Frank Rich writes in the New York Times:
LIKE the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. “We will stay the course,” he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?
A president can’t stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won’t stay with him. The approval rate for Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend’s Newsweek poll – a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.’s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents’ overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as L.B.J.’s ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn’t seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire.
I almost feel churlish wondering how it is that one of the largest opinion-manufacturing organizations in the world can comment on the state of public opinion as the justification for policy changes without at least acknowledging his and his organization’s role in shaping that opinion.
I’d also feel churlish – if it didn’t feel so good – reminding Mr. Frank that unlike L.B.J., Bush won.
Yes, his plummeting approval ratings matter – as does the overall level of fatigue around the war. But Bush will be President until January 20, 2009 – no matter what Frank Rich says.
But we’re in an interesting race here, between the declining credibility and business viability of the New York Times and its peers, and the decline in political will to keep fighting until we win in Iraq.
“Keep fighting until we win in Iraq?”
MMM….
“You might want to convince the administration first”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html.
Also, considering how much time the New York Times breathlessly reported every wrong-incorrect-planted-insinuated story about WMD’s, I’d agree with you on the declining credibility of the Times, but for vastly different reasons.
There’s also been a lot of stories (I can provide the links if you’ve been out of the news loop) about the developing relationship between Iran and the current Iraq government (remember the visiting of the Khomeini tomb?).
So tell me – what are we “winning”, again? And what’s the signs that we have “won?”
Monday, I’m sure there will be a constitution signed and delivered, and I hope for the best. But what kind of constitution, and where is the infrastructure to enforce it?
JC –
I guess I just have a different view of how long things take in history; it’s longer than a news cycle, and even longer than an election cycle.
This is going to be a contest of sitzfleisch.
A.L.
AL-
I think you’ve pretty much sidestepped JC’s arguements. Saying things take time doesn’t address the administration’s increasing signals that they’re ready to bail on Iraq, and the increasing evidence that the three major ethnic groups in Iraq want entirely different things out of a constitution.
If you have reason to suggest all this is just a bump in the road, have at it – I think we could all use a reason to be more optimistic about Iraq. Otherwise, dumping on the NYT while ignoring the real and ongoing problems in Iraq is pretty much the textbook definition of being “unserious about the War on Terror”.
I enjoyed this article and have linked to you. Commitees of Correspondence is in my blog roll and they have an article that suggested to check out your site, so I did. I like it, and you may like some of my articles at http://www.samanthaburns.com, and of course, linking and blog rolling’s always good too, lol.
JC, I think we should be a little more cautious about how we interpret poll results. When you examine the details of poll responses rather than just the approve/disapprove umbrella questions a somewhat different picture emerges. A few weeks ago Armchair Generalist had a post up examining a recent opinion poll and expressing confusion at the apparently contradictory opinions recorded there. As the ensuing comments suggested, the contradictions disappear when you recognize that there’s a proportion of the American people who disapprove of the President’s conduct of the war because they believe the war in Iraq should be prosecuted much more vigorously.
Since the reason given for committing to war against Iraq was to prevent its attack on us with its weapons of mass destruction – presto chango! we won. Now we can leave. No question we all wish it were this simple.
Unfortunately, since now the constitution is our new goal, we will have to accept whatever presents itself as such on Monday. Can you say ‘pyrrhic’ victory?
Ruth, I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. But having invaded, removed the government there, and occupied the country we are legally, morally, and strategically obligated to stay until the situation there has been stabilized enough for the Iraqi themselves to take over actually rather than just nominally.
Guerillas are defeated by popularly elected democraic governments.
Fortunately there are 16 months to the mid-term elections and about three and a half years to the next presidential.
Ruth, if we left now and it turns out no worse than Vietnam would you be satisfied? 100,000 killed by the winners and 500,000 out to sea (of which about 1/2 died). A tyrannical government in power.
Would that outcome be OK?
Suppose it turns out 2X as bad. Or should the motto be “No Worse than Rawanda”?
Just how bad would the aftermath have to be for you to say your decision was flawed?
I’d say you better hurry up in your efforts toget the troops out.
In September Congress will pass a bill saying that official US policy is the end of tyranny in the world.
If the bad guys get back in power in Iraq we may have to go back and do it again. Policy don’t you know.
DS:
No doubt we are obligated. Sadly, too, we are indeed obligated. Just as easily said, we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t get out.
MS:
you say “Just how bad would the aftermath have to be for you to say your decision was flawed?”
If we could know the outcome we could act without hesitation. Of course, if we knew the outcome no doubt we wouldn’t be there now.
Unfortunately, my decision was that of DS, I was agin’ it. Please note that the Pentagon is sending yet another improved set of body armor to help save lives. That I resoundingly support. (See: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050814/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/pentagon_body_armor_9)
Chris, that’s a serious and important comment you made. The response is longer than I can do right now (headed out to travel home), but I’ll acknowledge that I owe you an equally serious response.
A.L.
JC,
The Washington Posts knows about as much from its sources of the inner workings of Bush White House policy making as the Washington Times sources did of the Clinton Administration.
The Washington Post has been the mouth piece of both the State Dept and the ‘geo-political realist’ faction of the Republican Party.
President George W. Bush is not a member of either group.
Interesting spin Frank Rich is putting on things.
11 of the 18 Iraqi provinces have no substantial US presence. Of the remaining 7, Diyala and Baghdad have seen US troop reductions in the last 4 months, Tamim , Sallahadin and Babil have remained about even, and Ninewa and AlAnbar have seen increases.
Some generals have said that they think the progress of Iraqi forces will be such that in another 4 months, rather than shifting forces from peacefull to troubled places, they will be able to begin reducing the number of troops.
Bush says, “as Iraqi’s standup…we will stand down”
The Generals say…Iraqi’s are beginning to stand up.(20% of Baghdad under Iraqi control, 25% of Mosul, 20% of Diyala, 90% of Sulamaya,Irbil, and Dahuk under Iraqi control.
3 southern provinces soon to be turned over to Iraqi control.
Where are the Generals going to park 5,000 troops when they turn over the next sector of Baghdad? Or 1,000 troops, when they turn over the next sector in Mosul or Diyala?
McCain gets on TV and blathers on about how we shouldn’t reduce troops until he feels safe doing something he wouldn’t do in Washington DC.
The NY Times decides that all is lost and we are “cutting and running”.
I get it, the war isn’t being lost. The murder rate in Iraq is dropping below the murder rate in Detroit or Washington DC. Time to start spinning the “it was a complete failure meme before the troops start coming home”.
The democrats can’t manage a “Real Victory”, so just say anything the Republicans achieve is a complete failure.
Welfare Reform…a complete failure…No Child Left Behind…a complete failure…5% Unemployment…a complete failure….Iraq…a complete failure…Afghanisan…a complete Failure…Eastern Europe…a complete failure.
“You might want to convince the administration first.”
More unsourced inside the beltway junk from the MSM echo chamber.
“Also, considering how much time the New York Times breathlessly reported every wrong-incorrect-planted-insinuated story about WMD’s,”
Yes, and they sent Judith Miller to jail for that sin. However, their credibility problems run far deeper than that. Remember Jayson Blair? I won’t bother detailing their other sins.
“There’s also been a lot of stories (I can provide the links if you’ve been out of the news loop) about the developing relationship between Iran and the current Iraq government (remember the visiting of the Khomeini tomb?).”
The Iranians don’t want to be run by the mullahs. I am sure that Iran will seek to influence events in Iraq, but that does not mean that they will automatically succeed. The party with the most to lose is the Iranian regime, which may be destabilized by a successful Iraqi republic.
The presence of Iran is not a reason to fold our tents and run. Indeed, it is one of the main reasons why we were right to go into Iraq. Iran is a key state sponsor of terrorism. We have a lot better chance of keeping them under control if we are next door, than we do if we are thousands of miles away.
So tell me – what are we “winning”, again?
We are winning the GWoT. We have made enormous progress on what is inevitably a generational battle, just as the cold war was. Iraq is a key location in that war. We needed to be there in order to get rid of a rogue regime, and to be strategically located between the three major state sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. This will allow us to be a factor in the inevitable collapse of those tyrannical regimes.
And what’s the signs that we have “won?”
Democratic elections in Lebanon.
“But what kind of constitution, and where is the infrastructure to enforce it?”
We will see on the constitution. I am sure it will be reasonably republican, but as you imply there is a lot more to it than that. Institutions must grow up to actualize it.
One of the key institutions will be the Iraqi Army. An army is only as good as its NCOs, and it takes 15 years to train a good NCO.
Like we said. Its a long haul.
“Saying things take time doesn’t address the administration’s increasing signals that they’re ready to bail on Iraq,”
What signs would those be? Vaporisings from the liberal media don’t count.
“and the increasing evidence that the three major ethnic groups in Iraq want entirely different things out of a constitution.”
It has never been clear that they will all get along in the long run. Nor is it the end of the world if Iraq splits up. In that event our biggest problems would be 1st) A sunni country dominated by Al-Qaeda, and 2nd) the Turkish reaction to Kurdistan, and 3rd) a shia country more vulnerable to Iran. These problems are tough but not insuperable. It would be better if we had a united Iraq, but not insuperable.
If you have reason to suggest all this is just a bump in the road, have at it – I think we could all use a reason to be more optimistic about Iraq.
What is all this? The WaPo gets hysterical and we are all supposed to faint. I like Trent’s comment. Here try this:
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Also try Cherenkovs weekly report.
“Otherwise, dumping on the NYT while ignoring the real and ongoing problems in Iraq is pretty much the textbook definition of being “unserious about the War on Terror”.”
Oh come on, why blog if you can’t trash the NYTimes.
“Since the reason given for committing to war against Iraq was to prevent its attack on us with its weapons of mass destruction”
I want you to support that statement. I never heard it and I don’t think you did anywhere other than a Dean for President rally.
“Unfortunately, since now the constitution is our new goal, we will have to accept whatever presents itself as such on Monday. Can you say ‘pyrrhic’ victory?”
Our acceptance is unimportant. The Iraqi people will have to accept it and make it real. We can help them, but we cannot do it for them.
Trent, Dad: way to go. Word.
RS:
The President’s speeches justifying the war are my sources.
Ruth, you’ll have to do better than that; almost all the speeches are online – can you provide links and quotes?
A.L.
AL-
Off the top of my head:
Bush’s October 7, 2002 Cincinnati speech:
bq. “We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren’t required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
bq. And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
bq. We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
bq. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
And his March 17, 2003 address to the nation:
bq. “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.
bq. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
bq. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
Note that those aren’t the ONLY reasons given for the war in Iraq, but you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that the WMD argument wasn’t a major reason – maybe THE major reason – we went to war in Iraq.
Chris –
There’s a key difference between Ruth’s claim:
bq:”Since the reason given for committing to war against Iraq was to prevent its attack on us with its weapons of mass destruction – presto chango! we won. Now we can leave. No question we all wish it were this simple.”
and yours:
bq:”Note that those aren’t the ONLY reasons given for the war in Iraq, but you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that the WMD argument wasn’t a major reason – maybe THE major reason – we went to war in Iraq.”
The concern about WMD was absolutely one of the major arguments. But it was never THE sole reason. Note the difference.
And I still owe you a response…
A.L.
AL-
I understand the distinction, and I can respect that hawks have good reason to hammer it home – war’s too important a thing to let hyperbole creep into the discussion.
On the other hand, the gestalt impression _I_ got from the run up to the war was that WMDs _were_ the major reason we were going to Iraq, though impressions are obviously subjective. I even remember some folks (though nobody here) making arguments that any other reason wouldn’t be sufficient to put our national blood and treasure on the line. That being the case, I can’t get too worked up about folks like Ruth making an unnuanced statement built around a core of real truth. (Many here tend to read Ruth’s statment as implicitly saying “the sole reason”, although I think it’s just as easy to see her saying “the main reason.”)
And no worries about the response. Things being what they are, I might end up being too busy to properly read through your response by the time you get a chance to post it… c’est la vie. 😉
_I even remember some folks (though nobody here) making arguments that any other reason wouldn’t be sufficient to put our national blood and treasure on the line._
That would be “John Kerry”:http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
bq. Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction . . ..
Robert – you’ve got to be kidding when you say “I want you to support that statement. I never heard [attack Iraq to stop them from using WMDs on us] and I don’t think you did anywhere other than a Dean for President rally.”
Were you awake between June 2002 and March 2003? that’s all the Bush administration did was campaign about the “grave and growing threat” and “mushroom clouds.”
Links:
http://zfacts.com/p/581.html
http://billmon.org/archives/000172.html
I can find more… As A.L. notes, maybe WMDs weren’t the only reason – Bush threw up a lot of UN resolution BS there, but let’s not kid ourselves that the Bush administration beat the wardrums with WMD quotes over and over again.
PD-
Sure. And once you realize that WMDs were the only reason some people were willing to go into Iraq, you can realize why it was such a huge deal for those people that WMDs failed to materialize in the aftermath of the war. If you buy the initial premise, that chain of reasoning makes a good deal of sense to me.
A careful reading of what the president said belies the claim that “the reason given for committing to war against Iraq was to prevent its attack on us with its weapons of mass destruction.”
Actually what he said was that Saddam had the *capability* to supply terrorists with WMD, Saddam had used WMD, Saddam had worked with terrorists, and we could not take the risk that Saddam would supply terrorists with WMD in the future.
The three steps in this argument remain unaffected by the fact that we have not yet found any WMD. The issues were capability and intent, and I have seen no evidence that Saddam had neither the capability nor the intent to so use WMD.
Indeed it is a continuing embarrassement to all theories that Saddam called the President’s hand. If he truly had made the decision to have neither capability nor intent to make or use WMD, he tempted fate by not inviting Hans Blix in and giving him the keys to the palaces.
If Saddam had done that, the US would have been forced to stand down. If Blix had given him a clean bill of health, not only would the wind have been taken out of the American sails, but the sanctions regime probably would have ended.
Why didn’t Saddam come clean. Was he in fact not clean and managed to conceal or destroy the evidence? Was he clean but afraid to allow the Iranians to see that he had abandoned military parity with them? Did he think he had WMD and in fact he did not? If so why? Did he get gamed by his underlings who were provided with money to create WMD, but who in fact stole the money and failed to create the WMD? Or, Did he in fact have WMD and either destroyed, hid or sent them to Syria in March of 2003?
In any event the mere absence of WMD stocks does not vitiate the President’s logic. If Saddam had the capability or intent to acquire WMD, he was a problem that needed to be dealt with.
Furthermore WMD may have been the formal casus belli, but they were not the final cause which was the liberation of the Iraqi people and the institution of democracy.
“we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
“The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time.”
Er, Robert, two problems with that argument:
1. If *capacity* was the issue, then we screwed up – Iran and North Korea (and black market forces in Russia, if it comes to that) were all more of a threat to supply al-Qeada than Saddam was. And intent’s a non-issue if AQ can just throw some money around
2. You do, er, remember that Hans Blix _was in_ Iraq, searching the country for WMDs, and had to vacate because we invaded?
As for the “final cause”, that’s a hard argument to make. Go back and look at the president’s speeches prior to the invasion, and you’ll see far more verbage dedicated to WMDs than to advancing freedom.
Argument 1 was made at the time. There were perfectly good geopolitical reasons to prioritize Iraq. Such as how do you take on Iran if you don’t have access to Iraq? Further the NK problem is really a China problem. We can’t take on NK unless China is willing to let us, but if they really thought it was that much of a problem, they would solve it with a couple of phone calls.
Argument 2 relates to my point about why Saddam was so uncoperative with Blix. It was clear that Saddam did not want to say mi casa est su casa to Blix. The question is why. I offered 5 or six possiblities, but I don’t have any good answers.
Unnumbered Argument 3 is a make weight. The President was very clear as to what he was doing and why. Tony Blair was even more articulate.
Chris,
I’m sure that Hans Blix is well intentioned WRT WMD inspections. But Iraq is a large country and a determined leader, like Saddam, could easily have hidden evidence and misdirected any inspectors, just like he’d been doing all along since the Gulf War.
1. Saddam was a declared enemy of the US.
2. He had demonstrated that a clear desire to reinstitute his WMD programs.
3. He had demonstrated that he was not deterable by the plans to assassinate Bush I.
4. The sanctions were being undermined by “friends” and foes alike.
5. He demonstarted the willingness to work with terrorist groups.
6. The conitnuing sanctions were being used as evidence that the US was holding down the Arabs and killing over a million Iraq children.
7. Every ally had made the assessment that Saddam had WMD.
8. Clinton had made the assessment that Saddam had WMD.
9. Saddam continued open hsotilities against the US and Britain by targeting and actually shooting at planes enforcing the no-fly zones in violation of commitments made to end the first Gulf War.
10. The Clinton administration had made regime chnage the offical policy WRT Iraq.
11. Post 9-11, the threat posed by Saddam could no longer be ignored.
I believe that this threat could not be contained indefinately. This is likely our main point of disagreement.
Robert-
1. That still doesn’t change the fact that we put _all_ our resources on the line _just_ for Iraq, when there were other, more serious threats out there. If nothing else, having a believable saber to rattle WRT Iran and North Korea (and yes, China) would do a world of good right now. Your line of argument ignores opportunity costs, and pretends there were only the options of invading Iraq immediately and doing nothing at all, rather than waiting for a better moment to come along in the future.
2. Blix seemed to think he had sufficient access to do his job, as did the rest of the world. Leading a huge push to get UN inspectors into the country, then yanking them out again because the US decides that they won’t find anything good, just made the US look bloodthirsty in the eyes of many. And don’t tell me that foriegn opinion doesn’t matter, given the huge problems we’ve had with lack of resources and support in Iraq.
(And let’s skip the “oh, Germany and France would never have done anything against Saddam” line as well – there are other nations that either could have helped us, or could have helped us more than they did. Heck, the added domestic support alone would have been a substantial boon for Bush.)
3. Your response here doesn’t really say anything – GWB may have dropped a few lines about spreading democracy, but ignoring that he said _much, much more_ about WMDs is the textbook definition of cherrypicking.
lurker-
As I said to Robert, you’re positing that if we hadn’t gone to Iraq in 2003, we wouldn’t have ever done anything at all against anybody. What’s more, we both know that books (not to mention gigabytes of net chatter) can and have been written on the critical nuances of each of your points.
You think that those points add up to a clear an unambiguous conclusion that Bush had to invade when he did, how he did. That’s fine, but if you think that the problem with people who disagree with you is that they either A) just aren’t familiar with your argument, B) have some sinister, America-hating motive for rejecting your argument, or C) are just too niave to understand how much of a threat Saddam was, you’re just dead wrong.
Many people who weren’t in favor of invading Iraq were afraid of the exact situation we’re facing right now – a prolonged, possibly intractable insurgency, an overextention of our armed forces that’ll cause long-term damage to the military, and an incompatibility between the ethnic and religions factions in Iraq.
It may yet work out, and if it does, GWB deserves gobs of credit, both now and in the history books. But at this point, I think intellectual honesty and basic humility should have us asking: if it doesn’t work out, was it worth it? Was taking out an evil dictator and removing a set of sanctions that mercilessly strangled an entire country worth blowing the popular momentum we had in the WoT and pushing the military to the point of exhaustion?
That’s a much more worthwhile argument to be having at this point in time, I think.
Chris,
The disagreement hinges on differing assessments of the threat posed by Saddam and whether it was likely to remaine contained. I thought I acknowledged that. That’s always what it boils down to between honest debaters, amoung whom I do not count any portion of the no blood for oil(c), no blood for Haliburton(c), and no blood for empire(c) crowds.
You don’t appear to be in those categories, but can’t you acknowledge a case for the war at least as far as I acknowledge the case against it? Can’t you see why this gets tiring yet?
WRT to Hans Blix… why was this last inspection process any better than the others that went on before? How many were there? Four? Five? What evidence do you have that this one wasn’t just another movement in the decade long waltz with Saddam?
Yeah, he’s very cooperative! With the US Amry standing next door. How long would it have been before the Army was brought home and the dance continued for yet another round, or ended altogether with the collapse of sanctions? Tired yet?
Again, you may disagree, but it looked to me like either Saddam would be free and unfettered in the not to distant future, with France, Germany, and Russia profiting from their exclusive deals with the devil, or there would be an invasion. Can you acknowledge this dicotomy or explain why you think it is false?
Also…
It has been over two years. Can you specify these opportunity costs that we have incurred? Are you talking about the non-invasion of North Korea? The non-invasion of Iran? The loss of Arab goodwill everywere? The spilling of French Wine? Please be specific.
Now you are misrepresenting the history of Blix’s reports on the UN’s attempt to get compliance with the disarmament resolutions. But that’s consistent since Blix is contradicting his own reports and rewriting history too.
Lurker-
I think we’re both just circling around each other’s points – I did admit that, yes, there was a case for war, just as you think you’re admitting there’s a case against it. And yes, this is all extremely tiring.
But here’s the thing: I recognize your argument, and I’m not giving you grief over the many, many things your 11 bullet points gloss over. You _ignore_ the reasons I gave why Iraq was questionable, and keep trying pigeonholing me into an argument over “differing assessments of the threat posed by Saddam and whether it was likely to remaine contained.”
Look back at my post: I mentioned “a prolonged, possibly intractable insurgency, an overextention of our armed forces that’ll cause long-term damage to the military, and an incompatibility between the ethnic and religions factions in Iraq.” None of that has anything to do with the threat from Saddam. Furthermore, your reply didn’t engage on any of the reasons I mentioned, nor did it cover the earlier argument that Saddam, contained or not, still wasn’t as much of a threat as Iran and North Korea WRT al-Qeada. That’s what’s frustrating.
And yes, the opportunity costs incurred were the non-invasion of North Korea”, the “non-invasion of Iran”, and the loss of goodwill among almost _everybody_ in the world. You can and probably will dismiss those things as insubstantial and/or touchy-feely PR crap, but touchy-feely PR crap is _important_ at times, and the legitimate threat of force is anything but unsubstantial. We have _no workable military options regarding Iran at all_ right now, and that’s largely because we went to war in Iraq.
You tell me: if, in 10 years, Iraq is broken up into three distinct regions, two of which are reasonably democratic, but the third of which is dominated by a nuclear-armed Iran, and Iran itself has become a symbol of strength and resistance against the USA throughout the Islamic world… was it worth it? Was it an entirely unlikely, unpredictable outcome in 2003? Or will we wish we hadn’t been in such a rush to topple Saddam because, hey, he’s a bad guy, moderately threatening, and unlike the much more threating (and harder-to-deal-with) Iran and North Korea, we won’t have to make too many domestic sacrifices to build up our military and have the strength to pull regime change off?
And you want to argue over Hans Blix? Ok. It _doesn’t matter_ how effective Blix would have been, or how cooperative Saddam was or wasn’t – the point was, we pushed for enforcement of UN resolutions, got what we wanted, and then changed our minds. _We_ looked like the jerks on that one, and the bad feeling from that incident has carried over into the liberal resentment that people on this board have been bitching about ever since.
In comparison, I suspect that if Bush had pushed for the enforcement of UN resolutions _without_ troops on Iraq’s doorstep, he would have been turned down cold, and _that_ refusal – a clear slap in the face towards a peaceful US, recently done wrong by 9/11 – would have served as a crystal clear casus belli that would have served to get a lot of fence-sitters (although not the hard left or France or Germany) on board. What would that have changed? Maybe nothing, but I suspect Bush wouldn’t be having nearly the trouble he currently is in trying to stay the course.
And Robin, I already know you think I’m a profoundly dishonest person when it comes to this stuff, so let’s just drop it, ok?