The Vision Thing

New at Reason: Why are we in Iraq?

Comments

[thoreau]

Well, obviously it was because Iraq was involved in 9/11.

What, they weren't? Well, I never said that. I said that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Get your facts straight.

What, there's no weapons? Duh! I never said there were. I said they would soon have weapons.

What, no labs? Duh! That was never the reason. We said all along that it was to free the Iraqi people.

Why are you asking me if this means we'll also invade Cuba to be consistent? I never said anything about freeing the Iraqi people. I've said all along that we went in to fight the terrorists on their own turf.

(time passes)

We're invading Iraq with assistance from Eastasia. Eastasia has always been our ally, and Iraq has always been our enemy.

(time passes)

We're invading Eastasia with Iraqi assistance. Iraq has always been our ally, and Eastasia has always been our enemy.

(more time passes)

Eastasia and Iraq must be neutralized. They have always been our enemies, and we must vanquish them once and for all.

(lots of time passes)

Four legs good! Two legs bad!

(more time)

Four legs good! Two legs better!

(Those who haven't read Orwell won't understand this.)

[fyodor]

Tim, you forgot the "He tried to kill my Daddy" one!

[Shadow Hunter]

My personal favorite conspiracy theory is that of political triangulation.

In Bin Laden's first video after 9-11, he mentions three political goals in addition to restoring the caliphlate(sp?)in Spain, and presumably elsewhere.

The three were ending sanctions against Iraq, getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia and ending the occupation of Palestine.

In the most profane manner of war as politics by other means. President Bush sought to undermine Bin Laden politically by taking away his issues in a way advantageous to the U.S. and himself.

In invading Iraq Bush was able to end the Iraq sanctions and get the U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. President Bush then tried to create peace through his "Roadmap to Peace" between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

[Josh]

Christ, is there anything more annoying misappropriating Orwell for every political argument? Maybe that Ben Franklin "Those would trade security..." quote that gets mangled all over the place.

[Todd Fletcher]

Good article Tim. I think you've articulated some of my own thoughts, even though I've supported the war.

Many people I know seemed to implicitly accept the 'neocon' argument, though of course it was never articulated by the Administration. I think they were just too chicken to say it out loud and hand a big issue to the opponents of the war to hammer them on.

[s'wonderful]

ummm...
"could inspire democratic trends throughout the Middle East."
Hasn't the president said just that?
That he wants to create a free, democratic Iraq for this reason. I'm a little disappointed with the direction Reason seems to be going. I suggest that Tim clear his mind, and go listen to the last 3 (5?) speeches from the president about Iraq. Hell, go back to the start of the war in Iraq. It was pretty spelled out.
Is this a hail mary pass? Absolutely.
Also, why does there have to be ONE reason? How about ALL the reasons that Tim stated. But that may be too obvious, I guess.

[Josh]

I agree with s'wonderful. Reason in the past few months has degenerated from thoughtful skepticism on foreign policy entanglements to intellectually dishonest moveon.org-esque hysteria. Used to be I could check out Reason.com to find well-articulated pro and con arguments on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., but Cavanaugh and Julian Sanchez are turning the place into an isolationist echo chamber. Disappointing.

[thoreau]

Josh-

How did I misappropriate Orwell? I'm not suggesting Orwell would be for or against the war in Iraq (I have no clue where he would stand). I'm talking about our leaders' strategy here, not the actual war. Our leaders' PR campaign has been an ever-shifting series of possible explanations, and it bears some eerie resemblances to 1984 and Animal Farm. Obviously this isn't a dictatorship like Oceania and Manor Farm were. But the observations on how leaders go about lying to the public apply to all societies, not just totalitarian states.

It would better if they had just said from the beginning "Look, there's a whole lot of reasons to overthrow Hussein. Some people might say that particular reasons on that list are insufficient in their own right, but when you add them all up it's pretty clear that this has to happen." One might still disagree with that statement, but it would be far more honest than the flavor-of-the-week explanations we've gotten.

[Anonymous]

Let's leave aside the fact that the Bush Administration never claimed Saddam Hussein was directly behind the 9/11 attacks. Let's ignore the clear nexus between Iraq and other anti-American terrorists groups, including Al-Qaeda. Let's ignore that many complained that Bush gave too many reasons for the war, as if there can be only one. Let's ignore that the adminstration made clear arguments from the start that this is a war on anti-American terror, not just on one group of nuts (and the public understands). Let's ignore that Cavanaugh claims Iraq simply could never be a threat to us, "direct or indirect," which is so obviously wrong it hardly seems worth debating.

Okay, here's what gets me. Cavanaugh repeats the factoid that 70% (or more) Americans believe Hussein was behind 9/11. Not true--read the poll. 33% think it's very likely he was behind it, 37% think it's somewhat likely (which simply means he could have been involved in some roundabout way if at all) and the rest think it's unlikely he had anything to do with it or have no opinion. On other words, about two-thirds of the public, according to this much-cited poll, essentially don't believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

[Hovig John Heghinian]

Great article. Now I know the truth: we'll only have a valid reason for having gone to war after the President tells us what it was. Now I realize it was naive to believe that little inconveniences like personal opinions actually mattered. Now I understand I won't know why I supported the war until GW Bush tells me why. Gosh, I thought all those years of humanitarian nightmares, regional instability, insults to the United Nations, pan-Arabist posturing by Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine and others, and the increasing threat of terrorism availing itself of Saddam's multi-billion-dollar fortune (estimated at twenty to one hundred times bin Laden's wealth) were not what I actually believed after all. I guess I'll just sit here drooling and snoring on my overstuffed sofa and wait for my President to tell me what I really thought.

[Hovig John Heghinian]

thoreau:

The argument that once we attack Iraq we therefore have to attack every other humanitarian nightmare on the planet is intellectually dishonest. I say this as someone who sincerely has the greatest respect for your postings on this blog, and the most profound disappointment in your comments above, which, forgive me, I found facile.

At those times I permit myself the conceit of pretending I'm an executive, making world-changing decisions, rather than a legislator, second-guessing them and philosophizing into the thin air, I imagine myself drawing up a list of those military actions which would be most profitable, by any combination of metrics one might devise: moral, financial, strategic, security-wise, or otherwise. By many measures, it's easily argued that at the beginning of this year (if not the beginning of every year since 1991), Iraq rose to the top of such a list, if not dominated it, with North Korea near behind. Putting aside the burning necessity of Afghanistan, the "Axis of Evil" was not a bad "top three" by any measure.

In that light, allow me to ask you to draw up a list of your own, rank it from 1 to 10, and tell us who your "top three" or "top five" might be, and prepare to defend your choices based on need, cost, benefit, and the ability to fit into the grander scheme of foreign policy and international need. Let's not second-guess what almost everyone here knows was the correct moral action. If we disagree with the administration's cards, let's put our own cards on the table and see if we can defend them ourselves. I dare say the choice is not as easy as nay-sayers would like to imagine.

[Anonymous]

This is beyond bizarre. Remember, folks; these defenders are the same people who couldn't be outraged enough about Clinton's consensual sex, although they had to claim it was about his lying about it. An amazing change of viewpoint, to put it mildly.

[John Thacker]

Indeed, to echo Hovig's point, why does there have to be a one reason? Surely when it comes to complicated things like international politics, there can be many reasons, each of which, by itself, might not be enough to convince one that an invasion is wise, but all of them together push one over the tipping point.

Hussein was a known enemy, and one who was a nasty dictator who actively oppressed his people. There existed a causus belli of currently violated peace terms from a previous war. He had expansionist ambitions, and constantly attempted to obtain nuclear and chemical weapons. (And had used chemical weapons on his own people.) He was willing to shelter enemies of the US, and actively sent paychecks to suicide bombers in Israel. Iraq is a country with a reasonably well-educated population; that and its oil might allow it to modernize fairly quickly and even approach democracy. A democratic Iraq would spread benefits throughout the Middle East. An alliance with a free Iraq would enable the US to disentangle itself from the close alliance with Saudi Arabia, which is proving itself unwise. (As I predicted, there seem to be moves in this direction already. Not only is another ally with oil economically useful, another ally in the region strategically useful, but we have removed the troops that were in Saudi Arabia to protect against Saddam.) Etc.

I daresay that if just one of these things were true, the argument would be insufficient. But they all hold, and that makes for a more convincing case. Different people might be convinced by different details and reasons, too. An insistence on defining the One True Reason for going in is rather ridiculous.

[JDM]

"The Bush Administration has not only given up few clues about the war's real aims."

There is only one reason the adminstration went to war, and there has always been only one reason. Terrorism is bad, terrorism with state support is unnacceptably dangerous. All of the supposed shifting reasons boil down to that. In order to avoid the possible collapse of civilization, nutcases who want to destroy it must not have the means to make that happen. Whether or not they want to make it happen is immaterial if they cannot.

The administration articulated that vision initially - in the State of the Union Address, for Christ's sake, and has not varied from it since. Which of Bush's nefarious lies do not support that vision? Bringing Democracy to the Middle East? Making an example of a Rogue State? Destroying what everyone (including Hans Blix, France, Kofi Annan, and Germany) agreed was a source of WMD? Maybe destroying a state which supported terrorism doesn't fit with Bush's often stated plan to destroy states which support terrorism in your mind, but you'll have a hard time making that argument to anyone rational.

There is nothing more pointless than willful obtuseness. You can honestly disagree with the Iraq war, but I cannot fathom how anyone can honestly say that they don't understand what it is that the Bushies are trying to do, or claim that they haven't made it clear.

If the various reasons were unrelated, you might have a point, but clutching your head and wailing that you don't understand is a little absurd given the realities of the situation.

I know that among libertarians there is a strong desire to try to describe the world and government as a wholly irrational enterprise, but in this case the reason that makes sense, which -not coincidentally - is the reason that Bush has claimed again and again motivated his policy, is the one that actually drove the decision.

[JDM]

To be fair, this "Why did we go to war?" nonsense does prove the old standby libertarian adage "If you repeat a lie often enough..." I suppose it's OK if it's the libertarians who are doing the repeating.

[John Hood]

I have to agree with several of the posters above. The argument that President Bush and his supporters keep changing their justifications for the Iraq war post facto is simply bogus. Multiple reasons were always supplied, and multiple reasons remain obvious today -- including the idea of bringing freedom to the Middle East, thus draining the terrorism swamp, which may be the "neocon" position but was also explicitly presented by the president and his Cabinet months ago.

Thoreau, for example, writes:

It would better if they had just said from the beginning "Look, there's a whole lot of reasons to overthrow Hussein. Some people might say that particular reasons on that list are insufficient in their own right, but when you add them all up it's pretty clear that this has to happen." One might still disagree with that statement, but it would be far more honest than the flavor-of-the-week explanations we've gotten.

Perhaps the contents of the news cycle change every week. Check that: the contents of the news cycle do change every week. But the above statement from Thoreau is a pretty fair paraphrasing of the administration's explicit position before the war. Perhaps addled Chomskyites and clueless college students and propagandized masses in the Third World have an excuse not to have heard these arguments, repeatedly, but few informed Americans do.

By all means, continue to disagree with any or all of these justifications. But stop pretending that they are of recent and desperate invention.

[Russ D]

I'm still waiting to hear these magic words from our adminstration: "We plan on privatizing Iraq's oil industry."

Until then, it's just all nonsense.

[Anonymous]

There doesn't have to be ONE reason. But when the situation in the Middle East is essentially unchanged from 1991, there is no justification for waging a war all of a sudden.

The only real difference in the world was the 9/11 attacks. Well, that and the US adminstration now had more "Kill Saddam" supporters than in 1991, but that was the case as soon as Kid Bush took office. The desire to attack Iraq was always there, it just needed a few more DoD people on that side and a compelling (even if not a directly responsible) cause.

[thoreau]

First, Hovig, I don't think that consistency would require us to overthrow every despotic regime. I was portraying a dialogue. A reason is given, a question is raised, and then another reason is given while the original reason is dismissed/denied. That part about consistency and despots was admittedly the weakest link in the parody. So, I say to me "I am the weakest link! Good bye!"

As to a list of military interventions:

Well, I don't think we need any more military interventions at the moment. I think we actually should scale back some of our military committments. (e.g. Why do we have forces stationed in certain wealthy countries that could afford to defend themselves?)

But I will list 6 military priorities:

1) Since we've gotten into this Iraqi mess, find a way to stabilize the place. (Easier said than done, I know, but since we're there we'll have to figure it out somehow.)

2) Find a way to make Afghanistan as stable as it can be. I supported invading Afghanistan because it was the headquarters of the group that attacked the US on 9/11, and the government of Afghanistan (the Taliban) refused to extradite Bin Laden and his associates. Now we have to bring it to some semblance of order.

Some might say it isn't our job to bring order to every place in the world, let alone aid our enemies. I agree. But we helped make the mess when we armed every lunatic eager to fight the Soviets in Central Asia 20 years ago, and we contributed to the power vacuum. And the average Afghan is NOT our enemy, and it's the average Afghan we'll be helping. Finally, for our own sake we should bring some semblance of order to Afghanistan so it doesn't spawn future menaces. This may very well include contemplating the breakup of Afghanistan into Pushtunstan, Hazarastan, Second Uzbekistan, etc. When people can't live in peace under the same roof, maybe it's time to move into separate residences.

3) In the Korean Peninsula, we have no choice but to remain, at least in the short term. But we should point out to the South Koreans that they are an industrialized nation, and mature industrialized nations pay for their own defense. We should set a time-table (say, 6 years) for withdrawal.

4) Withdraw all troops from all Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern nations except Iraq. We have no choice but to be in Iraq. As for the rest of the Arabs, maybe they should spend that oil money on their own defense. That's what grown-up countries do: Defend themselves rather than asking others to do it. If it means paying more at the pump but less on April 15, fine by me.

5) Reiterate our Cold War doctrine: The use of weapons of mass destruction against the US will result in immediate retaliation against the country responsible. If the attack is the work of a terrorist group rather than a government, any country that does not help us track down terrorists within its borders will be regarded as an enemy, and the US will overthrow that government.

Deterrence is a powerful tool. It won't work against suicidal fanatics, but it will work against the more death-shy people sponsoring them. It worked for 40 years against the communists.

6) End our military involvement in Colombia and other Andean nations. We have nothing to gain from participating in those fights. Indeed, the drug war makes drugs more profitable for terrorist groups, so the more we get involved the more we help our enemies.

OK, go ahead and bash me.

[thoreau]

Oh, I forgot priority #7 on my list of ways to disentangle ourselves from so many conflicts:

Point out to Israel that mature industrialized nations don't receive billions of dollars in foreign aid every year. Also point out to them that maybe, just maybe, they need to be a little nicer to the typical Palestinian. Notice I say the typical Palestinian. Those who engage in violence deserve a speedy trip to Valhalla or wherever people go when they die fighting.

[John Hood]

Thoreau:

Not going to bash you. I agree with much of your post and your list of priorities -- except for number 5.

Reiterate our Cold War doctrine: The use of weapons of mass destruction against the US will result in immediate retaliation against the country responsible. If the attack is the work of a terrorist group rather than a government, any country that does not help us track down terrorists within its borders will be regarded as an enemy, and the US will overthrow that government.

I'll buy the second part but the first is morally problematic. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons against innocent civilians is hard to justify, regardless of its deterrence value. Enemy governments and combatants are fair game.

I was always struck during the run-up to the war at the number of anti-war folks who would make the "just deter Iraq with nukes" argument, and not just because suicidal maniacs can't be deterred. What bothered me was that it was deemed contrary to libertarian principle to use traditional military means to prevent Saddam or others from becoming an eminent threat, either directly or by passing WMD to terrorists, but it was OK to use weapons of mass destruction later to retaliate.

That's baldly bloodthirsty, even for a "warmonger" like me. Reagan was right: mutually assured destruction is immoral and, if possible, replaced with a more defensible military posture.

[John Hood]

Sorry, make that "should be replaced with a more defensible military posture."

[thoreau]

OK, replace the phrase

"will result in immediate retaliation against the country responsible"

with

"will result in immediate retaliation against the government responsible"

Thanks for catching that. A nation is a large group of people. A government is the small group of corrupt frauds taxing and regulating them and generally causing trouble 😉

[Hovig John Heghinian]

thoreau:

Thanks for your cool-headed and very thoughtful reply. Apologies for my hot-headed challenge previously. It bothers me that people focus on some of the specific notes, but don't seem to be hearing the song. Your Cuba comment set me aboil. Sorry again.

That said, your priorities are very similar to my own, if not exactly the same. I would add an increased vigilance in Africa, encouraging both free-market and political reforms as strongly and widely as possible. I think it would be a large and lengthy undertaking, but I also feel it would reap dividends in future generations, not to mention keep the world a less hot-headed place. Perhaps you'll permit me to divert to Africa the resources you pull from the "Andean nations." Thanks for your candor and insight.

P.S. Drudge just linked to Ted Kennedy's latest remarks on the war:

There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.

[thoreau]

Hovig-

I was only talking about military priorities. I see no military priorities in Africa. I do see the importance of free market and political reforms, but I don't see any need for US military involvement in Africa. And please don't mention Africa and US military involvement in a forum where Bush might overhear it. We don't need to give this guy any more ideas 😉

The Economist has a good idea for Africa: Take the current US foreign aid budget, and pour every penny of it into AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Toss in the money currently spent on Plan Colombia, as well as money spent on Israel. Revenue-neutral, but huge bang for the buck. AIDS is certainly not the only cause of instability in Africa, but a generation of orphans and people facing imminent death has certainly not helped. And fighting those diseases would do more for economic growth in Africa (revitalizing the work force) than most of the projects the US does. Instead of guessing where resources should go and how development should proceed, secure the workforce and human capital by fighting those diseases, and let the market do the rest.

[thoreau]

Let me clarify the above: The Economist said nothing about diverting $ currently spent on Israel and Plan Colombia. Those are my embellishments. They only mentioned the foreign aid budget.

[Gil]

The administration has given multiple reasons for invading Iraq. In combination, they form a very compelling case to many people that this invasion will increase american security.

It's not Bush's fault that Tim thinks that multiple reasons is the same as no reason.

[Kevin Carson]

thoreau,

On the AIDS thing, heartless as it may sound, I'm against it. It would just be dumping billions of corporate welfare into the laps of the drug companies. As an alternative:

I don't want to open up the IP can of worms again, but leaving aside the moral status of patents as property, I believe AZT was developed entirely at government expense. At the very least, we should agree that any drug developed on the government teat should be in the public domain. That ought to drastically lower the cost of fighting AIDS in Africa, right there.

[thoreau]

Kevin-

With AIDS an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Leave aside all issues of drug companies, the fact is that (for now) AIDS drugs are expensive and complicated matters. But prevention opens so many other cans of worms in the US: Condoms, clean needles, etc. The rest of the world may take a more mature approach to condoms and clean needles, but not the good old US of A.

Although from what I understand economic growth would also curtail the spread of AIDS in places where poverty has driven women to prostitution. And the Economist has observed that if the industrialized world ended its protectionist policies that alone would do more good than all the money spent on foreign aid. So maybe free trade could make a dent in the AIDS epidemic, leaving aside the pharmaceutical cost can of worms.

With malaria it's largely the same: Simply spending money on mosquito nets would do more good than building hospitals in a lot of African countries. No need to open the pharmaceutical cost can of worms.

TB I know less about.

Finally, since many here oppose gov't foreign aid, think of this as a discussion of how a private foreign aid provider could get the most bang for its buck. Regardless of who pays for it, some uses will be more effective than others. Or, think of this as a revenue-neutral approach to public foreign aid. I'm not advocating spending a single cent more than the US gov't does, I'm simply saying that as long as that sum of money is spent (either by Uncle Sam or by private charity), some uses are more effective than others.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I'm going to agree with Kevin on this one with qualifications.

First I think that development on the government teet is not something that is beneficial to industry or the public. Let the market decide what gets developed. More need = more market = more incentive. However, whomever figures it out gets to benefit (fiscally) regardless of what Robard or whatever his name is says.

But additionally aren't we able to make some inroads to this problem through education. AIDS is an entirely preventable disease. Given that, it would seem to me that education and free rubbers would be in order.

Going back to the original thread I would like to propose another reason for attacking Iraq. Projection of American military force sends a message. We are formidable and willing to use force. Please keep that in mind when you harbor terrorists or act aggressively towards the US. The Government in North Korea has to be talking about taking this into account right about now. I can't really say this is part of the Bush equation but my guess is that it is.

Mudfalp

[Andrew Lynch]

Before reading any of the above posts, I wanted to thank you, Tim, for a provocative and sensible piece of writing. I think you've hit a number of nails squarely on the head, primarily that this isn't really about lies, but about a reluctance to treat the American people like intelligent adults, capable of making up their own minds based on a vision -- amorphous or hard as diamond -- about the future of the Middle East.

The unfortunate truth is that most of us (Americans) are too smart to have approved of a war that would "transform" anything, let alone the Middle East. The now tiresome adage about promoting democracy abroad still seems like the handsome side of a fascist coin. Given that, monumental reductionism seemed the only route to go. Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Get him! He's about to attack us with toxins, germs, and nukes? Get him. He's a blight on the middle east? Get him. Sex sells, long-term, multi-generational vision don't. Not when the salesman is George Bush.

OK, now I'll go see what everyone else has to say.

[Mudflap]

Just saw Thoreaus's post. Once again he has said it more eloquently than I am capable of.

Mudfap

[Ray]

We're in Iraq because Saddam posed a credible threat to us via his terrorist activity.

After 911, President Bush said very plainly that we were going to go after state sponsored terrorism; the terrorists themselves and those who gave them life whether it was financial support or giving them someplace to hide/train.

Everything after that is diplomatic window dressing to create a "last straw" in order to get rid of certain regimes.

Iran will be neutralized, we're just waiting for the "last straw." N.Korea will pinched until they implode. They are closer to this imposion than most people think.

In my opinion, of course I don't know anything since - unlike many here - I'm not on the top secret memo list from the White House, but I genuinely believe that we are working from within in the Saudi kingdom to bring about a downfall of the status quo there as well.

As for WMD, we know for a fact that Saddam has had and used them at one time, we know that he is a sponsor of international terrorism, we know that he doesn't much care for the U.S., and we know that he at least had plans for a nuclear program and the semi-clandestine support of some of our European friends.

After 911, all of that is reason enough to consider Saddam a credible threat and reason enough to depose him.

In closing; what caused 911 was the same kind of thinking so prevalent around here. Navel gazing sophistry that caused so many credible threats to be lost in the bureaucratic morass.

[Andrew Lynch]

Now that I've read all of the above posts, you people scare me. What's with all the high-falutin', over-rationalized interventionism? That's just creepy? Warmongering isn't the problem around here. It's the busybody syndrome. The justification of aggression borne up on half-baked policies as a result of hubris so deep it drowns. Planeta Nostrum, anyone?

[Ray]

Andrew Lynch

You may enjoy writing solely for the sake of it but I assure you, no one wants to read your posts just for the sake of reading something.

Refute something, say something of substance, anything.

[Warren]

Andrew,
I was gratified to read your post. These people scare the shit out of me too. Seems to me the bankruptcy of the pro-war faction has been meticulously documented ad-nauseam and is now Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer. Still it's good to know there are saner minds not of the loony-leftist stripe.

[Ray]

Warren;

What is this, a support group for the hopelessly disconnected?

"Gee Andrew, even though your posts don't actually make any sense or touch on anything factual, I love you man! I can't argue with anything Ray has to say either but, darn it, I like myself and I like you too!"

[Robert Hutchinson]

Andrew: Look at how often some of these names come up in comments on blog items NOT about war. If one wanted to engage in a bit of supposition, one might float the idea that there are certain people who skim anti-war-leaning blogs for war topics they can jump into...

"these names": I personally have watched many people give flawless deconstructions of your arguments, and those deconstructions were subsequently ridiculed, ignored, and/or very poorly rebutted. So, you know, throwing bad logic after good, not high on my agenda at this point.

[Jack Wayne]

Since Tim is urging us to stay on point, here it is: Tim, you're just silly. If it wasn't for your Hate America First editor friends, you wouldn't get published.

[Jean Bart]

Ray,

What terrorist activities?

[Jason Ligon]

Joe,

The phantom mushroom clouds were not a high point, but the problem for the policy I described is that it can't be made explicit in public.

The international community pretends that something other than the US military has international enforcement capability. They want to believe that a vote in the UN actually means something. The sad truth is that the EU has forgotten that the basis for the enforcement of any agreement is the CREDIBLE threat of force. The UN is not taken seriously because they have no such threat. The hope would be that the US army with a nut bar Texan at the helm might be taken a bit more seriously. The strategy elements of the war plan lend themselves to this kind of thinking. The question is not whether you are shocking and aweing the Iraquis, but whether you are having that effect on the Iranians or the Syrians.

I digress. The point is that once you go on the Sunday shows and say, "Look, our intention is to convince the rest of the region that we have absolutely no respect for their international borders if we think they are donating one cent towards a terrorist. And, by the way, we don't need a lot of evidence to get itchy," the rest of the world becomes a problem. The EU may be forced into a position of outright opposition as opposed to disapproval, and we will have told the world that the UN has no clothes.

[Jason Ligon]

I note that my grammar has gone to crap recently. Please pretend that everything is spelled correctly ...

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Tim, you're just silly. If it wasn't for your Hate America First editor friends, you wouldn't get published.

If I didn't maintain an open comments board, you wouldn't have a place to lisp your prissy little insults. We're even!

[Johnathan]

I have seen it argued recently by the more cogent isolationists - not a big group of folk, it has to be said - that one reason why it is dumb to try and rebuild Iraq as a liberal, open society is that this part of the world is so different from the West that it is, to borrow from Hayek, a "fatal conceit" to engage in said nation building. The subtext of such views, of course, is that the Middle East, with one or two minor exceptions, is forever mired in the goo of religious bigotry and dictatorship and it is daft for the west to do anything, well much, about it.

Am I being unfair on the isolationsts when I charge them with taking a deeply pessimistic and cynical view of the Middle East?

Like one of the commenters above, I also don't require George W. Bush or my own sainted Tony Blair to tell us why we knocked off Saddam's disgusting regime. Er, earth to Reason, some of us can actually read and think for ourselves. That is surely what libertarian folk try to do.

[Jean Bart]

Johnathan,

And who at Reason is telling you otherwise? Keep your strawmen to yourself.

As to the issue of nation-building, the U.S. and most other "Western" nations have a shitty record as far as this is concerned (colonialism created an entire continent of botched nationalities in Africa for example, and it was resistance to colonialism that created strong national identities - or ressurected them - in places like China and India). So yes, "conceit" is likely good term.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Johnathan, I spend a lot of time in the Middle East, mostly in Lebanon, the Arab country that is generally considered the most progressive and democratic of all the Arab countries. I can't speak for anybody else, but "deeply pessimistic" pretty well describes my view of any Western hopes for exporting democracy to the region.

That having been said, I believe my article left open some hope for the neocon plan of regional transformation. But that plan will require everybody to wake up and admit that this war was about more than just terrorism.

To the reader who claims Bush in his last three or five speeches spelled out the neocon strategy, don't blow smoke up my ass. To say that he articulated that vision in anything like the way Chuck Freund did in his article is, among other things, an insult to Freund's writing.

To the many others who claim I'm willfully refusing to hear the multiple reasons for the war, tell it to the judge. Bush asks for a measly $87 billion and it's a big issue. If he had been so Churchillian in articulating his ideas, this wouldn't even be an issue; everybody--media, legislators, public, doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs--would understand that we need to pay many multiples of this figure to make the mission work out to our satisfaction.

He didn't, so they don't.

All the strawman bashing in the world (and by the way, what the fuck was that James Lileks thing? You accuse me of beating a dead horse?) is not going to change that.

Thanks, everybody, for your comments.

[nobody of consequence]

>> But that plan will require everybody to wake up and admit that this war was about more than just terrorism.

confusing...what other reason (other than terrorism) is pressing the need to reform the ME?

Maybe I am cynical but stopping terrorism would seem to result in winning elections (the goal of Bush) - as opposed to the more sinister neocon motivations of brining peace and humanity to the region.

Nobody was elected by building democracy in Germany or Japan. But they certainly were based on their statetegy of neutralizing any threat from those places.

Democracy in those nations was just a happy byproduct. It was mainly built by leaving them to their own devices in areas of no military consequence. I should also note that Japan, like the Arab nations, also had no tradition of democracy.

It is also interesting that nobody has mentioned that having bases in Iraq gives a strategic advanage in the region (as did having bases in Germany and Japan). Certainly having tank armies within two weeks striking distance of Syria and Iran are a smart strategic move.

[nobody of consequnece]

thoreau and fyodor can just ignore my post above, because I am just a mindless sheep. Bah bah war good. 😉

[joe]

noc,

No one in the Roosevelt administration was writing about the desirability of a war, and of building a democracy at gunpoint in Germany and Japan, in 1932. Go to http://www.PNAC.org, and tell me if the names, or the policies, look at all familiar.

[Jean Bart]

joe,

Well, first Roosevelt din't enter office until March 1933. Second the post-war world at least was being planned as early as August 1941, even though the US wasn't an "official" combatant yet (SEE Atlantic Charter). Third, the post-Pearl Harbor summits were all partly, and in some cases wholly, devoted to post-war planning, etc.

[joe]

"Well, first Roosevelt din't enter office until March 1933." Yes, and Bush didn't enter office until Jan 01. My point is, Rummy and Wolfie et al spent the period before coming into office arguing for the US to engage in exactly the war we just saw. The New Dealers didn't.

"Second the post-war world at least was being planned as early as August 1941, even though the US wasn't an "official" combatant yet (SEE Atlantic Charter). Third, the post-Pearl Harbor summits were all partly, and in some cases wholly, devoted to post-war planning, etc. " World War II had been raging for two years, our ships were guarding British freighters (and getting sunk), and we were obviously going to be at war - and not by our own choice. Coming up with post-war plans because you've had a war thrust upon you is very different from coming up with a war because you've written a great post-war plan.

[Anonymous]

joe as usual has no point (other than his usual mindless bash on the evil neocons).

1. The War Dept. most certainly had plans for war against Germany and Japan in the 1930s. Just as I am sure that Clinton had plans in the 1990s.

2. WW2 was certainly a choice. We were supporting one combatant and threatening another with economic strangulation.

[joe]

The War Department had plans for the invasion of Russia, Mexico, and South America, too. That's what they do - draw up plans for actions that may or may not ever take place. Were any future Roosevelt officials advocating the invasion of Japan and Germany prior to FDR's coming into office? Bush's War Council certainly were. Or is repeating the theses of PNAC's position papers and letters to the President from 92, 94, etc. some kind of liberal Jedi mind trick?

I'll try to make my "point" sharper, since it's penentrating some dense material: the people who put this war together were advocating for it in the public sphere years before the excuses the adminstration gave for it came into being. Not "planning for a possible future war with Iraq," which is a fair comparison to the War Dept's plans. Working to convince the government that it should happen.

And if you're going to use phrases like "evil neocon" to discredit an argument you can't answer, you might as well toss in the antisemitism charge.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

This isn't World War II.

This isn't Vietnam.

This isn't The War of 1812.

Enough analogies. Talk to the real situation.

[joe]

I don't think Rumsfeld is Jewish. But way to work in a racism charge!

My point is not that "there were not prior plans for war or post-war prior the official US interventio in WW2." My point is that there was no organized effort by American political figures to make World War II happen. This time, people who ended up in senior defense, White House, and foreign policy positions spent the last decade trying to make the Iraq invasion happen.

Therefore, No One of Consequence's comparison to Germany and Japan is inapt.

[Samwise Gamgee]

Tim: In my experiance the anti-war camp will never drop the issue of should we have fought. Hell there are still those that emotionally debate the wisdom of Vietnam, WW2, Civil War, etc.

Back in reality, I wonder what the $87 billion is going for. If it is going for "economic development" I wonder if it will actually hinder economic growth, as the Marshall Plan hindered Germany post-WW2.

Building clinics and welfare programs in Iraq seems to be Bush PR toward the Left -- but it would be a waste since 1) The Left will hate Bush no matter what he does and 2) It will interfere with markets and retard economic growth.

If the free market really works, the money should be spend on building the mechanisms to allow it to function (courts of law, police, military). Are they even consulting with free market economists on this issue?

[Jean Bart]

Until someone is shown to be an anti-semite, I think it best to eschew calling someone an anti-semite. In fact, being quick on the trigger on this is issue tends to be a sign, in my eyes at least, that the quick triggered fellow is full of hot air.

[Jason Ligon]

The war was about scaring dictators who thought that they had constructed an Aegis of public opinion that we were unwilling to take a few swings at.

The argument goes that as long as terrorists are not wearing uniforms, they must be treated as criminals. Since their home countries won't prosecute, and those who committed the acts are dead anyway, oh well, I guess we have no defense against the terrorist. The UN agrees.

Answer? Provide a credible threat of violence directed at specific leaders and demonstrate that we don't care what the UN has to say about it. The tyrants in the area only understand how they got to power, which is through blunt trauma.

You can't go to the UN and make this point for obvious reasons, so you provide a pretext. As the press focuses on the pretext, you have to change it to another pretext.

They already hate us, goes the argument, so we'd rather have them afraid than not.

Argue about the merits of that argument, but I think that we all know that is what this was about.

[s'wonderful]

thoreau and john hood,
Just to back up a bit, I disagree with your (thoreau) original #5 but to the opposite end of John Hood. Our original Cold War reaction plan was Massive Irrational Response. Meaning someone hits us with a nuke, We nuke EVERY enemy of the state. Which is why our nukes were pointed at China, Russia, North Korea, et al. It's cold hearted yes, but as a defensive posture a pretty good one, b/c it forces our enemies to contain each other!!
NEWS FLASH: That is exactly what we are doing in Iraq. Countries that are our "enemies" (with smiles, of course) have been warned to contain not just their own impulses, but the impulses of their neighbors and their friends.
Don't think I'm right? Imagine for a moment the Cold War was still on. Would 9-11 have happened? NOT a chance. The Russians, the Chinese, and others would have been all over it.

[Anonymous]

sinking U-boats, supplying nations at war with arms and starving another nation of oil and food isn't forcing WW2? FDR was very stupid then.

[joe]

The war had started by then; Japan in China, Germany in Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Norway. The war had already begun, and the actions you not were our response to a situation not of our making.

Jumping into the middle of a fight may not be scrupulous pacifism, but it's a long way from throwing the first punch.

[Ray]

Robert,

Ok, I'll follow the ambiguous implications.

So you're saying you can flawlessly deconstuct my post?

So Saddam was not a credible threat? Perhaps the word credible is too subjective for you.

So your position is that he has never had or used WMD?

Is your position that he was not a sponsor of international terrorism? Keep in mind that this does not make him automatically connected to 911, only that it adds credibility to his being a threat to America.

Perhaps you are saying that he had not the will to at least support bringing harm to Americans?

It's vacuous rhetoric for you to ramble on as you have done. Either deconstruct or shut up. So far you are only making my point. I leave a brilliantly simple post on why we took Iraq out and all we get in response is more empty headed drivel.

[joe]

Jason Ligon,

That's a reasonable argument, and very close to some of what the PNAC people were saying throughout the 90s. But if that's the reason we went to war, don't you think the idea should have been debated by the American people and their representatives, instead of having debate deliberately shut off by phantom threats of mushroom clouds?

[Ray]

Since Robert and his friends are having such a tough time with their deconstructions I thought I would include a small aside.

The WSJ Best of the Web quotes a blogger James Lileks, replying to an anti-war editorial:

"I can't help but come back to the central theme these edits imply: we should have left Iraq alone. We should have left this charnel house stand. We should have bought a wad of nice French cotton to shove in our ears so the buzz of the flies over the graves didn't distract us from the important business of deciding whether Syria or China should have the rotating observer-status seat in the Oil-for-Palaces program. Afghanistan, well, that's understandable, in a way; we were mad. We lashed out. But we should have stopped there, and let the UN deploy its extra-strong Frown Beams against the Iraqi ambassador in the hopes that Saddam would reduce the money he gave to Palestinian suicide bombers down to five grand. Five grand! Hell, that hardly covers the parking tickets your average ambassador owes to the city of New York; who'd blow themselves up for that.

"Would the editorialists of the nation be happier if Saddam was still cutting checks to people who blew up not just our allies, but our own citizens? I'd like an answer. Please. Essay question: "Families of terrorists who blow up men, women and children, some of whom are Americans, no longer receive money from Saddam, because Saddam no longer rules Iraq. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Explain."

"In short: the same people who chide America for its short-attention span think we should have stopped military operations after the Taliban was routed. (And they quite probably opposed that, for the usual reasons.) The people who think it's all about oil like to snark that we should go after Saudi Arabia. The people who complain that the current administration is unable to act with nuance and diplomacy cannot admit that we have completely different approaches for Iraq, for Iran, for North Korea. The same people who insist we need the UN deride the Administration when it gives the UN a chance to do something other than throw rotten fruit.

"The same people who accuse America of coddling dictators are sputtering with bilious fury because we actually deposed one."

[Anonymous]

"The war had already begun, and the actions you not were our response to a situation not of our making."

saddam was making war on his own people while funding other to make war on other nations. that was not of our making. secondly, all you are proving is the FDR lacked the forsight of the neocons. or do you disagree that the world might have been better if hitler and tojo were cut off at the knees in the 1930s?

" don't you think the idea should have been debated by the American people and their representatives, instead of having debate deliberately shut off by phantom threats of mushroom clouds?

believe it or not joe, people did in blogs, letters to the editor and every day conversation. the american people are not the mindless dolts you make them out to. they knew the threat which is why they supported the president and the war.

[joe]

If you want to argue that the neocons were right in urging an invasion of Iraq in 1994, go right ahead. But please don't accuse me of antisemitic conspiracy theories for mentioning that they did so.

And my beef is not with the American people, who did debate these things strongly, back when you were postulating a unified nation, being undermined by a tiny clique of antiwar traitors. My beef is with the high officials who refused to allow that debate to take place at the appropriate levels, refused to admit that that was the relevant issue to discuss, and used threats and charges of treason to keep people from asking too many questions.

We were sold on a war to stop an advanced, dangerous Iraqi WMD arsenal from threatening our populace, and to stop Iraqi support for Al Qaeda. Neither of these turned out to be true; nor did they turn out to be the real reasons for the war. But whenever people like me mentioned that, charges of antisemitism and tin foil hats were (and continue to be) thrown at us.

Fortunately, the American people aren't the mindless sheep you assume they are, and are increasingly disgusted by the way they've been treated.

[Jozef]

But the observations on how leaders go about lying to the public apply to all societies, not just totalitarian states.

How true...

Like Sisyphus, I have pushed our terrible rock to the top of the Iron Curtain only to realise how many lies are allow to exist in the West....

Truth [Truthout ]