a problem for the decision maker, though you might want to fix any fixable errors so you don’t make similar mistakes in the future. Look; we convict people when the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not ‘beyond ALL doubt’. The evidence for Iraq and WMD was clearly (to me) beyond a reasonable doubt. It STILL is. Convicting an innocent man is not a moral failure if in fact the evidence leading you to that conviction was solid and convincing enough. And Saddam was far from innocent …
As to allies, those would be the ones making back door deals with Saddam?
As to half our people, not really. Do remember that about one quarter of our people would oppose the Sun rising tomorrow if Bush thought it was a good idea.
… why did the President choose to commit all of our resources to fighting Iraq? In truth, we don't really know.
I do, and you would as well if you had been listening.
… what does [the Invasion of Iraq –ed] … have to do with the war on terror?
Try reading DETERRENCE (part 1)
I think that they drummed up a bunch of phony reasons to go into Iraq, becase they always wanted to.
And why, exactly, might they have always wanted too? I can think of a lot of good reasons why I wanted to finish off Iraq before 9/11.
Absent 9/11, though, we wouldn’t have done it no matter how obvious the strategic benefits of doing so would be.
After 9/11, it became even more critical strategically. It also became possible. The world should be grateful that Saddam miscalculated one last, fateful time. He thought he could face down Bush and his bribed friend Chirac would protect him. Well, Chirac stayed bought but it didn't help.
Had Saddam been smarter he would have proved he didn't have the WMD and today he would be free and sitting in the catbird seat. Had I been in Saddam's shoes the invasion wouldn't have happened and today I'd be happily living in my many palaces. That would be far worse for America and the world than what has happened.
You claim you are a supporter of the war on terror. So am I. But a critical difference is that I think the only possible way of winning the war on terror involved invading Iraq. (Well, the only way short of a genocide. But we aren't ready for that one. If Iraq works, we will never need to be ready for that one.)
posted by john @ 11:38 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Thank you for taking my comments seriously and posting an thoughtful response. It would be great if the Presidential debate could be as responsible.
Responsible people can disagree about what the President did, or did not do. I agree that history will judge whether the war in Iraq is just -- and that history is written by the victors. There is no doubt in my mind that the civilized world will be the victor in this clash of civilizations. So, there is a good chance it will all work out in the end. :)
But, at the present time, America's standing in the free world has gone from an all-time high after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, to a treacherous low since Iraq. That is directly, unquestionably, the result of this President's leadership. There is nobody else to blame. Above all else, the President is responsible for the foreign policy of the United States. Congress gave him the power to go to war. But, he made the decisions about how to do it. He decided what he would tell the American people, and the international community, about what he was doing. And, he decided how and when to invade, and who would be part of the "coalition of the willing."
If, as you say, invading Iraq was the next essential step in the war on terror, what happened to all of the support? It's diminished, I believe, because the President wasn't honest about what he was doing. Is he resolved? Yes. But, resolve is not leadership. From my perspective, leadership is primarily about credibility. And, unfortunately for us, America is lacking credibility.
If President Bush wins this election, I hope he is enough of a leader to understand that, in addition to winning the war on terror, he must win the hearts and minds of Americans and our allies. He must restore America's credibility. One does not get the sense from the campaign that he understands that. He keeps thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. It's not good for us.
He doesn't need unanimous support. I wouldn't expect the French to join us. And while I accept that the UK, Poland, Tonga, etc. are there with us now, you can't tell me that their leaders don't also wish that at least most of the free world was on our side. Certainly, according to the polls, the poplular sentiment, even in the UK and Poland, is pretty negative. Let's hope Major does not suffer the same fate as Aznar. Otherwise, America will truly be on its own.
Look, my personal support for the war on terror is pretty much up for grabs. I am completely in favor of preemptive military action. I think that the entire Arab Muslim world is fundamentally corrupt, oppressive, and in desperate need of reform. And, I don't believe that the use of American military power should be subjected to any approval by foreign powers.
I don't think that's what this debate is about. This debate, in my view, is about is whether we have a credible leader who took the right steps to pursue an objective -- an objective that everyone agreed with. There are any number of other steps that could have been taken. He could have gone after terrorists is Syria or Lebanon. He could have attacked the fundamentalist strains in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt or Pakistan. He could have gone after them in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia. But, whatever action the President decided to take, he needed to do it with credibility. That's the issue, and that's why he has lost me.
Thank you for taking my comments seriously and posting an thoughtful response. Responsible people can disagree about what the President did, or did not do. It would be great if the Presidential debate could be as responsible.
I'm not arguing the Just War Theory, so much as I'm arguing the Credible War Theory. As you say, history will judge whether the war in Iraq is just -- and that history is written by the victors. There is no doubt in my mind that the civilized world will be the victor in this clash of civilizations. So, there is a good chance it will all work out in the end. :) But, you do need to have a credible reason (i.e., an "arguable" reason). The President had a shot, and he blew it.
At the present time, America's standing in the free world has gone from an all-time high after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, to a treacherous low since Iraq. That is directly, unquestionably, the result of this President's leadership. There is nobody else to blame. Above all else, the President is responsible for the foreign policy of the United States. Congress gave him the power to go to war. But, he made the decisions about how to do it. He decided what he would tell the American people, and the international community, about what he was doing. And, he decided how and when to invade, and who would be part of the "coalition of the willing."
If, as you say, invading Iraq was the next essential step in the war on terror, what happened to all of the support? It's diminished, I believe, because the President wasn't honest about what he was doing. Is he resolved? Yes. But, resolve is not leadership. From my perspective, leadership is primarily about credibility. And, unfortunately for us, America is lacking credibility.
You question why the administration would have wanted to invade Iraq pre-9/11? Much has been written on this subject, as there is a vast trove of documentation. I suggest you review the following link. There, you will find, among other things, that on 1/26/98, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), wrote to President Clinton, urging an invasion of Iraq without UN approval. That letter "was signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including (future) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, and Bush's special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=pre911Plans
In 2000, the Republican Party made the removal of Saddam Hussein part of their platform. This was all pre-9/11/01. If President Bush wins this election, I hope he is enough of a leader to understand that, in addition to winning the war on terror, he must win the hearts and minds of Americans and our allies. He must restore America's credibility. One does not get the sense from the campaign that he understands that. He seems to be pursuing a course of action that he decided on well before 9/11/01. He keeps thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. It's not good for us.
He doesn't need unanimous international support. I wouldn't expect the French to join us. And while I accept that the UK, Poland, Tonga, etc. are there with us now, you can't tell me that their leaders don't also wish that at least most of the free world was on our side. Certainly, according to the polls, the popular sentiment, even in the UK and Poland, is pretty negative. Let's hope Major does not suffer the same fate as Aznar. Otherwise, America will truly be on its own. Despite what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz think about that, I think it's a bad idea.
Look, my personal support for the war on terror is pretty much up for grabs. I am completely in favor of preemptive military action. I think that the entire Arab Muslim world is fundamentally corrupt, oppressive, and in desperate need of reform. And, I don't believe that the use of American military power should be subjected to any approval by foreign powers. But, because we don't need support does not mean we should recklessly proceed without it. The President's rationale for why we had to go into Iraq before waiting for UN weapons inspectors to finish their job was that Saddam could hit us with a nuke in 40 minutes. Guess what, it wasn't true. It wasn't even remotely possible. So, why didn't we wait, garner more support and evidence, and then go in with the world's support? Did you actually beleive, at the time, it was possible? I didn't, but I was willing to accept that I didn't have all the information. The President did, and he was wrong. As I said in my last post, "you don't get a do-over for a screw up of that magnitude."
I don't think this debate is about preemptive military action. This debate, in my view, is about is whether we have a credible leader who took the right steps to pursue an objective -- an objective that everyone agreed with. There are any number of other steps that could have been taken. He could have waited to go into Iraq. He could have gone after terrorists is Syria or Lebanon. He could have attacked the fundamentalist strains in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt or Pakistan. He could have gone after them in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia. But, whatever action the President decided to take, he needed to do it with credibility. An international war, by definition, requires international diplomacy and support. That's the issue, and that's why he has lost me.
Finally, I want to apologize for posting under the Anonymous handle. I have registered for a couple of blogs and usenet groups in the past, and now my email is so filled with spam that I'm unwilling to give my email address to anyone unless I'm paying them to keep it confidential. Besides, to all the spammers out there, please note that my penis is plenty large enough, so your efforts are wasted!
AMP
I'm obviously too quick on the "publish" button. Sorry for the two postings. And, sorry to John Major. I meant Tony Blair!
My compliments for running an excellent blog and being fair to your commentors. Keep up the good work! I'll be reading!
Anon, every fibre of my being tells me this is futile, but I'm trying to be nice like NonPC & assume your question, " what does [the Invasion of Iraq [ed] have to do with the war on terror?", is an honest one.
I'm a political junkie who reads several dozen articles & blogs every day. (24 a day X 365 X 3 totals about 27,000 since 9/11.) I want to you read the only one I've ever emailed to everyone in my address book and then printed out & taken to Staples for copies to snailmail everyone I know who doesn't get email.
It is the ONE true "Must Read" of the last 3 years. I wish I could put it in the hands of everyone in the Western world.
It's on many websites; I chose this one because of its very readable format.
http://www.joshuatreevillage.com/601/laryabra.htm
I'd really like to know what you and anyone else who'll read it thinks of it.
That show of support on 9/12/01 that Bush is supposed to have somehow lost? Read - The Legend of the Squandered Sympathy - which points out that even in the "We are all Americans" editorial there was anti-Americanism, which returned to being quite blatant after less than two weeks.
Post a Comment
<< Home