Iraq War Consensus: Not Going Well (With Friends Like These Edition)

Nick Gillespie | September 12, 2005

The fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks has occasioned any number of pieces on the state of the war in Iraq (in a weird way, this symbolizes that the Bush administration has been completely successful in fusing the two things in the public's imagination). So check this out:

For all the good that the United States has done in ending the bloody dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and giving the Iraqi people a chance at a democratic future, we have not managed to give Iraqis something that is no less important: protection from terrorists who are determined to destroy any decent future for them. And that may prove impossible to achieve if the United States fails to rethink its tactics on the battlefield and adopt a better strategy to help the Iraqi people confront the jihadists.

That's coming from reliable Bush ally (certainly on foreign policy), The Washington Times. Whole thing here.

Over at the Wash Post, Robert Kagan--an early and influential hawk (with the Weekly Standard's William Kristol, he beat the war drums early and often)--takes time to recall the halcyon days of yesteryear when everyone (almost) was in favor of toppling Saddam:

If you read even respectable journals these days, including this one, you would think that no more than six or seven people ever supported going to war in Iraq. A recent piece in The Post's Style section suggested that the war was an "idea" that President Bush "dusted off" five years after Bill Kristol and I came up with it in the Weekly Standard.

That's not the way I recall it. I recall support for removing Saddam Hussein by force being pretty widespread from the late 1990s through the spring of 2003, among Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, as well as neoconservatives. We all had the same information, and we got it from the same sources. I certainly had never based my judgment on American intelligence, faulty or otherwise, much less on the intelligence produced by the Bush administration before the war.

Whole thing here. Kagan's piece is useful in that it captures one of the reasons why we went to war in the first place: Beyond 9/11 (and that's a pretty big beyond), there was a fairly widespread consensus for years that Saddam was a problem could no longer be "contained." Well, there's nothing like a bungled occupation (see Wash Times above) to push the go-along crowd to the other side of the fence.

In our October 2002 issue, Reason looked back at the 9/11 attacks. Read our analyses here.

And long before the boots were on the ground, we hosted a debate on "Should we invade Iraq?" with Ohio State's John Mueller saying no and Cato Institute's Brink Lindsey saying yes. That's here.

Comments

|9.12.05 @ 8:57AM|#

It would be interesting to get Mueller and Lindsey back for an episode of "Hindsight: 20/20" and see how their assessments of the situation may have changed.

And I don't remember the support having been as widespread, but I was in Ann Arbor, so my samples were likely pretty skewed.

|9.12.05 @ 9:04AM|#

It would be interesting to get Mueller and Lindsey back for an episode of "Hindsight: 20/20" and see how their assessments of the situation may have changed.

I thought that if you change your mind about something after learning more facts, that makes you one of those vile "flip-floppers."

Remember: the worldview you have at the age of twenty MUST remain unchanged until you die.

|9.12.05 @ 9:16AM|#

I hope not, Jennifer; I've only had this one for a few years and it's getting kind of threadbare.

|9.12.05 @ 9:19AM|#

Rich Ard--

You might change your mind about something? Uh-oh.

|9.12.05 @ 9:34AM|#

"I recall support for removing Saddam Hussein by force being pretty widespread from the late 1990s through the spring of 2003, among Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, as well as neoconservatives."

Hold it there, bub. Agreeing that it would be nice if Saddam Hussein was removed and replaced with a liberal democratic government isn't the same thing as supporting Bush's orchestrated plan to start a war.

|9.12.05 @ 9:52AM|#

OK, Nick, if you are trying to convince me that a larger portion of our talking heads initially supported this war than their current stances might indicate, fine--you are not telling me anything I didn't already know generally: most of them are full of crap.

This was a no-freaking-brainer then, and (of course) even more so now. Perhaps just a few of our would-be wise men (and women) have learned a valuable lesson out of all this: never, ever take anything your government says at face value; your first instinct should always be to ask yourself "Why are they telling me this?", and your first response should be to say "Prove it." And always consider the past credibility of those who purport to offer such "proof".

Next time, nobody has any excuses. And there will most certainly be a next time. A suggested tonic in advance: revisit a decent collection of Mencken (timely advice on this day, his 125th birthday!)

|9.12.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Agreeing that it would be nice if Saddam Hussein was removed and replaced with a liberal democratic government isn't the same thing as supporting Bush's orchestrated plan to start a war.

I personally agree that it would be wonderful if those e-mail writers from Nigeria and Sierra Leone really did have millions of dollars in unclaimed money to share with me, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to give those guys my bank account information.

|9.12.05 @ 10:16AM|#

"It would be interesting to get Mueller and Lindsey back for an episode of 'Hindsight: 20/20' and see how their assessments of the situation may have changed"

Brink has changed his mind; the whole WMD thing was pretty central for him.

|9.12.05 @ 10:22AM|#

"We all had the same information, and we got it from the same sources."

Bing!

Mr. Kagan, you may have answered your own question.

|9.12.05 @ 10:25AM|#

"there was a fairly widespread consensus for years that Saddam was a problem could no longer be "contained."

Widespread consensus? Saddam was completely contained and his regime was very weak, on the brink of collapse in many aspects.

|9.12.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Yeah, a widespread consensus. Doesn't everybody remember all the time devoted to Iraq in the 2000 presidential debates? How Gore and Bush both strove to tap into the national zeitgeist by explaining how much more effective they would be at waging the upcoming war than their opponent?

Warren|9.12.05 @ 11:11AM|#

FWIW, I remember tens of thousands of people demonstrating in the street, up until the bombs started falling.

|9.12.05 @ 11:57AM|#

At some point we need to move past emotional conspiracy theories and look at the facts. The U.S. Senate, the entire National Security Council, U.N. weapons inpector officials and many others including those in the Clinton Administration (both before and after the invasion) believed that Saddam had WMD's and should be removed for that and various other reasons. You either have to believe that they were doing the best they could with the information given to them from intelligence agencies around the world, or you have to believe that they are in some way all inept or in this together. The trail of logic that leaders since the 90's were laying out amongst each other in their efforts to keep the world and their own people safe must be taken seriously. Leaders are human and make, what they feel, are decisions in the best interest of their country and its people. For sure, there are lessons to be learned from every situation in hindsight, but let's not rewrite history for our own convenience. We, the American people need to begin having honest dialogue about things like this, rather than giving the press and the politicians political fodor to lob insults and half-truths at each other. We must reason with our own emotions and be honest about our own motivations first, and then we can begin to hear each other and disgree with integrity, dignity, and honor. President Harry Truman was burdened by the weight of dropping the Atomic Bomb on a civilian population, President John F. Kennedy launched the U.S. into Vietnam with good intentions, Winston Churchill stood defiant as Hitler reduced London to rubble around him. These men were human, and members of free and fair societies attempting to remain free, and to do what was right. I believe America and it's leaders still hold this heart and intention today, whether democrat or republican. Let us debate rigorously, but lay down our stones against each other. We live in a society where we actually convince ourselves that traffic lights and people who cut us off on the freeway have something personal against us. This individualism and self-interest will only divide us. "...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to insure the survival and the success of liberty." (J.F.K. January 20, 1961)

|9.12.05 @ 12:07PM|#

Next time, nobody has any excuses. And there will most certainly be a next time. A suggested tonic in advance: revisit a decent collection of Mencken (timely advice on this day, his 125th birthday!)

Incredible! Just yesterday, I happened to pick up My Life as Author and Editor and a bracing tonic it was. His belief that competence is all seems especially relevant.

|9.12.05 @ 12:09PM|#

Can you provide any links, Julian? I'm having trouble finding any of his editorials since about 2003 on this topic.

|9.12.05 @ 12:09PM|#

Can you provide any links, Julian? I'm having trouble finding any of his editorials since about 2003 on this topic.

|9.12.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Damn, thought I caught that before it went through.

Mark Bahner|9.12.05 @ 12:51PM|#

"Agreeing that it would be nice if Saddam Hussein was removed and replaced with a liberal democratic government isn't the same thing as supporting Bush's orchestrated plan to start a war."

So...maybe if we'd all held hands and sung, "Kumbaya," the Good Lord would have changed Saddam's (and his sons') cold heart(s), and the three of them would have voluntarily stepped down, and worked to form a democratic government?

Don't get me wrong. I myself supported "other" means to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his sons.

Specifically, I supported "Rent a Coup"...the U.S. Congress paying the Iraqi Army to imprison Saddam and his sons, and then step aside to allow formation of a democratic government. (Also offering paid asylum to senior Iraqi officers and their families who participated in the coup.)

EVERYONE agreed Saddam and his sons were bad. You--and I--didn't support going to war. I supported "Rent a Coup." What did YOU support? (Friendly piece of advice: Singing "Kumbaya" probably wouldn't work!)

P.S. I also supported first getting a Constitutional amendment to generically authorize "Rent a Coups," since Congressional appropriation of such money is not currently authorized by Article I, Section 8.

P.P.S. I still support getting such a Constitutional amendment, even though it's too late to use it for Iraq.

Mark Bahner|9.12.05 @ 12:55PM|#

"The U.S. Senate, the entire National Security Council, U.N. weapons inpector officials and many others including those in the Clinton Administration (both before and after the invasion) believed that Saddam had WMD's and should be removed for that and various other reasons."

Yes, but there was a better way to do it than sending in the U.S. military. (Specifically, paying the Iraqi military would have been a better way.)

Tim Cavanaugh|9.12.05 @ 1:03PM|#

among Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, as well as neoconservatives.

Well, hell, that's everybody, right? I'll bet Kagan's sample of American opinion even included people from both sides of the Ellipse.

|9.12.05 @ 1:22PM|#

The U.S. Senate, the entire National Security Council, U.N. weapons inpector officials and many others including those in the Clinton Administration (both before and after the invasion) believed that Saddam had WMD's and should be removed for that and various other reasons.

When did Russia or China, or UN inspectors say that Saddam should be removed ? I challenge you to provide facts to support this claim. Some how I doubt you will be able to.

|9.12.05 @ 3:18PM|#

Mark, holding hands and singing Kumbahyah, as idiotic a straw man as that is, would have produced better results than we are seeing now.

How does it feel to know that Dennis Kucinich has a better, more realistic understanding of national security and geopolitics than you?

Rent a coup, which was an ongoing strategy, would have been nice. Building up an oppositin, in and out of the country, would have been nice, too.

"The U.S. Senate, the entire National Security Council, U.N. weapons inpector officials and many others including those in the Clinton Administration (both before and after the invasion) believed that Saddam had WMD's and should be removed for that and various other reasons." Uh, no. Most of these people believed that Saddam might or might not have had WMDs, and that the uncertainty made some kind of action necessary.

From there to "we know where Saddam's WMDs are, we know he has an ongoing nuclear program, we know he has intercontential drones o' death and can launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes" is a long, long way.

|9.12.05 @ 3:59PM|#

"Yes, but there was a better way to do it than sending in the U.S. military. (Specifically, paying the Iraqi military would have been a better way.)"

Better ways were not working for too many years, and the threat he represented was building. Weapons inspectors had been expelled in 1998, and any negotiations allowing them back in were just smoke screens to stall for time... a similar tactic recently employed by Iran that allowed them to prepare for the reopenning of their own nuclear program behind the scenes while they played the cat and mouse game with the U.N. Saddam could have avoided this war by complying. Why would he not at the risk of losing his power?

I'll accept your suggestion about paying off Saddam's military, but how would we have paid his military while they remained so loyal to him (many even to this day) out of intimidation and fear of death at the slightest sign of disloyalty? I am completely with you about exhausting all other efforts. I don't know of anyone that doesn't wish there had been a better way. We have to re-insert ourselves back into the time frame and context of the events at the time of these decisions and not wish for something different in our rear view mirror. Maybe some will remember the following event...

(December 16, 1998 - President Clinton ordered a "substantial military strike" against Iraq Wednesday because of its continued failure to allow U.N. weapons inspections, officials said. Military sources said the attack began with long-range cruise missiles and would last up to four days. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said the president ordered the strikes Wednesday morning after reading the latest U.N. reports about noncompliance by the Iraqis and consulting with his national security staff.)

|9.12.05 @ 6:10PM|#

"For all the good that the United States has done in ending the bloody dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and giving the Iraqi people a chance at a democratic future, we have not managed to give Iraqis something that is no less important: protection from terrorists who are determined to destroy any decent future for them."

I'm glad for all the good things that happen to the Iraqi people, but I'm much more concerned about protecting Americans from terrorism.

...Doesn't the Washington Times have anything to say about what the Iraq War has done to protect the American people from terrorism, or have they just conceded the point?

"Critics of the war effort attempt to make the mendacious -- and demonstrably false -- claims that Iraq will inevitably become a carbon copy of America's unsuccessful effort to prevent a Communist takeover of Vietnam. But there are huge differences between the two situations."

...of course, there are similarities.

For instance, what America got, in both cases, wasn't worth the price it paid in American lives and limbs.

|9.12.05 @ 6:25PM|#

1: I never believed Saddam was a threat...the fact that no WMD's have been found pretty much vindicates me there.

2: I don't believe in pre-emptive wars on shaky evidence. It sets a bad precedence and goes against much of what America stands for, not to mention a long American tradition.

3: We should have liberalised trade relations with Iraq, as well as building up resistence within the country...factions such as the Kurds and Shiites (or is it Sunnis? Can never get them straight) could have been aided by our trade, and by more clandestine dealings. I would not, however, be too stoked to see us repeat the mistakes we made in, say, S America. So no arming thugs.

In the end, however, I was just not worried about Saddam Hussein. And why should I have been? Can anyone point out any evidence that the fuck could do me any harm? Seriously. We are not the world's police.

Fuck yeah!

|9.12.05 @ 9:04PM|#

What Lowdog said:
Fuck yeah!

In VN, maybe I was on the cutting edge of PC, seeing as how I was, among other things, an S-5 (civil affairs officer).
But the problem with how countries wage wars is that those who have just a little empathy and understanding of the enemy are S-5 rather than S-1. Peaceniks such as moi are four degrees of separation from sanity, making the War Party "S" out of luck when it hits the fan.

Adam|9.12.05 @ 9:21PM|#

Julian, I can't find anything either - and Lindsey was one of those who pointed out that Zarqawi was hangin' out in Iraq, receiving medical care (and he pointed this out before the invasion began). I see he was on a Cato/Objectivist Center panel in '04, but can't find any accounts of that discussion. Please do share how you came to learn of his conversion to your side.

Mark Bahner|9.12.05 @ 10:24PM|#

"Mark, holding hands and singing Kumbahyah, as idiotic a straw man as that is, would have produced better results than we are seeing now."

If your definition of "better results than we are seeing now" is Saddam Hussein and his sons in power until the year 2025 ("if man is still alive"), then you're right.

Otherwise, you are wrong. There was absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein and his sons would be deposed at least for several more decades.

"How does it feel to know that Dennis Kucinich has a better, more realistic understanding of national security and geopolitics than you?"

Dennis Kucinich is a leftist twit. (Hmmm...reminds me of certain Hit and Run commentators!) That you would bring up a man who wants to create a "Department of Peace," as a man with a realistic understanding of national security just shows how far out of touch with reality you are!

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1564#Legislation%20to%20Create%20a%20Department%20of%20Peace

"Rent a coup, which was an ongoing strategy, would have been nice."

"Rent a Coup" was NOT "an ongoing strategy." I'll give you $20 if you can point me to even any extended Congressional discussion of the idea that Congress should appropriate billions of dollars to pay the Iraqi military to overthrow Saddam Hussein and sons. And I'll give you $50 if you can show me any Congressional *vote* on appropriating billions of dollars to give to the Iraqi military to overthrow Saddam Hussein and sons...even if that proposal was voted down.

Apparently, the Senate voted $100 million to give to the Iraqi National Congress. That�s NOT the same as giving billions to the Iraqi **military.**

"Building up an opposition, in and out of the country, would have been nice, too."

Opposition, schmoposition. That's sooooo typical of leftists...offer the (indisputable) opinion that it would be nice if we all ate granola and lived in peace!

The opposition gained control of 14 of 18 governates after GW I. Then Saddam Hussein brutally crushed them. Virtually the only way that another attempt would be made to overthrow him would be if the vast majority of the Iraqi military (say, 95%+) could be made to see PERSONAL profit from taking the risk to overthrow him.

If the U.S. had offered ~3 years salary for every member of the Iraqi military up to the rank of colonel to overthrow Saddam and his sons, that probably would have worked. But hoping that "the opposition" would step forward out of concern for their country displays a naivete about human nature so spectacular that probably only leftists possess it.

Mark Bahner|9.12.05 @ 10:34PM|#

Hi Doug,

You write, "Better ways were not working for too many years,..."

I don't agree that my method of "Rent a Coup" has EVER been tried by any country, at any time.

Here's how it would have worked (ignoring the fact that a Constitutional amendment would first be required, since the federal government routinely ignores the Constitution). President Bush would have invited Congressional leaders (from BOTH parties) up to the White House (or gone to them), and suggested the idea of paying the Iraqi military to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons, and proposing a certain amount of money for the job. For simplicity's sake, let's say Congress voted to give $3 billion to the Iraqi military.

For simplicity's sake, let's also say that there were 300,000 members of the Iraqi military. So that works out to an **average** of $10,000 apiece. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that $10,000 might be 5 years pay for the **average** Iraqi soldier.

The pay would go to every soldier and officer up to the rank of colonel (no generals would be eligible). The payment would work such that every soldier and officer would get a payment equal to the same number of years of salary. (That is, if a private made $1000 a year, he would get $5000, but if a captain made $5000, he would get $25,000.)

Further, the 500 top-ranked officers (e.g. the highest ranking colonels) would all be given offers of asylum in the U.S. or other countries for them and their immediate families (say, up to 15 people).

The military would be made aware of this offer by dropping tons and tons of leaflets in Arabic, explaining the offer, on all the military outposts and in all the cities of Iraq.

The payment would only be made if, after imprisoning Saddam Hussein and his sons, the Iraqi military agreed to turn the government over to civilians.

We would disburse the money by sending in the U.S. military to make the payments. For every 10 U.S. military members killed, the payment would go down by 2 percent. In other words, if 500 U.S. military members were killed while trying to make the payments, the Iraqi military would get nothing.

I think this method is far superior to military action, and I think it should be evaluated in great detail for use on "one-man" dictatorial regime on earth (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc. etc.).

I think that with a couple hundred billion dollars, the world could eliminate the dictatorships in North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Zimbabwe, etc. etc.

The key thing is to choose very poor countries (where the military is very poorly paid) that are run by essentially a single man. In such cases, there is very little risk to the members of the military to revolt against that single man, and there's a very big reward to them (in terms of several years of pay).

"We have to re-insert ourselves back into the time frame and context of the events at the time of these decisions and not wish for something different in our rear view mirror."

I proposed the "Rent a Coup" method of paying the Iraqi military BEFORE the U.S. invaded in March 2003.

Mark

|9.13.05 @ 12:18AM|#

Y'all just don't get it. Uncle Sam has learned from his mistakes.

Iraq and NO were both rescue operations. But in Iraq we forgot (!) to take away the guns.

Why do you think they're disarming everybody in NO? There ain't gonna be no bayou jihadists this time, no sir.

|9.13.05 @ 12:27AM|#

I was never sure of whether Iraq was a threat or not. Dug around on the internet and found as many references pro as con, both from seemingly 'authoritative' sources.

Bush wouldn't make the case clear, but Saddam wouldn't back down. It was a wash, to me.

Only after the fact was it clear that neither Bush nor Saddam had planned very well.

|9.13.05 @ 12:36AM|#

I proposed the "Rent a Coup" method of paying the Iraqi military BEFORE the U.S. invaded in March 2003.

If this idea is so sure to work, then I don't see why it won't work in Iraq now better than it did before. The "insurgents" in Iraq today don't even draw a pay check.

All you should need to do is get a neutral third party to bring in the piles of dough and make the offer: we'll pay you to stop fighting.

Incidentally, the Romans, Byzantines, and numerous others have paid off their attackers over the ages. A few years at most, and you usually have to pay them again.

And again.

And again...

Hell, why don't we just offer to pay Iraq to become a democracy?

I don't think it's fair to say the risk of revolt to the rank and file is small. If the regime was that weak, somebody would already have done it.

It doesn't take that many "loyal" individuals to make that kind of revolt very dangerous.

|9.13.05 @ 12:38AM|#

Incidentally, I wasn't sure if Iraq was a threat. But I did predict that the US would not be willing to "do all the evil that good requires". I predicted that it would take nothing short of Machiavellian measures to pacify the country.

Small consolation, but I believe I was right about that.

|9.13.05 @ 12:28PM|#

I agree with you Kahn. Paying off the military would not insure that Iraq, or any other country for that matter, would become any more democratic or friendly toward the western world. After all, the Bathists were a minority in power. I think Saddam would simply have been replaced with another Bathist dictator and we'd have to pay to take him down. Heck, they'd probably promise to kill their dictator every few years if the U.S. would pay them for it. There would have to be a lot of stipulations in order to ensure a good long-term outcome, and there are too many outside forces operating against a system left to itself in that sort of environment. Outide forces including Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt... Not only that, but dropping leaflets to the military about the plan would almost certainly have reached Saddam's ears through his loyalists. He might have had a few of his generals execetued just as an example to anyone who might entertain the idea.

|9.13.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Hello a,

You're right, I should have seperated my train of thought on my comment:

"The U.S. Senate, the entire National Security Council, U.N. weapons inpector officials and many others including those in the Clinton Administration (both before and after the invasion) believed that Saddam had WMD's and should be removed for that and various other reasons."

I'll try to provide more clarity in the future as I can see one is taken to task quickly out here. Lot of feathers ruffling up.

Correction: They all "believed" he had WMD and the security council signed resolution 1441. The security council's language was "final opportunity to comply" and "serious consequences". Resolution 1441 goes on to state that "The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security."

Russia and China could give a rip about the rest of the world, and in many cases their own citizens. The U.S. Congress gave the authority for the President to act militarily under a number of facts and assumptions they believed to be true concerning Iraq. The President acted under this authority.

Here is the Senate and House joint resolution. I suggest it's a good read for everyone. It takes us back to what our senators and representatives believed to be true at the time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

|9.13.05 @ 2:10PM|#

I see none of the hawks could point me to any evidence that Saddam was a threat to me, or to them.

"But he was bad!" Wow. So what? There's lots of bad-guys around the world. Do we go after all of them? What's that? I don't hear anything...

|9.13.05 @ 4:47PM|#

Your scope is too narrow Lowdog. The threat that Saddam posed was not about any one individual in particular. The government was convinced that he posed a threat to our citizen population.

Here's an interesting quote:

"The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Who said it?

President Bill Clinton - Dec. 19,1998 after launching missile strikes against Iraq

Same regime, same threat, different administration. Seems to be a prevailing theme here.